***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[vic_orthdox]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Something like only to be used when the ball is hitting some part of the middle stump and to a certain height ,would be much better.

There are three stumps for a reason.

The supposed margin of error (5mm) is a lot less than half a cricket ball anyway.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The point is that Virtualeye says they won't provide the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point (I don't know what point, probably the point of impact?). If Virtualeye admits to that limitation despite providing more accuracy as you say, what does that say about Hawkeye's claims of accuracy in projections with a less accurate system?

What do you mean, beyond the point of impact? They were the "Hawkeye" for the Ashes, they provided all the projections beyond impact with the pad for every referral in Australia this past year.

What they are saying may have something to do with the 2.5m stuff, but there was no case during the Ashes, anyway.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And this is based on?

Obviously if there are any errors with the Hotspot then they are gonna be pretty clear and in black and white ,while if there are any errors with the speculative part of Hawkeye it is all down to Conjecture to an extent because ultimately both ways it is speculation.
Even Tony Greig said yesterday that stopping the point of impact when a ball rolls along a pad can sometimes be a problem with the Hawkeye.


Having said that Hotspot will only be used for conclusive decisions with stump microphones backing it ,not iffy 1% pitched outside and inside decisions like the Hawkeye . I am fine if Hawkeye is used for such clear decisions too,but not the marginal ones. Infact except the predictive path ,Virtual eye's better.

This has been my biggest bugbear with Hawkeye over time, not sure that they stop the ball at the right frame when they join the dots, as such. But with the newer technology coming in, with more frames per second, I thought it was a lot better than that during the Ashes this year, and it really did reduce my one issue with the predictive technology.

 

[zaremba]

Gotta say, I don't really like the whole 'UDRS is only for shockers' thing

IMO, all mistakes should be avoided. A missed edge is a missed edge whether the batsman was a centimetre or metre away

Yep. And the ugly sister of the "it's only meant to be for howlers" argument is the sniffy disapproving reference to a particular challenge being "a tactical referral". Yes of course it's tactical you ****ing idiot. They're not doing it for a dare or to glorify the Almighty, ffs.

 

[Cevno]

What do you mean, beyond the point of impact? They were the "Hawkeye" for the Ashes, they provided all the projections beyond impact with the pad for every referral in Australia this past year.

What they are saying may have something to do with the 2.5m stuff, but there was no case during the Ashes, anyway.

This has been my biggest bugbear with Hawkeye over time, not sure that they stop the ball at the right frame when they join the dots, as such. But with the newer technology coming in, with more frames per second, I thought it was a lot better than that during the Ashes this year, and it really did reduce my one issue with the predictive technology.

The Ashes 2010: Hawk-Eye founder claims rival system is not being so eagle-eyed

The way that TV referrals are being handled at the Ashes has been called into question by Paul Hawkins, the founder of Hawk-Eye, who believes that inaccurate ball-tracking could lead to wrong decisions.

Hawkins has produced evidence of an error during the second Test at Adelaide, where an lbw appeal against Marcus North was inaccurately processed by 'Virtual Eye’ — a rival ball-tracking system employed by host broadcasters at Channel Nine.

“In this instance we measured a 4.5cm distance between the actual point of impact and the one reported by Virtual Eye,” Hawkins told Telegraph Sport, although he admitted the discrepancy had not led to an umpiring error.

“Virtual Eye has trouble identifying the impact point between the ball and the batsman’s pad. Will we have to wait until there is a major controversy before any action is taken?”

Virtual Eye — or 'Eagle Eye’, as it is known in Australia — has been developed by a New Zealand-based company, Animation Research Ltd, and has provided ball-tracking services for series in Australia, New Zealand and Zimbabwe.

In contrast to Hawk-Eye’s more automated system, Virtual Eye uses an operator to look at the screen and select the frame which best represents the point of impact.

Ian Taylor, their managing director, admitted there had been a human error in the processing of the North delivery. However, he insisted the operator had realised his error, and only allowed the projection to be shown because he knew it would not affect the outcome of the review.

No matter which point of impact is chosen, North had still been hit outside the line of off-stump, and thus could not be given out lbw.

“We are quite conscious that something we do might decide the Ashes, and we are completely confident that our technology will give the right decision,” Taylor said. “Our cameras process 230 frames per second, which is about twice as many as Hawk-Eye’s system.”

Taylor claims he has clips showing ball-tracking errors made by Hawk-Eye. He suggested the International Cricket Council might consider funding a second video operator to run the Virtual Eye system, given the intensity of the demands.



Both outing each other's weakness and secrets.

The interesting thing is that Virtual eye is better and certain things ,while Hawkeye is better at certain things. And both are weaker at certain things which the competitiveness is outing here.
Also there is no guarantee that the right frame is selected by the automated system of the Hawkeye or the single operator of Virtual eye.

In this case the difference was big so it came to notice ,but when it is small it is hard to notice and thus the predictive path everyone assumes to be correct as the error is ignored. But a small centimetre difference can make a big difference in the speculative path.

Also this was the major objection why Virtual eye at first did not want to predict paths,but then had to due to competition with Hawkeye.

 

[Cevno]

Check this out -

A Cricketing View: Hawkeye and Virtual Eye
Ian Taylor (CEO Virtual eye)

We got involved in cricket for the exact same reason. To help explain the game of chess that is being played between the bowler, his captain and the batsman. Initially we rejected the idea that we could use technology to track balls and then predict "exactly" where they would have gone after they had hit something. We moved into this area because of the uptake of the Hawk Eye technology but we have always maintained that whilst we are very comfortable the with actual tracking of the ball, after all we are recording it using multiple cameras each recording at over 160 frames per second, the question of predicting where it would have gone after making impact is definitely one we choose not to be as bullish about as our counterparts at Hawk Eye. We have in fact taken the unusual step of stating at times that we did not get enough information to make an informed prediction. We see our function as providing Umpires with tools they can use to assist them when they need it - and I personally share the view that in the end the Umpire should be the arbiter of what happens on the ground and that they and the players need to be confident about the processes we apply.


Technology can have a place to play but we believe we need to be open about the strengths and weaknesses of the various technologies being used and look at how we can combine the best of those to create tools that give everyone confidence in the information we are presenting. Unlike Paul (Hawkins) I would never claim that our predictions are always correct - how could I - just like an umpire our computer is also taking a best guess at what might have happened and, like the umpire, that guess is totally reliant on what the computer has observed. Furthermore, our computer is not standing behind the stumps feeling the wind, observing the variations in the pitch as the day proceeds and all of those other countless variables that skilled umpires have learned over many many years of standing in matches.. If the technology is to be used then it is our job to do all we can to constantly improve it and we can only do that by recognising that there are limitations and we need to find ways to deal with those. That won't be achieved by blindly arguing that we are never wrong and that people who question us are our academic inferiors. It will only be achieved by constantly working at improving the technology and never losing sight of the fact that we should be there to provide reliable data to the person who actually makes the calls - the Umpire.

Ian Taylor
CEO Virtual Eye.

Assuming this is correct.
That does not seem very confident does it? Kudos to him for being honest though.

Actually he is agreeing with my and others view pretty much. Also is saying that neither Virtual eye ,nor Hawkeye whatever they claim can be certain about their accuracy view.

 

[Cevno]

I think this was the article that Joe was referring too -

The handling of ball-tracking technology by humans has produced some silly moments. One such example was when Virender Sehwag, quite symbolically, became the first batsman to be given lbw after a bowler challenged the original not-out decision. The ball had hit his front pad barely in front of leg stump, and then deviated onto the back pad in front of middle stump, but the tracking device failed to note that deflection and joined the dots directly, hardly evidence you would want to be hanged by.

There are other examples, too, and the doubts specifically revolve around the predictive element of the technology. Neither of the two common brands of tracking technology, Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye, is perfect or immune to human mistakes. Our leap of faith, however, is absolute - so absolute that commentators and spectators have stopped using their brains. Virtual Eye admits that entertainment and decision-making are horses of two different colours. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps.

Hawk Eye is more optimistic about being able to replace the umpire, and is also keen to point out flaws with Virtual Eye. The BCCI remains unconvinced. Why the BCCI is not convinced is not clear, just like it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all, or why - if it is used as an umpiring tool - it is not minded by the ICC and the ACSU, or why we have to blindly believe its accuracy and not assess it independently, or why the ICC doesn't say so if it has assessed it independently.

All these doubts may seem like splitting hairs, complicating the game, but complicate is exactly what DRS in its current form does. The original purpose of the system wasn't to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail. Its purpose was to spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws. It was introduced for umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules, and for the odd big mistake made by the good officials. It wasn't meant to be a contest between Ian Gould reckoning that the offbreak would have hit leg stump and Hawk Eye's prediction that it would have missed it by centimetres. When the ICC meets in Hong Kong, it is pertinent that it establishes a distinction between entertainment and decision-making tools, and also reminds itself that the DRS' original purpose was to eliminate howlers.

Very interesting points too.

Decision Review System: Why there is a need to discuss DRS in its present form | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[centurymaker]

Cevno WAG

 

[Bun]

vic orthodx, 5 mm margin is not for predictive path but for interception and pitching.

for predictive path it can be evn upto 2.5 cm....

 

[Bun]

superb, cevno...

hawk eye's claim of virtual eye being more prone to error because of human involvemen is hypocritical at it's best when they temselves claim such intervention is necessary to provide the claimed levels of accuracy.

 

[Burgey]

BCCI being the Tony Abbott of UDRS...


"Nooooooooo.................. Nooooooooooooo........... Noooooooooooooooooo....."

 

[weldone]

for predictive path it can be evn upto 2.5 cm....

And that is assuming that the frame stops exactly when the ball hits the pad.

If the frame is stopped a few microseconds before or after the ball hits the pad, then the error in the predictive path can be much higher.

In other words, the operator guys must show high manual efficiency to hold the frame at the exact pin-point when the ball hits the pad.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Excuse me if I'm being painfully ignorant, but wouldn't the sensible approach to be to always stop it a fair few frames before it hits the pad, just to be safe? They're calculating the path of the ball AFTER it hits the pad, so the importance of the ball's path in these final few moments before impact would be very negligible.

 

[TumTum]

vic orthodx, 5 mm margin is not for predictive path but for interception and pitching.

for predictive path it can be evn upto 2.5 cm....

By interception do you mean when the ball hits the pad?

I might be missing something here, but if the ball was going perfectly straight and there is a 5mm error on impact, then wouldn't that mean the predictive error would be about 6mm, not 25mm?

 

[TumTum]

Excuse me if I'm being painfully ignorant, but wouldn't the sensible approach to be to always stop it a fair few frames before it hits the pad, just to be safe? They're calculating the path of the ball AFTER it hits the pad, so the importance of the ball's path in these final few moments before impact would be very negligible.

Excuse my ignorance as well, but I hope that is the way they do it...

 

[weldone]

Excuse me if I'm being painfully ignorant, but wouldn't the sensible approach to be to always stop it a fair few frames before it hits the pad, just to be safe? They're calculating the path of the ball AFTER it hits the pad, so the importance of the ball's path in these final few moments before impact would be very negligible.

It would be, except the case when there is a marginal call to be made about whether the ball hit the pad just outside the line of off-stump or not...

 

[G.I.Joe]

What do you mean, beyond the point of impact? They were the "Hawkeye" for the Ashes, they provided all the projections beyond impact with the pad for every referral in Australia this past year.

What they are saying may have something to do with the 2.5m stuff, but there was no case during the Ashes, anyway.

Cevno's posted the article I was referring to. Specifically this bit: "Virtual Eye admits that entertainment and decision-making are horses of two different colours. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps."

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Ah yes, didn't consider that.

 

[honestbharani]

man.. what **** reasoning by the BCCI.. I knew they are idiots but this is a new low (high? ) even for them.. lolworthy...

 

[vcs]

I don't know about you but I get the feeling that the DRS is being looked at like it's a Mandela come to save South Africa or a Gandhi come to liberate India; that it is going to change the face of our game, and agreeing or disagreeing is a bit like whether or not you want to go to war to defend your nation. Accordingly the rest of the world is being projected as keepers of the faith and India as the evil nation that wants to drag the game back into the dark ages.

Yes, we want fair decisions, we want to eliminate howlers (which was the original intention, before we took sides and tried to break down the wall) but this game also survived, grew and prospered without the DRS. Other games, bigger than cricket, continue to prosper. It is an interesting element in the game, but it is not bigger than it.

So now we have universal agreement on the Hot Spot and the Snickometer, which is nice, though neither, we are now told, is foolproof. We will have ball-tracking in some series and not in others, and frankly I am not losing sleep over that. If two teams agree to use technology, so be it, and if one of them is sceptical of it, with reason, they must have the right of refusal. If at all there must be unanimity - which happens in an ideal world we don't inhabit - I'd much rather we played without ball-tracking. It's great fun on television, but the game can move along absolutely fine without it.

Harsha Bhogle: The DRS is not bigger than the game | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I think the BCCI are being very pig-headed when it comes to understanding how the technology works, working along with the players, and accepting it within its limitations - and they deserve criticism for that. Overall though, I feel the sentiment of the first couple of paragraphs is pretty much spot on.