***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

Well, that's my point precisely. Get rid of the third umpire. Replace him with an algorithm. I can't see why hawkeye would take time. It's plotting a trajectory off the co-ordinates gathered from multiple cameras, thats all. It should be instantaneous. The bottle neck in the process is the human.

How do you program an algorithm to determine whether or not a batsman is offering a shot if he's struck outside the line?

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

How do you program an algorithm to determine whether or not a batsman is offering a shot if he's struck outside the line?

That decision's made by the on field umpire.

[slugger]

Originally Posted by Shri

Well agree to disagree then. I feel that being able to resume an innings at a later stage is better than a player not having any impact in the game at all after a bad call.

they are professionals if they cant handel the situaration, they dont deserve to be there.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

It should be instantaneous. The bottle neck in the process is the human.

It's not though.

Right now, there is a lot of post-processing involved in terms of ball trajectory (making sure the system picks up the ball at the right times, etc). There is a technician present who makes sure everything is going right and it takes a bit of time.

If you can get rid of it, you may want to work on it and offer to sell it to the ICC .

[Shri]

Originally Posted by slugger

they are professionals if they cant handel the situaration, they dont deserve to be there.

How is that a response to my point? What situation?

[Shri]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Jesus ****ing Christ.

When a team uses a review, they are asking the third umpire to overturn the decision. The decision can only be overturned if, using the available technology, the third umpire is 100% certain that the original decision was wrong.

Hawkeye has a small margain of error. If you're looking for an lbw decision to be overturned, if Hawkeye shows the ball just clipping the stumps, that's not 100% conclusive proof that a not out decision was incorrect. You cannot look at that and say "the ball would probably have hit the stumps, overturn it." If Hawkeye can be developed so that the predictive element is 100% accurate, then yes, there would be no marginal decisions.

Bull ****. If every marginal decision was given out, it would be fair because the same rules apply for every one. The margin of error is decided by the 3rd umpire now which again gives a chance for human error in judgement.

[silentstriker]

The margin of error is not decided by the third umpire...it's decided by hawkeye and if the decision is within its margin of error, than the original call stands..

[Shri]

It is.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Shri

It is.

For lbws? No it certainly isn't. It's judged by HawkEye.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

The margin of error is not decided by the third umpire...it's decided by hawkeye and if the decision is within its margin of error, than the original call stands..

Exactly so.

Analogy I'd use the the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof in criminal courts. If technology can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. within its accepted margins of error) the on field umpire was wrong the original shout is overturned, if not we go with the chap in the middle.

I just don't see an argument against having some kind of UDRS and we can argue the toss about the specifics to our hearts content. I'd personally like 3 challenges instead of two, but meh.

[KiWiNiNjA]

I'm baffled by the minority here.

[pup11]

For me that the main aim of UDRS is to avoid as many shockers as possible but the current way is not the right one.
The 3rd umpire should be allowed to overturn an on-field decision in case of a obvious error on the part of the on-field umpire, its would save time and would also help avoiding a situation where the players are constantly challenging an umpire's decision, which is something which barely happens in any other sport and it certainly shouldn't be happening in the ''gentleman's'' game....

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Shri

Bull ****. If every marginal decision was given out, it would be fair because the same rules apply for every one. The margin of error is decided by the 3rd umpire now which again gives a chance for human error in judgement.

Rubbish.

If you're going to argue against something, then at least clue yourself up about it.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by pup11

For me that the main aim of UDRS is to avoid as many shockers as possible but the current way is not the right one.
The 3rd umpire should be allowed to overturn an on-field decision in case of a obvious error on the part of the on-field umpire, its would save time and would also help avoiding a situation where the players are constantly challenging an umpire's decision, which is something which barely happens in any other sport and it certainly shouldn't be happening in the ''gentleman's'' game....

Nah, the Cook and Clarke "dismissals" show why the players need to be able to challenge the umpire's decision.

[Blaze 18]

Different Strokes | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

A great article from cricinfo.