***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Bun

FFS, it made me sit and look up the ****ing HawKEye website for an hour!

Heaven forbid you actually take a look at the information you're adamantly discussing.

Says it all really.

[Daemon]

yyyeah it was an attempted joke.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Heaven forbid you actually take a look at the information you're adamantly discussing.

Says it all really.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

What I find most interesting is that the makers of Virtualeye refuse to plot the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point in its path on the basis that its not accurate to do so. Hawkeye does so. Who's right, and do we know for sure?

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

[Howe_zat]

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.

[Bun]

that's conjecture.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.

For a system that depends on inputs from cameras, surely the easiest component to fix is the number of cameras and their positioning? Virtualeye are surely not that broke.

Besides, the article that originally brought up this point mentioned that Hawkeye didn't even have a camera lined up behind the stumps. I can't see why cricinfo would lie or be mistaken about that.

[Cevno]

tony greig saying on ten cricket that virtual eye actually has better cameras to show everything except predictive path.Arun lal agreeing with my view.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by Cevno

tony greig saying on ten cricket that virtual eye actually has better cameras to show everything except predictive path.Arun lal agreeing with my view.

Wouldn't be admitting to that if I were you, mate!

[Cevno]

Was talking mostly sense.Actually agreed with you too on the batsman getting benefit doubt ,except on accuracy

[Borges]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

Maybe you should be posing thing question elsewhere; not on Cricket Web? Every opinion here - for or against - is based on blind faith, not knowledge.

The ICC has said it would ask 'experts' to examine the accuracy of predictive technology; hopefully those experts would be people who actually know something about all this stuff. So why not just wait for the results of the study by independent experts?

[Marcuss]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

For a system that depends on inputs from cameras, surely the easiest component to fix is the number of cameras and their positioning? Virtualeye are surely not that broke.

Besides, the article that originally brought up this point mentioned that Hawkeye didn't even have a camera lined up behind the stumps. I can't see why cricinfo would lie or be mistaken about that.

They don't. They have 6 cameras at mid-on and mid-off from both ends plus 2 square of the wicket. They use the 2 broadcast cameras for information from behind the stumps afaik.

[Top_Cat]

With Hot Spot being made mandatory, cue members of the BCCI to complain vigorously when the inevitable 'obvious nick which didn't leave a heat signature' appeal pops up and the guy tons up followed by "We never liked URDS in the first place, felt pressured to accept it, IT COSTS $60k PER MINUTE!!!", etc..

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

I don't really understand the whole point. Virtualeye was used throughout the Ashes as the tool for determining LBWs. I actually thought it was a lot better than Hawkeye, as it used more frames per second, so it seemed to provide more accuracy.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Cevno

How about commentators disagreeing too on the ground and players feeling surprised too?
In any way this wasn't about Hawkeye.



Here we need to understand that only LBW calls are done by the Hawkeye not others.
And ultimately in any system it's the third umpires call.

So what is wrong with just using part of the system just with slow motion for the time being? It's not as if even if the UDRS is fully implemented you'll get robots to decide whether the evidence is conclusive to overturn or not?

People are 'suprised' by what HawkEye throws up because their perceptions have been wrong for years.

I'm amazed at the number of times commentators have said a ball was going to be sliding down leg side when it patently isn't.