***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[honestbharani]

Yep. Particularly those people saying they don't trust Hawkeye on 'height'. Because a human using a misleading perspective in 2D is in such a great position to judge. ****wits.

yeah cricketers.. what do they know about cricket ?

 

[honestbharani]

So this 3rd umpire will be guessing using his eyes, looking at a monitor? And you want to see that? That is acceptable to you?

We have access to a high powered computer that can almost instantly use the principle of triangulation to interpret data provided by four or more high speed cameras!

I work in technology and I Know for a fact how often they go wrong and how much repair work goes on.. Simple programmed robots do things wrong for no rhyme or reason... It is one thing to trust technology to show what happened, totally different one when you try to build in AI into it to make guesses and predictions. The former is proven to work and the latter is still work in progress...

 

[Neil Pickup]

The decision in question is not a case of the predictive path, though! It's whether it pitched outside leg...

 

[Satguru]

The LBW rule itself is based on a GUESS. The genius idea of yours is to simply have technology make that GUESS instead of Human Beings but the point of most people is, the technology seems to be just as flawed as any human mind when it comes to these guesses.

exactly

 

[honestbharani]

The decision in question is not a case of the predictive path, though! It's whether it pitched outside leg...

But the general point of the players is about the predictive path. Thought it was pretty obvious from the article.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The LBW rule itself is based on a GUESS. The genius idea of yours is to simply have technology make that GUESS instead of Human Beings but the point of most people is, the technology seems to be just as flawed as any human mind when it comes to these guesses.

Could you actually back one of your arguments up with something other than hearsay. This is BCCI level criticism so far.

In general it's not that difficult to predict the path of the ball when your tracking is as accurate as it is shown for Hawkeye. Seeing the ball bounce and joining the dots for the height when it passes the stumps is not difficult, yet people still constantly criticise Hawkeye on it. We know that there is a bigger margin of error where the ball pitched close to the point of contact, we can figure out other things that will make the margin bigger. But that isn't the issue here. People are making baseless statements about not trusting the bounce, or nonsense about it being a guess that is as flawed as a human...

 

[hazsa19]

The LBW rule itself is based on a GUESS. The genius idea of yours is to simply have technology make that GUESS instead of Human Beings but the point of most people is, the technology seems to be just as flawed as any human mind when it comes to these guesses.

This would be interesting if it wasn't completely wrong

 

[hazsa19]

I work in technology and I Know for a fact how often they go wrong and how much repair work goes on.. Simple programmed robots do things wrong for no rhyme or reason... It is one thing to trust technology to show what happened, totally different one when you try to build in AI into it to make guesses and predictions. The former is proven to work and the latter is still work in progress...

Technology going wrong/ breaking from time to time is a very different argument to the one you have been making. I would hope that technicians identify when things go wrong and work hard to ensure that specific problem doesn't happen again.

That does not mean it should not be used. Find me a technology that never ever breaks down for whatever reason? Technology is still more reliable that humans.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

This would be interesting if it wasn't completely wrong

Ind33d

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No, the main problem with hawkeye is it cannot simulate the amount of swing/seam/spin on a ball, esp. the ones that hit an impact close to where it pitched..

The LBW rule states that when the batsman is hit on the full (or very close to it) the umpire must assume that the ball would travel straight on.

Hawkeye doesn't need to be able to predict stuff like that because it hasn't happened.

 

[uvelocity]

I think he is thinking of one like what was seen in the Aus V SL tour in Galle, Dilshan to Hughes - where the ball pitched and spun sharply before hitting the batsman's pad very close to the pitch of the ball. Hawkeye said the ball was going straight on.

super poor quality video: AUS vs SL 1st Test Day-2 HIGHLIGHT - YouTube @8:40

dilshan bowls off spin, but you can see the predicted path was straight.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Couldn't tell **** from the video tbh but the hawkeye path showed the ball straightening marginally which seems about right.

 

[uvelocity]

**** video but take my word for it. google hughes dilshan lbw there is plenty out there

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I trust the computer over my eyes, but it looked fine by me.

 

[uvelocity]

serious? this is like calling the sky green

15.2


Dilshan to Hughes, OUT, Dilshan gets Hughes, who falls leg before on the sweep, Australia go for the review, it was flighted full around off stump, Hughes went down for the swing but missed, the ball seemed to straighten sharply on the replay, would that have missed off, but the ball tracker shows it going straight on with the angle and hitting leg stump, hmm, Hughes is gone anyways


PJ Hughes lbw b Dilshan 28 (63m 51b 3x4 1x6) SR: 54.90

ftr I think it was out anyway, but the ball tracking was beyond doubt clearly wrong

 

[uvelocity]

srs my head is spinning

bai the way

Technology in cricket: 'Tracking mistake' on Phillip Hughes lbw | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
Hawk-Eye's custodians have admitted the depiction of Phil Hughes' second-innings lbw dismissal in the Galle Test was rendered inaccurate by "a tracking mistake".

 

[hazsa19]

srs my head is spinning

bai the way

Technology in cricket: 'Tracking mistake' on Phillip Hughes lbw | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
Hawk-Eye's custodians have admitted the depiction of Phil Hughes' second-innings lbw dismissal in the Galle Test was rendered inaccurate by "a tracking mistake".

How many bad decisions has DRS corrected?

 

[uvelocity]

for sure. i just can't believe anyone could have a differing opinion in that particular instance.

But I think there are LBW's being given by hawkeye that were never given out in the past, and are never given all through the lower levels of cricket.

I agree with having a third umpire get rid of the howlers but I'm not liking hawkeye for deciding if its LBW or not

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

So it was a tracking mistake. How many of those have we had over the last couple of years?

Probably similar to the amount of umpiring mistakes we get in a single test.

Why go all half-arsed with technology though? There would be no consistency.
I'm yet to hear an argument other than "the path looked wrong when I looked at a 2D representation of what happened".

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

It's like people don't understand why the whole "Umpires Call" is there.