***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

How can you rightly assume Hawk-eye got the predictive path wrong every time it looks a touch dodgy? Human perception and prediction isn't flawless too you know. As you keep saying, it's about predicting what never happened.

Yeah, the 18 metres statement was an exaggeration, but it still stands that the software will almost always be reasonably accurate based on the the information it DOES know for sure, much more so than a human umpire at any rate. With a shorter length ball, there's more information than can be gathered on the ball's flight path after bouncing. With a fuller ball, there's less indication of the ball's future path, but much less time for any sideways deviation to occur, so the various factors cancel out.

Also, what's with this "making the umpires look bad" argument? If an umpire gets it wrong, I'm sure he can live with that, life goes on. If an umpire gets a lot of calls wrong, then he's obviously a **** umpire, which will unfortunately tend to make him look like a moron.

I don't. I am talking based on the tests they have done and samples like that Warne ball to Strauss in the 2005 Ashes. Of course, hawkeye has apparently improved and become more accurate, but I guess it isn't 100% and perhaps will never be, even when projecting for balls that did go through upto the stumps and/or keeper.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

Nope.. Coz the ones who have posted have tended to complain about decisions when those replays are shown. And look, it is not wrong of them either. That is human nature. I am just saying that NOT showing those replays has helped get some perception for what the umpire is going through.

Fair enough then. DRS isn't about chastising and blaming umpires though. My entire point is that they're human and the nature of cricket - particularly the lbw law - opens itself up to heaps of human error in decision-making that we could really do without. We don't need HawkEye because umpiring standards are poor; we need it because umpiring is ****ing hard.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Well that's exactly the point. The predictive path is needed because we can't tell without it.

no.. the predictive path of the hawkeye is not always accurate and need not be, either. We are just ASSUMING that it will show the correct path. And if you need the predictive path to know whether the decision was right/wrong, it is obvious it isn't a howler which, they say, DRS is there to eliminate. Look, LBWs are subjective and they always will be. The more technology aids you have, the more complicated it gets. I am all for using the hawkeye to see where it pitched, where it hit the pad etc. But I am becoming less and less sold to the idea of using the predictive or projected path of the ball every day.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

Nope.. Coz the ones who have posted have tended to complain about decisions when those replays are shown. And look, it is not wrong of them either. That is human nature. I am just saying that NOT showing those replays has helped get some perception for what the umpire is going through.

Nah, I can't agree with your opinion at all.

Sky and Channel 4 have been showing HawkEye graphics for years because the viewers wanted to see them. The difference now is that people get more frustrated when HawkEye shows that an umpire has made a mistake, because there's a system in place to correct such obvious errors that is being obstructed by a single board who are being stupid for some unknown reason.

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take. When Aleem Dar wrongly reprived Michael Hussey at Brisbane in the 1st Ashes Test, the frustration lay with Strauss for wasting our two previous reviews.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Fair enough then. DRS isn't about chastising and blaming umpires though. My entire point is that they're human and the nature of cricket - particularly the lbw law - opens itself up to heaps of human error in decision-making that we could really do without. We don't need HawkEye because umpiring standards are poor; we need it because umpiring is ****ing hard.

see my post above. Obviously, I want some form of DRS but as I have been saying, I am becoming less and less convinced about using the predictive path technology.


What I was trying to point out, from my initial post, was that in series where there is no DRS, it makes sense to NOT show the predictive path and hotspot replays. I guess I have done a real lousy job of getting that point across, but that was the point all along.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take.

See, I still think that's dire. Players shouldn't have to be umpires IMO, and the fact that Watson chose not to refer his lbw doesn't make the decision any less of a blight on the game. But that's a separate debate altogether.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

no.. the predictive path of the hawkeye is not always accurate and need not be, either. We are just ASSUMING that it will show the correct path. And if you need the predictive path to know whether the decision was right/wrong, it is obvious it isn't a howler which, they say, DRS is there to eliminate. Look, LBWs are subjective and they always will be. The more technology aids you have, the more complicated it gets. I am all for using the hawkeye to see where it pitched, where it hit the pad etc. But I am becoming less and less sold to the idea of using the predictive or projected path of the ball every day.

Can you give some examples of where the predicted path has obviously got it wrong?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

see my post above. Obviously, I want some form of DRS but as I have been saying, I am becoming less and less convinced about using the predictive path technology.


What I was trying to point out, from my initial post, was that in series where there is no DRS, it makes sense to NOT show the predictive path and hotspot replays. I guess I have done a real lousy job of getting that point across, but that was the point all along.

In series where there is no DRS they just shouldn't bother playing at all.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Nah, I can't agree with your opinion at all.

Sky and Channel 4 have been showing HawkEye graphics for years because the viewers wanted to see them. The difference now is that people get more frustrated when HawkEye shows that an umpire has made a mistake, because there's a system in place to correct such obvious errors that is being obstructed by a single board who are being stupid for some unknown reason.

Pretty much no-one has complained about the decision Watson got in the last test in the 2nd innings because the option was there for Watson to refer it and he didn't take. When Aleem Dar wrongly reprived Michael Hussey at Brisbane in the 1st Ashes Test, the frustration lay with Strauss for wasting our two previous reviews.

Again, you are preaching to the choir. I have supported DRS and always have. Right now, I believe we should not use the predictive path technology alone, does not mean I do not want the DRS at all. Just that, if DRS is not being used, it is a good idea to not show those replays.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Can you give some examples of where the predicted path has obviously got it wrong?

Since HawkEye were happy enough with their own technology to suggest it be used as an umpiring aid, there has been just the one (Phil Hughes in Sri Lanka), I believe.

And look, even if there had been five, that's much fewer than the amount of times a standing umpire has got one obviously wrong in that period.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Can you give some examples of where the predicted path has obviously got it wrong?

I am talking about the tests they did back in 2005. If the TV companies show us hawk eye tracking of every ball that hit the sticks or went past them, we will be in a better position to judge. But there have been times when I have felt that hawkeye does not take in the individual factors like bounce off the track etc on that particular session into account..

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

See, I still think that's dire. Players shouldn't have to be umpires IMO, and the fact that Watson chose not to refer his lbw doesn't make the decision any less of a blight on the game. But that's a separate debate altogether.

Yeah, I agree. My point is on the flak umpires take for making mistakes. Had there been no DRS because South Africa were being arsey about it, then I reckon there'd have been some anger at the umpire for getting it wrong, in the same way a few people got pissed off at Billy Bowden when he made a series of inexplicable calls at Lord's.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

I am talking about the tests they did back in 2005. If the TV companies show us hawk eye tracking of every ball that hit the sticks or went past them, we will be in a better position to judge. But there have been times when I have felt that hawkeye does not take in the individual factors like bounce off the track etc on that particular session into account..

Translation: I have no examples, I am just making **** up.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Since HawkEye were happy enough with their own technology to suggest it be used as an umpiring aid, there has been just the one (Phil Hughes in Sri Lanka), I believe.

And look, even if there had been five, that's much fewer than the amount of times a standing umpire has got one obviously wrong in that period.

We will only know about this if they applied hawkeye predictive path tracking after it reaches the batsman for every ball that hit or went past the stumps on a day. I just think there are too many variables for any software to accurately predict where the ball would have gone after impact on the batsman in cricket. Just too many. I am happy to use it for tracking what did happen though, like where it pitched, point of impact etc.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Translation: I have no examples, I am just making **** up.

Translation, you were ****ting when they showed the Warne ball in 2005 that bowled Strauss and hawkeye got it wrong by a foot or so.