marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
I partly agree. A counter argument is that a ball clipping the bails is as out as a ball taking out the entire middle stump. The system could do with a little more consistency.
The umpire giving the clipping bails either way is right whichever way he calls it as it is too marginal a call. The umpire giving the one taking out middle not out is wrong to a howlerish level, so UDRS corrects him.
Wait, this argument has almost got a weird Moebius twist to it. When they didn't have the margin of error, DRS bashers would say "Well, how can the thing predict whether or not it's going to flick the bail or the side of the stump. It isn't that accurate." Now it's "Well, it all feels a bit strange, it says it's going to flick the bails but they obviously don't trust it, so it stays with the umpire, that doesn't feel right, the funny thing is, if the umpire gave him out, he'd have to go.....blahblahblah"
I really like the system as it is now, maybe with a tweak adding a grey area for height. If it was clearly in or out, the ump is overruled, if it's it that zone, he's given the benefit of the doubt (because the whole argument isn't it? It's not a howler, it's a close one.)
The absolute last thing I want to see is for them to give the benefit of that doubt to the batsmen, because then LBWs become ridiculously hard to get.
Why should a decision stand or be overturned depending on who reviews it? The exact same scenario can have two different results for two different teams, that is what I find baffling and inconsistent. If you trust the system enough to give batsmen well forward lbw, then a ball shown to be clipping the bails must also be given out. Anything else is inconsistency. A batsman who feathers a knick to the keeper isn't any less out than a bloke who plays an ugly heave and skies one to the keeper. What is worse is the team loses a review when it's umpires call. Utter bollocks.
meh, maybe we're gonna have to agree to disagree here. It seems perfectly logical to me.
As with any statistical or predictive system, there exists a margin for error. This means, when approaching edge cases, like feathering the stumps or clipping the bails, that margin of error increases to a point where the prediction is useless. At this point, the system is effectively telling us that it doesn't know (or we've declared that the accuracy of the prediction beyond this point is unacceptable)
In this zone, we've chosen to give the Umpire the benefit of the doubt due to the expectation that the experience of the official will be able to produce a prediction more accurate than that of the system. In the grey zone, the DRS prediction isn't in or out, it's nothing. The only time a decision stands or is overturned is if the prediction is actually taken into consideration, in the grey zone there is no consideration, thus the umpire's decision stands.
Seriously, easy to understand for me.
I'd guess that the margin of error at the point they stop measuring is probably still well within acceptable range, they just chose half of each stump & bail because that's the only fraction most people are actually comfortable with. Using 3/4's would probably cause a 15 minute long conversation after every 2nd review pontificating on how only the "techno-boffins" boffins understand advanced maths & the like.
Personally, I feel that the maths & physics behind the actual prediction isn't probably that hard. The accuracy of tracking's the key. I'm also not sure why it's so hard to verify. Set up a system, have it track some bowlers (or machines) for a day or two without batsmen to block the ball.
Take the data, define points a which the prediction algorithm takes over & see how closely it matches the actual path.
I think the answer is that the DRS is a pretty radical change to the way the game is umpired, so it's being introduced in quite a cautious manner - limited number of referrals, on-field ump gets the benefit of the doubt, etc. I think this is actually quite sensible, at least for now, because an overly sudden lurch to Total Technology might be too hard to digest. Let's let the system bed in before we extend it.
I do think that there's a good argument for saying that when a team refers a decision, and it looks a good referral but the result is "umpire's call", then that team shouldn't lose its referral. There would be a few things to be worked out about exactly how that might be changed, but it would be worth considering.
If it's umpire's call, the decision (and referral) was for a marginal decision not an absolute howler and I've no problem with the team losing one of their referrals.
No need for that Marc.
I would say the relaxation in the rules over throwing is what has helped spinners the most, finger spinners anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)