Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Has DRS helped spinners the most?

  1. #16
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Arachnodouche View Post
    It will probably help spinners of Ajmal's ilk, ones that rely on slight deviations, more than the conventionally huge turners like Warne or Murali. I think their returns would've dwindled drastically under DRS.
    Hmm, disagree esp. regarding Warne, the amount of extra wickets he would have gotten with his slider, especially post-suspension, would be even greater.

  2. #17
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkley View Post
    Some of the decisions overturned have been a little too marginal for mine.I'm all for DRS correcting the howlers but I'm not too comfortable with batsmen being given out lbw despite being well forward.Too much uncertainty there.Either that or give every thing that hawk eye shows hitting the stumps out. AT least that'd be more consistent.
    Although it is a bit odd that the same ball is out or not, depending on who reviews but personally I'm not too fussed about that because those are margin calls which is not what UDRS is meant to eradicate.
    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.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    hogwarts
    Posts
    111
    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.

  4. #19
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkley View Post
    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.
    Wrong. A ball clipping the bails reviewed by the bowler is not out, a ball taking out middle stump reviewed by the bowler is out.

    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.


  5. #20
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkley View Post
    Some of the decisions overturned have been a little too marginal for mine.I'm all for DRS correcting the howlers but I'm not too comfortable with batsmen being given out lbw despite being well forward.Too much uncertainty there.Either that or give every thing that hawk eye shows hitting the stumps out. AT least that'd be more consistent.
    Getting down the track should not make you immune from being dismissed lbw.

  6. #21
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    302
    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.

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    hogwarts
    Posts
    111
    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.

  8. #23
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    302
    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.

  9. #24
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    302
    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.

  10. #25
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkley View Post
    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.
    This is a good question.

    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.

  11. #26
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparkley View Post
    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.
    No, your comments are utter bollocks. The UDRS is to overturn absolute howlers. One's which are borderline are not absolute howlers therefore the UDRS is still doing its job in these cases and a team should lose a review because it was not an absolute howler.

  12. #27
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,866
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  13. #28
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Burgess Hill
    Posts
    8,991
    No need for that Marc.

  14. #29
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,304
    I would say the relaxation in the rules over throwing is what has helped spinners the most, finger spinners anyway.

  15. #30
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,823
    I love the system. We have Hafeez, Ajmal and Abdul Rahman to use DRS to their advantage and make batsmen like KP look like fools.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Yeah, look, it gives me a pain deep inside my uterus to admit it, but it's Ajmal until such time as we get a working throwing law again.
    Never in a million years would I have thought Brumby to admit this!!!!!!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2 spinners in a bowling attack
    By Leslie1 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-04-2008, 01:31 PM
  2. 2 Spinners
    By techno t in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 08:09 AM
  3. Two spinners for the Aussies in Adelaide?
    By Dingo in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 16-12-2001, 02:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •