***Official*** India's Tour of Sri Lanka 2017

[Shri]

Shri probably watching this in the front bar of the Coolibah hotel in Merrylands aws.

Catching up on missed classes.

 

[Howe_zat]

This is the day that Nuwan Pradeep batted at 8 and Vernon Philander batted at 11

 

[Spark]

How will it be covered though, I dont think theres any tech that could predict that situation, they should simply not use hawk eye if ball hits in full

you're required to assume the ball continues straight on its trajectory if it hits on the full. give me a pen and paper and i could probably work it out myself given a bit of time.

 

[DriveClub]

you're required to assume the ball continues straight on its trajectory if it hits on the full. give me a pen and paper and i could probably work it out myself given a bit of time.

But thats wrong, for spinners at least the ball will not continue straight on its trajectory, it will spin and deviate, you cant use a wrong assumption. There's no science behind it, whats the use of drs and hawk eye if you're going to use flawed assumptions. If all you're doing is guessing let the umpire do that and don't involve a review process that is not in anyway accurate.

 

[Bijed]

But thats wrong, for spinners at least the ball will not continue straight on its trajectory, it will spin and deviate, you cant use a wrong assumption. There's no science behind it, whats the use of drs and hawk eye if you're going to use flawed assumptions. If all you're doing is guessing let the umpire do that and don't involve a review process that is not in anyway accurate.

Problem is you can't predict how much a ball will spin either. Assuming it'll just carry straight on may be incorrect a lot of the time, but it's really the only rule you can apply.

 

[Daemon]

To add on to that, the review system can still be useful to tell whether it's hit in line or not. No reason to abolish it for balls that hit on the full.

 

[Prince EWS]

But thats wrong, for spinners at least the ball will not continue straight on its trajectory, it will spin and deviate, you cant use a wrong assumption. There's no science behind it, whats the use of drs and hawk eye if you're going to use flawed assumptions. If all you're doing is guessing let the umpire do that and don't involve a review process that is not in anyway accurate.

I think you're slightly missing the point here.

Even when it's not DRS, the standing umpire has to assume it'll go straight on if it hits on the full as well. It's how lbw works in the laws of the game now. There's no special exception carved out for DRS; standing umpires work on this assumption as well.

 

[DriveClub]

Problem is you can't predict how much a ball will spin either. Assuming it'll just carry straight on may be incorrect a lot of the time, but it's really the only rule you can apply.

Yes thats why I'm saying not to use drs/hawkey if the ball hits in full because you cant predict. All that is being done is a simplistic guess and that guess can be done by the umpire. Its actually hurting my intelligence to see hawkeye showing the ball trajectory going straight on when it will never be able to prove its prediction since its a simplified guess. Maybe only show where the ball hit the pads to decide if its outside the line.

 

[Spark]

But thats wrong, for spinners at least the ball will not continue straight on its trajectory, it will spin and deviate, you cant use a wrong assumption. There's no science behind it, whats the use of drs and hawk eye if you're going to use flawed assumptions. If all you're doing is guessing let the umpire do that and don't involve a review process that is not in anyway accurate.

you saw the word "required" yes?

The Laws of Cricket | LBW

1. Out LBW

The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.

(a) The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball,

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker’s wicket,

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person,

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails,

either (i) is between wicket and wicket,

or (ii) if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump.

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

2. Interception of the ball

(a) In assessing points (c), (d) and (e) in 1 above, only the first interception is to be considered.

(b) In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not.

it's not an "assumption" they just make up. it's literally how the lbw rule works.

 

[Bijed]

Just wondering now, when hawkeye is used for one that's struck the batsmen on the full, it has to predict the bounce somehow. I guess they just estimate based on the data recorded for previous deliveries?

 

[Spark]

Just wondering now, when hawkeye is used for one that's struck the batsmen on the full, it has to predict the bounce somehow. I guess they just estimate based on the data recorded for previous deliveries?

yes, but i would like to see a situation where this would ever matter.

 

[DriveClub]

I think you're slightly missing the point here.

Even when it's not DRS, the standing umpire has to assume it'll go straight on if it hits on the full as well. It's how lbw works in the laws of the game now. There's no special exception carved out for DRS; standing umpires work on this assumption as well.

I get thats what the umpire does, thats why let the umpire do that, no need to involve hawkeye, its slightly insulting to show hawkeye trajectory going straight on like an accurate prediction.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just wondering now, when hawkeye is used for one that's struck the batsmen on the full, it has to predict the bounce somehow. I guess they just estimate based on the data recorded for previous deliveries?

Yeah I guess. To be fair it doesn't really matter at all - I've never seen a batsman hit on the full and there exist a question over whether the ball would have bounced over the stumps.

 

[Spark]

I get thats what the umpire does, thats why let the umpire do that, no need to involve hawkeye, its slightly insulting to show hawkeye trajectory going straight on like an accurate prediction.

insulting that drs implements the laws of the game, what horror.

 

[Bijed]

yes, but i would like to see a situation where this would ever matter.

Yeah, I was just curious. Though maybe if someone charged down the pitch to a really loopy delivery, missed it and it lands on their foot or something like that?

 

[Spark]

Yeah, I was just curious. Though maybe if someone charged down the pitch to a really loopy delivery, missed it and it lands on their foot or something like that?

it'd have to basically fall from the sky and hit the batsman vertically on the head for it to matter

edit: in which case it'd be a no-ball, ofc. though it would be funny.

 

[srbhkshk]

Just wondering now, when hawkeye is used for one that's struck the batsmen on the full, it has to predict the bounce somehow. I guess they just estimate based on the data recorded for previous deliveries?

I can almost bet that every single DRS projection has some factor of estimated bounce baked in.

 

[Spark]

I can almost bet that every single DRS projection has some factor of estimated bounce baked in.

not if there's enough distance between pitching and impact. once you get a stable estimation of the trajectory of the ball after pitching, then everything that happens before pitching is irrelevant for the prediction of the straight-on part: you don't really have to worry about much other than gravity from there.

 

[srbhkshk]

not if there's enough distance between pitching and impact.

Then how do they determine the peak altitude the ball will reach, especially in the case of spinners?

 

[Prince EWS]

edit: in which case it'd be a no-ball, ofc. though it would be funny.

Not necessarily. If he moved down the wicket to get hit in the head then like that then it wouldn't actually be above waist height "standing upright at the popping crease".