Trent Boult

[cnerd123]

But DRS showed it smashing into leg.

DRS showed it to be umpires call.

Actually if it's an umpires call decision, we don't actually know for sure if the ball would have hit the stumps or not. The technology is not perfect. That's the whole point.

I blame broadcasters, commentators and the TV graphics for all this. They should display the whole entire range of predicted possibilities for where the ball could pass the stumps on the screen, so the viewer can understand why you need more than half the ball hitting to be confident that the ball would have hit them.

And regarding this:

it was cannoning into leg stump you ****ing apologist meme

I can’t believe anyone genuinely thinks it was about to miss leg. hat’s hilarious.

I'm not here to argue whether or not the ball would have hit the leg stump. That is not my point. What I find poor from you guys here is that
a) You had a human umpire on field watching it live give it not out.
b) You had the best possible technology available to us give it not out.

And yet you're still insisting that it was a bad decision. It's like you don't actually care how a decision is reached, or what the evidence says. You just want you own inner beliefs justified.

Which just goes to show what I said earlier about DRS/automating decisions/robot umpires to be true:

It won't fix the crux of the issue would it though? This unrealistic expectation of perfect decisions, be it by a human or a machine, will never ever be met.

It's the same with catches where snicko/hotspot shows nothing, with people arguing over catches close to the ground, even with run-outs and stumpings where the frame rate isn't good enough.

People don't care if the decision is right, they care if the decision feels right. Which is why all this talk about umpires being bad or DRS being bad is not a real conversation - it's people wanting to express their frustration that the world isn't exactly the way they want it to be.

I remember watching this particular LBW live and thinking that it was very close. I was urging the umpire to give it out. But given it was swinging down leg, headed down the slope, and also the first ball of the innings, I had no issues when it wasn't given. The umpire wasn't sure enough to give it out, so he gave it not out. Heck Boult himself wasn't sure enough to call for a review. The broadcasters pulled up hawkeye anyways, and it backed him up.

Not a bad call by any means, and NZ were not robbed of a first ball wicket. I want us to get the record straight on this. Last thing I want to see is this 'oh erasmus denied NZ a plumb LBW first ball' narrative start running away and being brought up every time this game is talked about.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And yet you're still insisting that it was a bad decision.

No. It was the wrong result though. Should have been overturned by any sensible review system. You don't have to jump up and down every time you perceive someone is having a dig at the umpires.

Not a bad call by any means, and NZ were not robbed of a first ball wicket.

Yeah they were, because it was out and should have been out. It's a perfect example of umpires call's margin of error being too large in certain circumstances.

 

[stephen]

I think we're forgetting that they're zing bails and therefore you need the ball to be doing more than smashing into the stumps to dislodge them. Umpire got it right IMO. NZ should have used a sledge hammer if they wanted the wicket.

 

[Chewie]

There's a difference between % of the ball hitting the stumps and % likelihood that the ball will hit the stumps isn't there? People are aggrieved because the first is what is shown and you don't need much of the ball to hit the stumps for the bails to be dislodged but for it not to be umpire's call requires 50%, while the second is based on the fact that it is simply a prediction of what is to happen and you can never be sure with these sort of computer generated predictions what actually would have happened and you would want 50% certainty at least on this second point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There's a difference between % of the ball hitting the stumps and % likelihood that the ball will hit the stumps isn't there? People are aggrieved because the first is what is shown and you don't need much of the ball to hit the stumps for the bails to be dislodged but for it not to be umpire's call requires 50%, while the second is based on the fact that it is simply a prediction of what is to happen and you can never be sure with these sort of computer generated predictions what actually would have happened and you would want 50% certainty at least on this second point.

Not really because the 50% of the ball is just a standard percentage that's used regardless of the circumstances of the prediction. The "% likelihood that the ball will hit the stumps" as you put it varies greatly depending on a lot of factors. In the case under discussion there is no way that the ball was missing the stumps, it wasn't 50% chance of missing. I haven't crunched any numbers but I'd bet it's closer to 99% chance of at least some part of the ball hitting the stumps.

 

[Greenlite]

So they need to calculate the speed and spin of the delivery to see if it's powerful enough to knock over the unknockable zing bails?

 

[Chewie]

Yea I wasn't talking about any particular delivery, I'm just talking in general about the requirements for umpire's call (and this is just based on my understand on how the software works)

There's two separate things:
- the prediction by hawkeye on where the ball is going to go past the stumps
- the amount of the ball that is potentially hitting the stumps

Past the point of impact is a prediction and the software attempts to estimate where it will hit but there's a lot of potential spots where the ball could pass the stumps, as the software cannot be 100% sure exactly where it will hit. But you can look at those potential spots and say that 90% of them have at least 20% of the ball hitting the stumps and therefore it should be out because 90% of the time, enough of the ball would have hit the stumps to dislodge the bails. I'm not sure whether this is what actually happens in determining whether it is umpire's call or not, but I think that this is how it should be.

 

[Greenlite]

I can see one day where the rain prevents any play and the final is decided by virtual reality or WASP =P

 

[Dan]

I've still never understood why the margin of error is seemingly built in twice - 50% of the ball hitting 50% of the stump. My view - and I think I've been fairly consistent on this over the years - is that one of those 50% margins is enough (i.e. some part of the ball is projected to hit the inner half of the stump, or half of the ball is projected to hit any part of the stump).

Both always seemed a little bit excessive to me - I really hope the technology isn't so uncertain it needs a margin of error that large.

 

[marc71178]

Not really because the 50% of the ball is just a standard percentage that's used regardless of the circumstances of the prediction. The "% likelihood that the ball will hit the stumps" as you put it varies greatly depending on a lot of factors. In the case under discussion there is no way that the ball was missing the stumps, it wasn't 50% chance of missing. I haven't crunched any numbers but I'd bet it's closer to 99% chance of at least some part of the ball hitting the stumps.

Even getting your protractor out again have you?

 

[SteveNZ]

i do still think NZ should've bowled Ferguson for the super over. He was regularly beating the bat of Stokes with pace throughout his spell, and his slower ball was the undoing of Buttler. I guess they opted for Boult because he's done it for us so many times in the past, and that's fair enough, hard to be too critical.

For some reason (yes, because the game still haunts me hourly) I thought about this last night and yeah, with hindsight I might've gone Ferguson. As you say, he bowled well to Stokes, he has a much better slower ball than Boult, he bowled better on the day, has the jet-rocket bouncer etc. But you go to your #1 pro every time, because he backs himself and he's done the job for you 1000 times over. And how do you deal with a guy who kinda kneel sweeps yorkers with pinpoint accuracy to the boundary?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even getting your protractor out again have you?

not necessary I can do that in my head

 

[marc71178]

not necessary I can do that in my head

I’d love to know how you’ve decided it was definitely out when you’re looking at it from an angle?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I’d love to know how you’ve decided it was definitely out when you’re looking at it from an angle?

I wasn't looking at it from an angle, in fact I haven't even seen the footage at any stage.

I just have opinions

 

[Bahnz]

I've still never understood why the margin of error is seemingly built in twice - 50% of the ball hitting 50% of the stump. My view - and I think I've been fairly consistent on this over the years - is that one of those 50% margins is enough (i.e. some part of the ball is projected to hit the inner half of the stump, or half of the ball is projected to hit any part of the stump).

Both always seemed a little bit excessive to me - I really hope the technology isn't so uncertain it needs a margin of error that large.

It's not anymore, it's now just 50% of the ball hitting the stumps.