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

Thread: UDRS : The 2.5 Meter rule

  1. #16
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by vcs View Post
    Yeah, I agree with you. Complete lack of common sense from Bowden there. I'd be inclined to go along with Ankit's suggestion of removing the arbitrary 2.5m down the pitch thing and leave it to someone to design a program that outputs "out" or "not out" based on whether the margin of impact of the ball with the stumps is within an acceptable confidence interval or not.
    From what I read yesterday that is already in place - it has to be hitting the middle of middle to be within the accepted limit when the impact is that far away though. Bell's was actually hitting middle and off.
    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.

  2. #17
    vcs
    vcs is offline
    International Coach vcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,305
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    From what I read yesterday that is already in place - it has to be hitting the middle of middle to be within the accepted limit when the impact is that far away though. Bell's was actually hitting middle and off.
    Sounds dodgy. It has to be hitting middle of middle if impact is 2.5m away, but can be hitting only one stump, or the top of the stumps from, say, 2.25m? Doesn't make any sense at all.

  3. #18
    Cricket Web Staff Member Woodster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    5,481
    Let's not forget this system was introduced to eliminate the truly awful decision, ie batsmen that are given out LBW when they've clearly middled it, or given out caught when the ball clearly came off a part of their anatomy other than the glove. The original decision of not out was not a howler, it was difficult to be certain that ball was going to go on and hit the stumps due to how far down the pitch Bell was. However, I understand the technology debate about if we use, we trust it implicitly etc. Not sure you can do that without it being 100% accurate.

    It is an issue that two different decisions can be given for the same delivery, I've said this numerous times before, depending who reviews the LBW (for example) and what the onfield umpire has judged, it may result in two different decisions, with a lot of LBW appeals. But I do like referrals that are close calls remaining with the original decision of the standing umpire. I'm not saying the incident yesterday ended correctly, but that may be down to the communication that took place between the third umpire and Billy Bowden.
    http://batallday.blogspot.com/ - Cricket blog dedicated to domestic cricket.

  4. #19
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by vcs View Post
    Sounds dodgy. It has to be hitting middle of middle if impact is 2.5m away, but can be hitting only one stump, or the top of the stumps from, say, 2.25m? Doesn't make any sense at all.
    I can only guess that there's something about the 2.5m distance that means there's too much extrapolation involved - may be something to do with what is a normal length of delivery so there's sufficient information to get a more reliable prediction?

    Of course on many occasions if it's just hitting one stump then it's deemed not conclusive anyway.

    Either way, the key thing to remember in this case is that if UDRS weren't in place, it wouldn't have changed the outcome so this cannot be used as a reason to not employ the UDRS.


  5. #20
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    I can only guess that there's something about the 2.5m distance that means there's too much extrapolation involved - may be something to do with what is a normal length of delivery so there's sufficient information to get a more reliable prediction?

    Of course on many occasions if it's just hitting one stump then it's deemed not conclusive anyway.

    Either way, the key thing to remember in this case is that if UDRS weren't in place, it wouldn't have changed the outcome so this cannot be used as a reason to not employ the UDRS.
    Thats just a cop out.

  6. #21
    Bun
    Bun is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Under the tree
    Posts
    3,116
    Quote Originally Posted by gvenkat View Post
    Thanks for this Kind comment.
    His comments are not to be taken seriously as per himself.

  7. #22
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Bun View Post
    His comments are not to be taken seriously as per himself.
    Personal attacks are not allowed. This is a warning.
    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

  8. #23
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,601
    Well, in the NZ vs Zim match last night we saw what a captain does when he knows the rules.

    There was a shout for LBW after the batsman had charged down the pitch and it was given not out. He was more than 2.5m down the pitch and even though it looked like it was hitting it was probably not hitting enough of middle. Vettori chose not to review it.

    No outrage or moaning at all.

  9. #24
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,304
    Instead of having an arbitrary distance, it could be expressed as a percentage for confidence that ball will hit the stumps. There is more doubt about one 1.5 m away which is flicking the outside of off than one 2.5 m away hitting halfway up middle. Then the umpire can decide what percentage he is happy with to give something out.

  10. #25
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,601
    Who said it was arbitrary?

    And with the percentage thing, that's basically what they have already.

  11. #26
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by KiWiNiNjA View Post
    Who said it was arbitrary?
    .
    I did, for one.

  12. #27
    vcs
    vcs is offline
    International Coach vcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,305
    Quote Originally Posted by KiWiNiNjA View Post
    Who said it was arbitrary?

    And with the percentage thing, that's basically what they have already.
    I thought it was arbitrary. That's the whole problem. It's hard to imagine a system where readings are entirely reliable upto 2.5m and complete noise outside that.

  13. #28
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,505
    Maybe if it's outside 2.5m it can still count if it's in a certain zone of 'certainity' ala middle of middle.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  14. #29
    Cricketer Of The Year Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Don't be jealous of the HRV cup
    Posts
    9,954
    I don't see any improvement to the system by using probabilities and confidence intervals instead of being 2.5 metres down the track. The main complaint is that 2.5 m is arbitrary. Well if you set confidence intervals of 95% then the 95% becomes arbitrary what if we are 94.9% sure that the ball will hit the stumps why draw the line at 95% why not 93%. etc etc etc...there is nothing wrong with being too far forward to be given out lbw. From my days wicket keeping I can remember the ball going through a batsmans gate and then swinging away at the last second to miss the stumps. You should not be projecting a straight line to the stumps with any certainty from a long way down the pitch because the ball does swing. Good on Billy Bowden.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I got great enjoyment in going to the game and shouting "WHY THE **** ISN'T THIS GAME BEING PLAYED AT THE BASIN?!>!?!?" to reasonably significant cheers from the sparse crowd
    Proudly against the bring back Bennett movement since he is injury prone and won't last 5 days.

  15. #30
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I don't see any improvement to the system by using probabilities and confidence intervals instead of being 2.5 metres down the track. The main complaint is that 2.5 m is arbitrary. Well if you set confidence intervals of 95% then the 95% becomes arbitrary what if we are 94.9% sure that the ball will hit the stumps why draw the line at 95% why not 93%. etc etc etc...there is nothing wrong with being too far forward to be given out lbw. From my days wicket keeping I can remember the ball going through a batsmans gate and then swinging away at the last second to miss the stumps. You should not be projecting a straight line to the stumps with any certainty from a long way down the pitch because the ball does swing. Good on Billy Bowden.
    You get more consistency over the confidence of the decision is all. Still have to make a decision at some point but you are basing it on the evidence available. It may be that it is right to give that not out but there are other decisions which are given out just because they are 20 cm closer even though the doubt is greater (eg hitting outside of leg rather than middle). The accuracy of the system doesn't magically stop at 2.5m and it is not 100 percent inside that distance, it gradually declines with distance from stumps.
    Last edited by Debris; 04-03-2011 at 11:24 PM.

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. Rule about fielders behind batsman
    By memphiscricket in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 10:22 PM
  2. New Feature : UDRS: To review or not to review
    By gvenkat in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-07-2010, 03:39 PM
  3. Rationale for the off sides rule in soccer
    By silentstriker in forum 2010 Football World Cup - South Africa
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 28-06-2010, 03:21 PM
  4. UDRS in ODIs
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-01-2010, 04:54 PM
  5. Reintroduction of the Substitute rule
    By aussie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 17-07-2009, 07:35 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
  •