# UDRS : The 2.5 Meter rule

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
• 27-02-2011, 08:59 PM
gvenkat
UDRS : The 2.5 Meter rule
• 27-02-2011, 09:11 PM
vcs
Quote:

why is it not 2.4 or 2? Who decides this arbitrary number?
This is the problem expressed in as few words as possible. It's kind of farcical that Bell would have been given out if he was say, only 2.49 metres down the crease. Assuming that the reason they have set this arbitrary number is that they don't have faith in Hawkeye's accuracy, it only puts further doubt into the viewer's mind as to whether the technology is reliable.
• 28-02-2011, 01:09 AM
Jayzamann
Quote:

The 2.5m rule has been put into place because it is from that point onwards that the precision of the ball tracking technology begins to reduce.
India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

Bit hasty to assume it is arbitrary.
• 28-02-2011, 01:28 AM
Spark
That's not what I've heard before. An article last year with the Hawkeye people said that it was nothing to do with accuracy, but the fact that "those have never been given in the past".
• 28-02-2011, 03:04 AM
salman85
You have to draw the line somewhere.If it was 2.4,people would ask why not 2.39.You can never please everyone at the same time.

Wise words kids.Lead to a happier life.
• 28-02-2011, 03:48 AM
ankitj
Quote:

Originally Posted by salman85
You have to draw the line somewhere.

You have to? The only source of imprecision can be determining position and velocity of the ball (and since cricket ball is a massive object, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle need not bother us :ph34r:). Larger the distance the ball has to travel, more is the imprecision magnified. You draw a line to account for that? No. Leave it to the engineers to determine a confidence region for a certain level of acceptable probability.

Problem is when you mix technology and human judgement, that too of those who possibly aren't trained in basics of physics or statistics. This is when you get arbitrary rules like 2.49 m is acceptable even if the ball is hitting the top of the off stump, but 2.5 m is not even if the ball is hitting middle of middle stump. Leave it to engineers once it goes upstairs, just give them a probability level you are happy to accept (95% or whatever). Give them specifications, they will make a tool.
• 28-02-2011, 03:56 AM
Migara
Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ankitj
You have to? The only source of imprecision can be determining position and velocity of the ball (and since cricket ball is a massive object, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle need not bother us :ph34r:). Larger the distance the ball has to travel, more is the imprecision magnified. You draw a line to account for that? No. Leave it to the engineers to determine a confidence region for a certain level of acceptable probability.

Problem is when you mix technology and human judgement, that too of those who possibly aren't trained in basics of physics or statistics. This is when you get arbitrary rules like 2.49 m is acceptable even if the ball is hitting the top of the off stump, but 2.5 m is not even if the ball is hitting middle of middle stump. Leave it to engineers once it goes upstairs, just give them a probability level you are happy to accept (95% or whatever). Give them a specification, they will make a tool.

That is a good idea. But what we have is still better than having howlers.
• 28-02-2011, 05:36 AM
Furball
Absolutely rubbish article.

The flaw isn't in the system. The fault here lies with Billy Bowden.
• 28-02-2011, 05:45 AM
Furball
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcs
This is the problem expressed in as few words as possible. It's kind of farcical that Bell would have been given out if he was say, only 2.49 metres down the crease. Assuming that the reason they have set this arbitrary number is that they don't have faith in Hawkeye's accuracy, it only puts further doubt into the viewer's mind as to whether the technology is reliable.

The technology is fine. The problem in this instance was Billy Bowden, who after looking at the review decided that Ian Bell being more than 2.5m down the pitch introduced enough doubt to reprieve him despite being hit in line and HawkEye predicting that the ball would have gone on to hit middle stump halfway up.

That's not a flaw in the UDRS system, it's a serious flaw in Bowden's decision making process.
• 28-02-2011, 05:53 AM
vcs
Quote:

Originally Posted by GingerFurball
The technology is fine. The problem in this instance was Billy Bowden, who after looking at the review decided that Ian Bell being more than 2.5m down the pitch introduced enough doubt to reprieve him despite being hit in line and HawkEye predicting that the ball would have gone on to hit middle stump halfway up.

That's not a flaw in the UDRS system, it's a serious flaw in Bowden's decision making process.

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.
• 28-02-2011, 06:08 AM
fredfertang
Quote:

Originally Posted by GingerFurball
Absolutely rubbish article.

The flaw isn't in the system. The fault here lies with Billy Bowden.

I can't agree it's a rubbish article, as it explained to me what, not having been able to watch the game, I didn't fully appreciate about the situation until I read it (sadly I was visiting a BSkyB less elderly relative yesterday afternoon) but I agree entirely that Bowden was at fault, and that UDRS cannot be expected to cope with irrational decision making by the human beings involved
• 28-02-2011, 06:28 AM
weldone
Quote:

Originally Posted by vcs
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.

This is a brilliant idea.
• 28-02-2011, 07:19 AM
gvenkat
Quote:

Originally Posted by GingerFurball
The technology is fine. The problem in this instance was Billy Bowden, who after looking at the review decided that Ian Bell being more than 2.5m down the pitch introduced enough doubt to reprieve him despite being hit in line and HawkEye predicting that the ball would have gone on to hit middle stump halfway up.

That's not a flaw in the UDRS system, it's a serious flaw in Bowden's decision making process.

No. you missed the premise of the piece but you have stated that in your comment. I bolded that part. The broader picture we are looking at is the system having to depend on Billy Bowden and not trusting the system itself.

If you are not trusting the technology then let's not even have the UDRS. In this instance agreed the batsman was well forward, 2.5 meters to be precise and still was deemed out by Hawk eye. Unfortunately Bell was declared not out.

The funny thing is if he had been ruled out, The call would have still stayed out. We cannot have that ambiguity. Either trust hawk eye and go forward or else don't do it. The bigger point in discussion is the human intervention.

Hawkeye is a far superior judge than any human of where a ball that has pitched will end up. The cricket community needs to simply embrace this reality and stop fighting the science. Human judgment is affected by a host of things that Hawkeye isn't. If Hawkeye says someone is out, he' should be out. The needless complications bring more frustration to players and fans than is necessary.

The broader picture is the involvement of Bowden or anyother umpire in the UDRS and that's where the system fails. :)
• 28-02-2011, 07:20 AM
gvenkat
Quote:

Originally Posted by GingerFurball
Absolutely rubbish article.

The flaw isn't in the system. The fault here lies with Billy Bowden.

Thanks for this Kind comment. :dry:
• 28-02-2011, 07:22 AM
gvenkat
Quote:

Originally Posted by fredfertang
I can't agree it's a rubbish article, as it explained to me what, not having been able to watch the game, I didn't fully appreciate about the situation until I read it (sadly I was visiting a BSkyB less elderly relative yesterday afternoon) but I agree entirely that Bowden was at fault, and that UDRS cannot be expected to cope with irrational decision making by the human beings involved

Bingo Sir.

Quote:

UDRS cannot be expected to cope with irrational decision making by the human beings involved
The sad part is the human beings being invovled as part of the system. :)
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last