- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The other thing with reviews is that sides 'game the system'. Instead of removing the howler as intended, it gets used tactically, so we see a lo of 50/50 calls get reviewed.
Banter The WCE Cricket Banter Thread (Ball tampering permitted)
- Thread starter Keys
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 8, 2012
- 19,345
- 24,278
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yep true and then you get that deflected onto Captains when it goes wrong which should not happen. It should not be their job.
wolmeister
Club Legend
- Nov 7, 2013
- 1,309
- 776
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If the tables were turned we’d never hear the end of it.
Deplorable trumpster
Club Legend
- Aug 14, 2019
- 1,101
- 1,990
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I don't rate Paine at all as a cricketer or Captain. The DRS thing was a very costly but forgiveable blunder. But the main thing i blame him for is the inexplicable fields he was setting for Stokes and the failure to slow the game down, talk to his bowlers, get them calm and focussed and clear in their own minds what the plan was and where they needed to bowl. Paine had 8 fieldsman on the boundary for Stokes on both sides of the wicket. Paine should have instructed them to bowl full and outside off stump to Stokes thereby reducing Stokes scoring shots to the off side and preventing him from getting under the ball which makes it harder to have a real swing and hit sixes. All the fieldsman should have been on the off side, which would have made it very hard for him to hit boundaries. And after the 3rd ball of every over you bring the field in and cut off all the singles, even at the increased risk of a boundary, so you can make sure the number 11 is on strike for the next over.
Instead of that we had 8 fieldsman on the boundary on both sides of the wicket and the bowlers were bowling waste high deliveries on both sides of the wicket. The bowlers have to take some responsibility for losing their rag and bowling rubbish. Paine also has to take a large share of the blame as Captain for failing to slow the game down, have a plan and adequately control the variables that he had the opportunity to control.
It is also obvious that he can't bat. Can't make runs against test quality bowling. In fact can barely get the ball off the square without playing an uncontrolled shot. We are carrying him at number 7. I will be shocked if his batting average is even in double figures by the end of the series. If i was in charge i would sack him now, let Smith or Cummins Captain the rest of the series. And either bring Carey in or throw the gloves to Wade and bring another batsman in.
Instead of that we had 8 fieldsman on the boundary on both sides of the wicket and the bowlers were bowling waste high deliveries on both sides of the wicket. The bowlers have to take some responsibility for losing their rag and bowling rubbish. Paine also has to take a large share of the blame as Captain for failing to slow the game down, have a plan and adequately control the variables that he had the opportunity to control.
It is also obvious that he can't bat. Can't make runs against test quality bowling. In fact can barely get the ball off the square without playing an uncontrolled shot. We are carrying him at number 7. I will be shocked if his batting average is even in double figures by the end of the series. If i was in charge i would sack him now, let Smith or Cummins Captain the rest of the series. And either bring Carey in or throw the gloves to Wade and bring another batsman in.
Last edited:
- Jul 13, 2017
- 4,794
- 8,766
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast Wonders, West Perth
Warne's bold prediction for ever-improving Lyon | cricket.com.au
Legendary leggie says with a bit of luck, the man dubbed 'The GOAT' could eclipse his Australian…
- May 8, 2012
- 19,345
- 24,278
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Don't really care just as long as we retain the ashes.
Warne's bold prediction for ever-improving Lyon | cricket.com.au
Legendary leggie says with a bit of luck, the man dubbed 'The GOAT' could eclipse his Australian…www.cricket.com.au
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Shittest sporting weekend in a long time. Brutal results.
I'm so happy there's a week off. I need the full 10 days before the start of the fourth test to get over last Saturday and Sunday's disappointments.
Lyons bowling at the death was gutsy as *. He just kept dropping it on an attacking line and should have been rewarded, especially as that incompetent fool had 20+ sighters of that exact same ball to know how it was pitching and turning. The ball was also delivered to a lefty so he had a perfect sighter of where it pitched and what it was doing.
As for your other point umpires need to be able to refer their own decisions. Joel Wilson in just two tests has got a phenomenal 8 decisions wrong. A professional test umpire standing in the perfect position directly over the stumps gets more decisions wrong than right and a DRS system that punishes team after two wrong. Incompetent umpiring is getting outsourced to some poor bastard standing at slips with tests increasingly decided by DRS.
Last edited:
- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
How about for every LBW appeal, a soft decision is made, which gets instantly reviewed by the third umpire? And for not-out calls, start with the ball tracker first, so that all the frivolous appeals are instantly dealt with, without going through the whole damn process (no-ball, edge onto pad, etc.). It could be as quick as the Hawkeye in tennis.
- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Alternatively, the appeals review system remains in place, however the umpire also has the opportunity to review decisions.
e.g. Umpire Joel Wilson is unsure, so he sends it up to the 3rd umpire. Or: umpire Joel Wilson decides something is not out, but the fielding team still has two reviews to play with and decide to review.
I would envisage in the majority of close ones, the umpires would send it upstairs. Teams would very rarely need to review. However the option is there if they think the umpire has overlooked one.
e.g. Umpire Joel Wilson is unsure, so he sends it up to the 3rd umpire. Or: umpire Joel Wilson decides something is not out, but the fielding team still has two reviews to play with and decide to review.
I would envisage in the majority of close ones, the umpires would send it upstairs. Teams would very rarely need to review. However the option is there if they think the umpire has overlooked one.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 28,290
- 24,814
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Hawkeye works in Tennis because it is an exact science. We have full footage of the balls impact
Hawkeye in Cricket is still a projection of where it thinks the ball was going, as the ball trajectory stops when it hits the pad. There have been a few instances where I have thought that Hawkeye got it wrong. Thats why we still need an element of umpires call in LBWs.
- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I take the view that we either trust the ball-tracker, or we don't. If it's unreliable then it shouldn't be used at all.
Even if there is a margin of error with ball-tracker, it would be far more consistent - on average - than a human being trying to judge with the naked eye.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 28,290
- 24,814
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
it would be far more consistent - on average
That footage is also at least 10 years old too. I think the technology has improved.
What dazzler was saying is that a very quick summation can be made by cutting to the chase and using ball tracking to see if the ball was going to hit. This cuts out all of the time consuming stuff such as snicko. If it showed it was going to hit then have a look at the other stuff.
The rules have an inbuilt margin of error with the umpires call. In this scenario he still makes a soft call as the fall back. If less than half the ball is hitting then it reverts to UC.
I think the idea would work better than the current 2 reviews per side.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 28,290
- 24,814
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I agree with most of this, and I wouldn't be totally against it being used more frequently.
I just wouldn't be comparing Tennis Hawkeye to Cricket Hawkeye.
Tennis Hawkeye is a digital replication of a total instance (i.e we have the full story captured, provided the cameras tracking the ball are decent).
Cricket Hawkeye is a projected replication of a partial instance. (i.e with decent cameras we have the full story right up until the ball hits the pad, then its in the hands of mathematical modelling). Its not an exact science, so phrases like bolded above should be carefully considered.
Cricket Hawkeye does occasionally get its projections wrong.
Cricket’s review system questioned in new Hawk-Eye scandal
CRICKET’S DRS system has taken a beating following an extraordinary failure of the Hawk-Eye technology during Australia’s win over South Africa on Sunday (AEST).
www.news.com.au
Interesting read on the technology
Hawk-Eye at Wimbledon: it's not as infallible as you think | Suzi Gage
Suzi Gage: Hawk-Eye was frequently called upon at Wimbledon, and will no doubt feature in the Ashes, but how accurate is it?
- Jul 13, 2017
- 4,794
- 8,766
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast Wonders, West Perth
Khawaja looks to be the preferred captain after Paine.
- Jul 13, 2017
- 4,794
- 8,766
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast Wonders, West Perth
Shades of McGrath.
- Nov 27, 2014
- 9,692
- 15,923
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
I think ball tracking might take longer to get working so it’s done in that order to give them time. Always takes the broadcast a few deliveries to get ball tracking of ones that aren’t reviewed. Otherwise I agree they should definitely work out if its 3 reds before the rest.
I agree with most of this, and I wouldn't be totally against it being used more frequently.
I just wouldn't be comparing Tennis Hawkeye to Cricket Hawkeye.
Tennis Hawkeye is a digital replication of a total instance (i.e we have the full story captured, provided the cameras tracking the ball are decent).
Cricket Hawkeye is a projected replication of a partial instance. (i.e with decent cameras we have the full story right up until the ball hits the pad, then its in the hands of mathematical modelling). Its not an exact science, so phrases like bolded above should be carefully considered.
Cricket Hawkeye does occasionally get its projections wrong.
Cricket’s review system questioned in new Hawk-Eye scandal
CRICKET’S DRS system has taken a beating following an extraordinary failure of the Hawk-Eye technology during Australia’s win over South Africa on Sunday (AEST).
Interesting read on the technology
Hawk-Eye at Wimbledon: it's not as infallible as you think | Suzi Gage
Suzi Gage: Hawk-Eye was frequently called upon at Wimbledon, and will no doubt feature in the Ashes, but how accurate is it?www.theguardian.com
I dont think anyone is directly comparing it to Tennis hawkeye, what was initially mentioned is that it could speed up the process to something akin to tennis which only takes about 10 seconds to assess.
I understand it is a projection. An umpire uses a projection in his mind to make a decision. It only becomes not a projection if the leg wasnt there and it hits the stumps. We either accept what it is telling us and use it, or we dont use it at all. Yes it has had some odd rulings before however if you were to show all of the wrong umpire decisions in this test series alone, it would far outweigh the few dodgey HE projections shown here.
Its not perfect but it is by far the best we have available and should be used accordingly.
- Apr 30, 2015
- 13,627
- 24,453
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This is my view exactly.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 28,290
- 24,814
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think it is being used accordingly at the moment.
Do we really want a scenario where the umpire is sending every LBW appeal up for a Hawkeye check ?
Because thats what we will get. We've seen what happens in AFL when the umpires get review control, they lose faith in their ability to make a call (except David Rodan)
- Nov 27, 2014
- 9,692
- 15,923
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
I think they’ve already lost faith in their ability and that’s why we’re in a weird limbo at the moment. The umpires aren’t good enough so the players are now effectively umpiring their own game and reviewing nearly everything anyway. I think there’s only two options moving forward. Reviewing every desicion ala VAR or scrapping it and letting the umpires have faith in their own calls.. and if it’s scrapped, it needs to be entirely. No ball tracking a few deliveries later to prove or disprove the call, just escalates the situation and the umps start second guessing themselves when they see vision later.
No not every one but I think the umpires should be able to send one up if they want to make sure. Currently they cant do this. I think give the teams 1 or 2 each as they have but allow the ump to refer to the 3rd umpire on close ones as they do with a catch or a run out.
We all know there are teams that appeal anything- some of that is part of distracting the batter. The umps wouldn't refer ones they know to be frivolous but if there is one they think, geez it was close, I wouldnt mind having a look then that should be available. And to speed the game up, do the HE first to see if it pitched in line or was predicted to hit.
If we did that we would have a lot more correct decisions with minimal impact on flow of the game.
Also, we dont get the goal umpires reviewing every goal- thats a falacy. Id say on average there would be maybe 4 a game? The umpires make there call but sometimes need to check if someone went close to touching it. Often their calls are justified in that it was very close one way or the other. the big issue with the GLRS is that the tech is s**t and they often have trouble telling if it was touched or not. lots of 1000 fps cameras at every ground are needed for it to work well but it is better than nothing.
