Australia v New Zealand 2nd Test at the MCG December 26-30

[imperial_oz]

Except that video backstage at DRS explains that its a completely human decision where the ball impacted along the computer tracked journey.

Except that human decision is to pick between 2 frames of cameras operating at 200 frames per second. The difference in location between frames is going to be what? A millimetre? How far will a ball travel in 1/200th of a second?

Quick math here: a ball delivered at 140 kmh would move 0.000194 metres in 1/200th of a second or 0.194 millimetres or roughly 1/5th of a millimetre

Thats not going to give you any wiggle room to say that ball tracking isn't accurate because of human decision making

 

[Woody15]

Well in this case they got it wrong, clear as day.
I know they're using multiple images but when it all comes down to it yeh there is a guy going "yep there's the impact"

I know it wasnt a review going on during the backstage pass, but he paused that shot at least 2 or 3 frames after the impact is made.

I wouldnt go as far as saying 'clear as day'. This decision was incredibly close as shown in the video. It was a matter of millimetres that the decision was based on.

 

[Jimthegreat]

The match was over by then and my post that he responded to was just saying that Blundell should've been MOTM instead of Head which isn't that outrageous as Blundell scored his hundred as an opener against a better bowling attack but the MOTM usually goes to a player on the winning side so it wasn't surprising that Head got it.

He scored it when the game was well and truly all over. MOTM goes usually to the player that sets up the win. Blundell played well but certainly contributed nothing to winning the game, not in the 2nd innings chasing 488 and falling 247 short. You might've had more of an argument if he got it in the first innings, when the game was still going but even then Head may have got it due to his side winning. As I said, MOTM usually looks for the players that does most to set up the win. A MOTM from the losing side needs to so something really spectacular.

 

[RookiePick]

No I didn't miss the bit where the colour changes but you missed the bit where the images are not the same. You also missed the bit where it was explained that DRS does NOT show the actual point of impact because its a projection onto a LATER image after the batsman has moved.

If you want to compare point of impact and DRS point of impact, you need to use the exact same image at the exact same time before the batsman moves, otherwise you cannot possibly get a plotted point of impact that exactly matches the filmed point of impact.

Clearly the batsman has moved between the two images, which explains why you are seeing a difference. If you didn't see any difference, then DRS would be wrong

The photo looks as though Paine is struck outside the line, irrespective of the arguments about where on the pad he is struck between the picture and the DRS projection. Your argument about the image used in the DRS projection not being a frame rate matched one seems valid enough to me - basically ignore the image of the batsman and only examine the flight path of the ball in relation to the stumps for pitching outside leg and impact in line. Snicko took decades before they could reliably match the audio to the vision. This doesn't reconcile the appearance of Paine being struck outside the line in the photo vs the DRS showing it easily hitting him in line.

One way to plausibly explain the difference in where Paine is struck, looking at the picture and the alignment of the stumps and where DRS has the point of impact is if there is parallax error in the photo ie the camera is not perfectly in line and square with the stumps.

These are the things that could be explained to the audience but they don't because they think it is boring or the audience won't understand. It actually undermines the trust in the technology when people see such clear differences in what they observe (ignoring the eye is pretty easily tricked) and why it occurs isn't explained. If the photo has no error then it's interesting to see how DRS came to such a visually different result - is it a trick of the eye or is there an issue with DRS. It can't be infallible - the wear of a pitch and a ball can only be modelled so accurately - the variables are infinite IMO.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Most of the cheating comments I make are tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously, NZ and their players cop plenty of stick here too like being called sheep shaggers etc so it's not all one way traffic. I don't see the problem with that sort of banter anyway as long as it doesn't get personal.

We need tongue-in-cheek emojis as well as for sarcasm etc....

 

[DangerSloane]

I wouldnt go as far as saying 'clear as day'. This decision was incredibly close as shown in the video. It was a matter of millimetres that the decision was based on.

The decision is based on millimeters but was inches out of alignment so the millimeters became completely pointless.

Watch the live vision again and tell me the point of impact is correct with a straight face.

 

[imperial_oz]

The photo looks as though Paine is struck outside the line, irrespective of the arguments about where on the pad he is struck between the picture and the DRS projection. Your argument about the image used in the DRS projection not being a frame rate matched one seems valid enough to me - basically ignore the image of the batsman and only examine the flight path of the ball in relation to the stumps for pitching outside leg and impact in line. Snicko took decades before they could reliably match the audio to the vision. This doesn't reconcile the appearance of Paine being struck outside the line in the photo vs the DRS showing it easily hitting him in line.

One way to plausibly explain the difference in where Paine is struck, looking at the picture and the alignment of the stumps and where DRS has the point of impact is if there is parallax error in the photo ie the camera is not perfectly in line and square with the stumps.

These are the things that could be explained to the audience but they don't because they think it is boring or the audience won't understand. It actually undermines the trust in the technology when people see such clear differences in what they observe (ignoring the eye is pretty easily tricked) and why it occurs isn't explained. If the photo has no error then it's interesting to see how DRS came to such a visually different result - is it a trick of the eye or is there an issue with DRS. It can't be infallible - the wear of a pitch and a ball can only be modelled so accurately - the variables are infinite IMO.

Ball tracking is a proven technology. The margin for error with four cameras shooting at 200 frames per second is extremely small. The variations come in with the predictions after the tracking is over and those variations are not very large. Ball tracking is certainly more accurate than the naked eye. Tracking predictions are going to depend on the software used to calculate the exact ball position and trajectory.

The photo shown doesn't have enough points of reference to call it accurately either way. To me it looks on the line. Ball tracking is most likely to be correct.

 

[DangerSloane]

Except that human decision is to pick between 2 frames of cameras operating at 200 frames per second. The difference in location between frames is going to be what? A millimetre? How far will a ball travel in 1/200th of a second?

Quick math here: a ball delivered at 140 kmh would move 0.000194 metres in 1/200th of a second or 0.194 millimetres or roughly 1/5th of a millimetre

Thats not going to give you any wiggle room to say that ball tracking isn't accurate because of human decision making

I dont need 'wiggle room'. I watched it happen live! Then on 15 replays.
It wasnt once in line when it struck him.

If it was just down to 2 frames then maybe you'd be right. But two frames dont move the ball a couple of inches sideways.

 

[DangerSloane]

Ball tracking is a proven technology. The margin for error with four cameras shooting at 200 frames per second is extremely small. The variations come in with the predictions after the tracking is over and those variations are not very large. Ball tracking is certainly more accurate than the naked eye. Tracking predictions are going to depend on the software used to calculate the exact ball position and trajectory.

The photo shown doesn't have enough points of reference to call it accurately either way. To me it looks on the line. Ball tracking is most likely to be correct.

The ball tracking wasn't the issue.
Point of impact is the issue and is decided by humans in the box and something has gone wrong along that process.

The path of the ball wasnt wrong necessarily. It was crashing into the stumps no doubt.

Also I think you'd better re-assess your accuracy of the DRS. There have been a number where the tracking has been a bit wack

 

[frankrizzo]

"Did Warney ever want a rest and give Stuart MacGill a go? I won't be resting," Lyon quipped.

Good to see gaz swipe back at warney for his embarrassing suggestion during this test, warne being the petty child he is you can expect him to now nitpick everything lyon does from this point on.

 

[imperial_oz]

I dont need 'wiggle room'. I watched it happen live! Then on 15 replays.
It wasnt once in line when it struck him.

If it was just down to 2 frames then maybe you'd be right. But two frames dont move the ball a couple of inches sideways.

I watched it happen live as well and there is no way you can genuinely claim the ball was moved 3 or 4 inches to the right. That didn't happen

 

[CrowBloke]

1) If you want to discuss me on a public forum, make sure you have your facts straight because everything you posted is complete crap. There was NO gay slur.
2) Anyway, as Doss said, it's off topic. If you want to continue this crap, PM me direct. Besides, you clearly have no idea what my 'intention' was.

I apologise again to you and all for coming in late. So my post about the matter came in late after a truce was called and was late on the scene, but I wanted to support what Gough and Wedge McManus had said.
I backtracked, read every post, every exchange, to make sure i got the whole thing and did not post myself until I had.

1) I wasn't discussing you. I don't know you and made no comment about you at all. I was discussing what you said and their reaction/s, and yours.
Where we disagree is about the meaning of what you said.
2) I noted that: "The poster has defended the comment without budging and is unlikely to be dissuaded or convinced otherwise. Men calling out other men on issues like these are rarely well-received ".
I think your intention was to make a joke. The only time I referred to "intention" was to talk about the "light-hearted banter" and outright ridicule and bullying that Gough received growing up. My intention was to point out that 'jokes' like that are not jokes to the recipient, or some other people that hear them.
Disagreement is healthy.

I will not PM you directly for two reasons:
--- you said that it is "crap", above. You've dismissed every example and counter-argument proposed to you. Your mind is made up.
--- you are not going to be persuaded. PM-ing you would be a waste of my time and yours.

 

[Richard Pryor]

"Did Warney ever want a rest and give Stuart MacGill a go? I won't be resting," Lyon quipped.

Good to see gaz swipe back at warney for his embarrassing suggestion during this test, warne being the petty child he is you can expect him to now nitpick everything lyon does from this point on.

Feel like the tide is turning though to be honest. Felt like his fellow commentators were starting to call him out a bit. Not far from him getting outright called a clown on air I reckon.

 

[Gough]

Let's put yesterday to bed please fellas. We've all said out bit.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I apologise again to you and all for coming in late. So my post about the matter came in late after a truce was called and was late on the scene, but I wanted to support what Gough and Wedge McManus had said.
I backtracked, read every post, every exchange, to make sure i got the whole thing and did not post myself until I had.

1) I wasn't discussing you. I don't know you and made no comment about you at all. I was discussing what you said and their reaction/s, and yours.
Where we disagree is about the meaning of what you said.
2) I noted that: "The poster has defended the comment without budging and is unlikely to be dissuaded or convinced otherwise. Men calling out other men on issues like these are rarely well-received ".
I think your intention was to make a joke. The only time I referred to "intention" was to talk about the "light-hearted banter" and outright ridicule and bullying that Gough received growing up. My intention was to point out that 'jokes' like that are not jokes to the recipient, or some other people that hear them.
Disagreement is healthy.

I will not PM you directly for two reasons:
--- you said that it is "crap", above. You've dismissed every example and counter-argument proposed to you. Your mind is made up.
--- you are not going to be persuaded. PM-ing you would be a waste of my time and yours.

Damn, we really out here getting academic essays on cricket shitposts

 

[frankrizzo]

Feel like the tide is turning though to be honest. Felt like his fellow commentators were starting to call him out a bit. Not far from him getting outright called a clown on air I reckon.

The nine comm box was warnes safe space really, all his fellow superstar teammates who would never question him but these new teams are more diverse so more willing to call it out.

 

[Doss]

"Did Warney ever want a rest and give Stuart MacGill a go? I won't be resting," Lyon quipped.

Good to see gaz swipe back at warney for his embarrassing suggestion during this test, warne being the petty child he is you can expect him to now nitpick everything lyon does from this point on.

There is nothing surer. Loves a grudge, old SKW.

 

[DangerSloane]

I watched it happen live as well and there is no way you can genuinely claim the ball was moved 3 or 4 inches to the right. That didn't happen

Its gone from 1-2 inches to 3-4
It went from the outside third of his pad to the inside third.
So it moved about a third of a pad.

In a room of 10 people every single one of us went hang on that's not where it hit him.
Then we went and rewound it multiple times and watched the whole thing including DRS again and again.

It was clearly wrong. I dont know how else to say it but it wasnt even debatable.
I mean Paine could see it was messed up from the middle on the big screen!

Anyway given the other rhetoric you're involved with here, please dont mind me if i completely disregard your incorrect opinion.

 

[imperial_oz]

Its gone from 1-2 inches to 3-4
It went from the outside third of his pad to the inside third.
So it moved about a third of a pad.

In a room of 10 people every single one of us went hang on that's not where it hit him.
Then we went and rewound it multiple times and watched the whole thing including DRS again and again.

It was clearly wrong. I dont know how else to say it but it wasnt even debatable.
I mean Paine could see it was messed up from the middle on the big screen!

Anyway given the other rhetoric you're involved with here, please dont mind me if i completely disregard your incorrect opinion.

Yeah do that but you are still basing your call on the pads of a batsman who has moved between shots, so thats an invalid comparison.

Base your call on the frame of reference that doesn't move, the line between the stumps. Your claims of Ball Tracking showing it hit the inside of his leg is just plain wrong.

 

[Marklar_33]

I reckon you could think about how you post too

Oh boy oh boy. Have you met kettle?

 

[Marklar_33]

Pretty good explanation on how DRS is used and how the point of impact is determined

I haven’t watched the video, so forgive me...but why do we need to determine point of impact if it is, as they say, “ball tracking”?

 

[CrowBloke]

Let's just stick to discussing the cricket people. This has gone on way too long and has gone way off-topic.

Apologies for recent exchanges/posts. I came in late, missed many pages yesterday, and only read your post now.

 

[Van_Dyke]

"Did Warney ever want a rest and give Stuart MacGill a go? I won't be resting," Lyon quipped.

Good to see gaz swipe back at warney for his embarrassing suggestion during this test, warne being the petty child he is you can expect him to now nitpick everything lyon does from this point on.

I now look forward to Warne calling for Swepson over Lyon until Lyon retires now.

 

[CrowBloke]

Would people think about bringing Marcus Harris back into the team?

Not me. He hasn't bowled in a Test yet (9) and is not a test-level fieldsman. Has not made enough runs to justify selection over Burns, nor to compensate for the other shortcomings. Top 6 batsmen must also be gun fieldsmen.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that Burns is strong enough for this side.
Bancroft, meh. Renshaw, maybe.
What poz does Pucovski bat?

 

[philreich]

Do you have the Starc stat for this?

No I don't, but he's taken 42 wickets at 21 this year, so I reckon he's done OK.