DRS

[iluvparis]

Yes, it was brought in to address the 'howlers' but what we see now is technology adjudicating on extremely marginal calls.

That's the players fault

 

[LordLucifer]

That's the players fault

No its not, its the administrators for allowing it to happen.

 

[iluvparis]

No its not, its the administrators for allowing it to happen.

So how do you want the system to work - if we only give them 1 challenge per innings they will still blow it rather than sit around and wait for the howler.

 

[LordLucifer]

So how do you want the system to work - if we only give them 1 challenge per innings they will still blow it rather than sit around and wait for the howler.

Just get rid of the thing altogether and spend more time training umpires.

 

[k31th]

Just get rid of the thing altogether and spend more time training umpires.

Do you honestly think training umpires to be better will remove even a tiny percent of their human fallibility?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Just refer ALL decisions to video umpires (who are specialists working with the technicians). WE have the technology - we just need to use it.

No ball is simple - wides can be the same as they are distinct measures without any prediction requirements. The system could perhaps even be automated based on available technology to prompt calls.

Edges (Snicko/Hot Spot) are both reasonably quick and won't delay the game excessively.

LBW/DRS still takes too much time to setup, so efforts need to be made on speeding up this process. It needs to be able to run at the same speed as the game (ie 30 seconds between deliveries).

 

[iluvparis]

Just refer ALL decisions to video umpires (who are specialists working with the technicians). WE have the technology - we just need to use it.

No ball is simple - wides can be the same as they are distinct measures without any prediction requirements. The system could perhaps even be automated based on available technology to prompt calls.

Edges (Snicko/Hot Spot) are both reasonably quick and won't delay the game excessively.

LBW/DRS still takes too much time to setup, so efforts need to be made on speeding up this process. It needs to be able to run at the same speed as the game (ie 30 seconds between deliveries).

What is the definition of a decision - any appeal? Good way to run out the clock if the bowling side things the batting team is on top.

 

[LordLucifer]

Do you honestly think training umpires to be better will remove even a tiny percent of their human fallibility?

I'd rather try and have better umpires than the total farce we have entered into with the electronic age.

 

[k31th]

I'd rather try and have better umpires than the total farce we have entered into with the electronic age.

It's unfortunate that you think DRS is a farce. It's just not on almost every measure.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

What is the definition of a decision - any appeal? Good way to run out the clock if the bowling side things the batting team is on top.

Easily fixed by applying appropriate penalties for 'failed' appeals/time-wasting.

Keep in mind batting team never need to challenge under that system, so time-wasting remains the responsibility of the fielding team.

Be it financial, penalty runs, suspensions....certainly something harsher than what we have now...

 

[holybishop]

Just refer ALL decisions to video umpires (who are specialists working with the technicians). WE have the technology - we just need to use it.

They tried that in the 2012/13 ODD competition. It was such a massive failure that CA dropped it after only 2 rounds.

One-dayer umpire shift

A near revolt from players persuades Cricket Australia to axe overruling of on-field decisions.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

They tried that in the 2012/13 ODD competition. It was such a massive failure that CA dropped it after only 2 rounds.

One-dayer umpire shift

A near revolt from players persuades Cricket Australia to axe overruling of on-field decisions.

www.smh.com.au

Didn't know that. I presume the tech (and more importantly the method of use) has improved considerably since then. I remember batsmen walking to the boundary then waiting a considerable length of time for the front-foot no-ball call to be determined. Now it's usually in the umpire's ear within seconds.

Pulling it after just two rounds makes it more likely a PR call - everyone would still be in the early adjustment phase so little usable data. Definitely worthwhile trialling properly at the top level (where suitable cameras and tech are all available).

 

[melanChronic]

Pant was very lucky to survive a review early in his innings last night. Another not out lbw decision which was not overturned on review despite being predicted to clatter into the stumps.

It was almost a carbon copy of the non-decision against Pujara at the Gabba which was discected here. Both moments have been hugely pivotal in the trajectory of a test match.

Clearly something is wrong with the protocol when these reviews are not overturning not out decisions. Unfortunate that India were the beneficiaries in both cases, because to change DRS laws you really need them to cop the raw end of a few like this.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think we need to change the way we look at the ball tracking. The path of the ball is not certain, it is a prediction and like all predictions carries a margin of error. The way the graphic is presented needs to be changed. I think it needs to show the whole zone, not just a ball sized object. The amount of error also increases with distance - if the batter is hit on the front pad the predicted zone will be larger than if the batter is hit on the back pad. I think we need to see the whole of the possible impact zone. In some cases the possible zone could be the size of a saucer when projected onto the stumps, it will certainly be larger than just the size of the ball.

So rather than just showing a ball size object right in the middle of the possible pathways, and then allowing for errors, we need to show the errors on the graphic so people can visualise the error zone. In the example above, if the possible path of the ball was the size of a saucer you'd say there was a chance it might have been hitting, and a chance that it might not.

 

[Gethelred]

I think we need to change the way we look at the ball tracking. The path of the ball is not certain, it is a prediction and like all predictions carries a margin of error. The way the graphic is presented needs to be changed. I think it needs to show the whole zone, not just a ball sized object. The amount of error also increases with distance - if the batter is hit on the front pad the predicted zone will be larger than if the batter is hit on the back pad. I think we need to see the whole of the possible impact zone. In some cases the possible zone could be the size of a saucer when projected onto the stumps, it will certainly be larger than just the size of the ball.

So rather than just showing a ball size object right in the middle of the possible pathways, and then allowing for errors, we need to show the errors on the graphic so people can visualise the error zone. In the example above, if the possible path of the ball was the size of a saucer you'd say there was a chance it might have been hitting, and a chance that it might not.

Great idea. Instead of using 'umpire's call' to reflect the uncertainty, show the uncertainty.

 

[akkaps]

Bumping thread.

Have noticed that cricinfo are now displaying DRS results lists beside each umpire and part of the Live Scorecard.

 

[Rabish Binney]

A

Ahhh the good times when the Umpy goes up with the bowler....

 

[swampy]

i see a few issues / inconsistencies in how DRS is currently implemented. One pet peeve is where there are appeals for LBW with bat potentially involved. The umpire may give “not out” for an LB appeal believing there’s an inside edge, but otherwise believes it hit in line / hitting the wickets. If the 3rd umpire looks at it and finds it is actually pad first, and they go to ball tracking, if it’s umpires call on either hitting in line or hitting wickets it will be adjudged “not out” even through the umpires call on those was actually “out”. Similarly the on field umpire may give “out” for bat pad but would give not out for LB (believing hit outside line or missing wickets). If third umpire finds no inside edge but umpires call on LB, I believe that would be “out” under the current interpretation.

The more logical approach should be that the on field umpire has to state their judgement on hitting in line / hitting wickets at the time of the appeal so it’s clear what the umpires call actually is!