DRS

Remove this Banner Ad

Different sport, different problem and different tech - but this is an interesting point of progression in baseball.



On-field umpires will be told whether each pitch is a strike or a ball based on this Trackman Radar.
The interesting part is the speed at which the tech has improved - to the point where it is almost viable.

I would hope that cricket could get to this stage in the future.
Instantaneous Ultra-Edge and LBW DRS for every appeal - without the 5 minutes of pointless "rock and rolling"
 
greatwhiteshark said:
It is not about getting rid of DRS, it is about using it for what it is for which is to eliminate the howlers, you should never have a situation that a howler can't be sorted because a side has run out of challenges. Take the players out of it and just let the umpires and third umpire do what they have to do to get the dicsions right, no soft calls, no challenges. Let the umpires sort it.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. What irritates me about DRS is what you said, it was intended to eliminate the "HOWLER". This looking at footage over, and over, and over again to see if the player may or may not be out just drives me nuts. If it's not obvious after the first look, stick with the initial decision and get on with the damned game. I trust the integrity of ball tracking as much as I trust the integrity of a politician.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The umpire's call bit accounts for the ball tracking margin of error, so I'm fine with that.

It would be good to see some calibration data for this though. Yes as ILP said the laws of physics > a human's judgement; but the modelling these thing use still relies on a human to program how wind resistance, humidity, ball spin, etc is accounted for. (Unless it has auto calibration capability)

Only bad part at the moment seems to be the assumption that a blip on Snicko = it got the edge of the bat. If there is no hotspot but there is Snicko then I'd almost say that's enough evidence to uphold a soft OUT call, but not enough to overturn a soft not out call. Too many other things can make sounds.
 
kickazz said:
If there is no hotspot but there is Snicko then I'd almost say that's enough evidence to uphold a soft OUT call, but not enough to overturn a soft not out call.
Click to expand...
There has been many decisions overturned just from Snicko thanks to DRS and no one has batted an eyelid until Paine decided to have a sook. There was nothing controversial about that decision.
 
holybishop said:
There has been many decisions overturned just from Snicko thanks to DRS and no one has batted an eyelid until Paine decided to have a sook. There was nothing controversial about that decision.
Click to expand...
Problem wasn't in giving that one out. Problem was in giving Rahane (IIRC) not out based on similar evidence yesterday, well before he got anywhere near 100.
And people loooooove a whinge, so why people are surprised about this ruffling a few feathers is a bit beyond me.
 
I still think the umpire's call rule disadvantages bowlers differently to batsmen. Currently, if an LBW given not out, referred and shown to be just hitting, it is umpire's call. Why then is it not the same the other way around? Umpire gives it out, referral shows the ball to just be missing. Shouldn't that same margin for error apply and it remain umpire's call?
 
Ducky Tie said:
I still think the umpire's call rule disadvantages bowlers differently to batsmen. Currently, if an LBW given not out, referred and shown to be just hitting, it is umpire's call. Why then is it not the same the other way around? Umpire gives it out, referral shows the ball to just be missing. Shouldn't that same margin for error apply and it remain umpire's call?
Click to expand...

Yeah good points. I can only guess it's based on adhering to the old "benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman" rule.

Is be happy if they at least adopted your proposition for the hitting outside line of off/ no shot offered scenario.
 
kickazz said:
Yeah good points. I can only guess it's based on adhering to the old "benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman" rule.

Is be happy if they at least adopted your proposition for the hitting outside line of off/ no shot offered scenario.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the ICC's position on it. There's no official benefit of the doubt rule, so I'd be interested in their explanation.
 
Ducky Tie said:
I still think the umpire's call rule disadvantages bowlers differently to batsmen. Currently, if an LBW given not out, referred and shown to be just hitting, it is umpire's call. Why then is it not the same the other way around? Umpire gives it out, referral shows the ball to just be missing. Shouldn't that same margin for error apply and it remain umpire's call?
Click to expand...
The entirety of the uncertainly is accounted for equally on both "halfs" of the ball.
E.g. the outside of the leg stump in your two scenario's...
1. "just hitting" is less than half of the ball inside the line of the outside of leg stump, that's going to stick with either 'out' or 'not out' original decisions.
2. "just missing" is 0% of the ball hitting inside the line of leg stump always overturns whatever call, e.g. "out" would become "not out" or "out" would become "not out".

Seems fair to both batter and bowler to me.
 
holybishop said:
There has been many decisions overturned just from Snicko thanks to DRS and no one has batted an eyelid until Paine decided to have a sook. There was nothing controversial about that decision.
Click to expand...

I've batted an eyelid every time it's happened. Absolutely insane to use Snicko to overturn a call with no Hotspot, and I can't understand why people are OK with it. Literally anything could cause a sound to turn up on Snicko.

If the umpire's call is out and there's no Hotspot but there is a Snicko then fine, Umpire's Call, uphold decision. But while you're right that the Paine call isn't controversial, IT SHOULD BE.

Separately, I also laugh whenever people reckon they're better at judging the bounce of a cricket ball on camera than computer modelling.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

k31th said:
The entirety of the uncertainly is accounted for equally on both "halfs" of the ball.
E.g. the outside of the leg stump in your two scenario's...
1. "just hitting" is less than half of the ball inside the line of the outside of leg stump, that's going to stick with either 'out' or 'not out' original decisions.
2. "just missing" is 0% of the ball hitting inside the line of leg stump always overturns whatever call, e.g. "out" would become "not out" or "out" would become "not out".

Seems fair to both batter and bowler to me.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something, but it still doesn't equate fairly as far as I can see. Without DRS, a ball only needs to clip the stumps to knock the bails off. The fact that a portion of the ball is missing the wicket doesn't really matter. Now in terms of DRS - umpire's call is a purely contrived notion so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to a ball that just misses the stumps. A batter gets the benefit of the doubt when given not out, even if DRS shows the ball to be clipping. The margin for error allows for ball tracking to not be entirely accurate. If it is given out LBW and ball tracking shows the ball to be just missing, that same margin for error is still there. Despite ball tracking showing 0% of the ball hitting the wicket, isn't that the point of the margin for error allowance?
 
Ducky Tie said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but it still doesn't equate fairly as far as I can see. Without DRS, a ball only needs to clip the stumps to knock the bails off. The fact that a portion of the ball is missing the wicket doesn't really matter. Now in terms of DRS - umpire's call is a purely contrived notion so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to a ball that just misses the stumps. A batter gets the benefit of the doubt when given not out, even if DRS shows the ball to be clipping. The margin for error allows for ball tracking to not be entirely accurate. If it is given out LBW and ball tracking shows the ball to be just missing, that same margin for error is still there. Despite ball tracking showing 0% of the ball hitting the wicket, isn't that the point of the margin for error allowance?
Click to expand...
The entirety of the allowance of margin of error is in my point#1 and it's fair due to it allowing umpires to be less than perfect in close scenarios
 
k31th said:
The entirety of the uncertainly is accounted for equally on both "halfs" of the ball.
E.g. the outside of the leg stump in your two scenario's...
1. "just hitting" is less than half of the ball inside the line of the outside of leg stump, that's going to stick with either 'out' or 'not out' original decisions.
2. "just missing" is 0% of the ball hitting inside the line of leg stump always overturns whatever call, e.g. "out" would become "not out" or "out" would become "not out".

Seems fair to both batter and bowler to me.
Click to expand...
'

I think this was your point, but in case I missed some context - that's not the rule. It's not part of the ball hitting part of the stump (all that is needed to dislodge the bails).

As of now,
>50% of the ball must hit the MIDDLE of the stump to be "Hitting".
>100% of the ball must be missing the outside of the stump to be "MISSING"
"Umpire's Call" is used for the rest.

The margins are WAY too big.



The stumps are 38mm wide (e), so there's 19mm margin of error immediately. 1609320536146.png

Similarly, the ball is 22.9cm in circumference (73mm diameter), so there's another 36mm error margin. (https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-ball)

That gives a 55mm 'advantage' to the batsman. About the length of your thumb!

if any of the ball is hitting the middle of the stump - it needs to be made "HITTING". That reduces the batsman's advantage to 19mm - a significant improvement.

... I'd also love to see the stats on umpires "umpire's calls" - often it feels like one team 'loses' DRS on umpire's call a lot, I wonder if it's been collated (publicly) anywhere.
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
'

I think this was your point, but in case I missed some context - that's not the rule. It's not part of the ball hitting part of the stump (all that is needed to dislodge the bails).

As of now,
>50% of the ball must hit the MIDDLE of the stump to be "Hitting".
>100% of the ball must be missing the outside of the stump to be "MISSING"
"Umpire's Call" is used for the rest.

The margins are WAY too big.



The stumps are 38mm wide (e), so there's 19mm margin of error immediately.View attachment 1034025

Similarly, the ball is 22.9cm in circumference (73mm diameter), so there's another 36mm error margin. (https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-ball)

That gives a 55mm 'advantage' to the batsman. About the length of your thumb!

if any of the ball is hitting the middle of the stump - it needs to be made "HITTING". That reduces the batsman's advantage to 19mm - a significant improvement.

... I'd also love to see the stats on umpires "umpire's calls" - often it feels like one team 'loses' DRS on umpire's call a lot, I wonder if it's been collated (publicly) anywhere.
Click to expand...
All of that analysis is great, if you didn't just quote the wrong measuring stick with regard to impact with stumps on ball tracking.

Rules and Regulations | Cricket Australia

Cricket Australia sets and manages the playing conditions that apply to international and interstate cricket in Australia.
www.cricketaustralia.com.au www.cricketaustralia.com.au
go to "ICC Men's Test Match Playing Conditions"
go to 3.4.6.2
quote:
"The Wicket Zone is defined as a two dimensional area whose boundaries are the outside of the outer stumps, the base of the stumps and the bottom of the bails"
and 3.4.6.3
quote:
"The ball-tracking technology shall report whether the ball would have hit the wicket with reference to the following three categories:
Hitting - The ball was hitting the wicket, and the centre of the ball was inside the Wicket Zone
Umpire’s Call - The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone
Missing - The ball was missing the wicket"

I agree the zone is large and easily accounts for the margin of error of the ball tracking system in use, but it's an agreed-upon margin of error that makes logical sense and is equally fair to all nations who agree to use DRS ball-tracking hardware/software.
 
k31th said:
All of that analysis is great, if you didn't just quote the wrong measuring stick with regard to impact with stumps on ball tracking.

Rules and Regulations | Cricket Australia

Cricket Australia sets and manages the playing conditions that apply to international and interstate cricket in Australia.
www.cricketaustralia.com.au www.cricketaustralia.com.au
go to "ICC Men's Test Match Playing Conditions"
go to 3.4.6.2
quote:
"The Wicket Zone is defined as a two dimensional area whose boundaries are the outside of the outer stumps, the base of the stumps and the bottom of the bails"
and 3.4.6.3
quote:
"The ball-tracking technology shall report whether the ball would have hit the wicket with reference to the following three categories:
Hitting - The ball was hitting the wicket, and the centre of the ball was inside the Wicket Zone
Umpire’s Call - The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone
Missing - The ball was missing the wicket"

I agree the zone is large and easily accounts for the margin of error of the ball tracking system in use, but it's an agreed-upon margin of error that makes logical sense and is equally fair to all nations who agree to use DRS ball-tracking hardware/software.
Click to expand...

That's better, but still not how it's actually being applied.

They are using the centre of the outer stumps as the "Wicket Zone" and requiring the centre of the ball to hit. (Using the centre of either combined with the edge of the other would be better)
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
That's better, but still not how it's actually being applied.

They are using the centre of the outer stumps as the "Wicket Zone" and requiring the centre of the ball to hit. (Using the centre of either combined with the edge of the other would be better)
Click to expand...
No, they're not. They use the outer edge of the outer stumps in alignment with the centre of the ball as the delineation between "hitting" and "umpire's call" as per the regulations as in 3.4.6.2
 
k31th said:
No, they're not. They use the outer edge of the outer stumps in alignment with the centre of the ball as the delineation between "hitting" and "umpire's call" as per the regulations as in 3.4.6.2
Click to expand...

This is what the rule is, and supposedly should be:
1609503129288.png

But that's not how it's being used:
1609502997669.png 1609503017996.png 1609503079782.png
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
... I'd also love to see the stats on umpires "umpire's calls" - often it feels like one team 'loses' DRS on umpire's call a lot, I wonder if it's been collated (publicly) anywhere.
Click to expand...
Ex-*******-actly. No one with functioning eyes could deny that the DRS is far less howler-prone than the meatbags standing 20m+ away who only get a couple of seconds to decide on something that happens very fast that they only get to see from one angle and only once.

Currently regardless of DRS margin of error the call on the field can have an enormous and unbalanced impact on the outcome of games (and I'm not suggesting impropriety on the part of any umpires either).

If you take umpires call out of the equation there are only 2 possible outcomes regarding error (both of which will be of a far lower magnitude than the umpires anyway)

1. The systemic error is consistent. E.g. the calibration is slightly off meaning the ball tracking measures the ball slightly off-side of where it really is.

Result: Both teams get the same conditions when asking for reviews.

2. The systemic error is random e.g little fluctuations in the tracking of the ball each delivery due to reflections/shadows etc.

Result: the errors will, over time, balance out and not impact one team or the other significantly more.

Either way we would end up with a much fairer system than we currently do.

Separate to the fairness aspect, having a review come up where the ball is shown cannoning into the top of the stumps but the batsman remains not out just looks ******* stupid too.
 
PhatBoy said:
THIS

THANK YOU.

That’s the phrase I’ve used since this system was brought in. Players have had three skills - evolving, but at their core still the same - since the game began.

A limited use system is asking them to add a fourth.
That’s the only beef I have with it. That by limiting it to a certain number of challenges, you’re asking them to become umpires. My suggestion has always been to add 10 extras to the opposition total per incorrect referral. It would deter sides from using them frivolously but ensure that even if they’d made some incorrect reviews, they can still go upstairs later on when a batsman hits fresh air but gets given out
Click to expand...
Don't you think 10 extras is a little harsh? 10 runs in a t20/odi especially would easily change the results of many games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

11kgm
BBL and WBBL to finally have DRS; Bash Boost and X-Factor scrapped
Replies
7
Views
747
corbies
corbies

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top