DRS

[frankrizzo]

shithouse commentators add a lot to the perceived drs issues, same blokes who call somebody unlucky when its clipping leg and given out then go on rants(warnie last test) about how if its hitting any part of the stump it must be over turned and given out, give me a break they are either trolling just to create drama or they are just contradictory morons who shouldnt be commentating.

 

[Gethelred]

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

Put yourself in Headingley, in that final over from Lyon against Stokes. Lyon got him dead in front, LBW. Joel Wilson is too cowardly to call it out in defiance of the baying English crowd.

Tim Paine now has a choice here; does he genuinely put the entire game on the line? If Australia's review is rejected due to not being out, they lose the game via the penalty runs. If Australia's review is upheld, the game is won by Australia, but the decision was originally given 'Not out.' so there's going to be doubt in his mind.

He's still being forced to be an umpire, but unlike an umpire he's now under even more pressure. I do not see how this is a better status quo than the present, because this kicks a captain even harder if they're wrong.

Give the reviews to an umpire. Take all LBW's upstairs, as you do run outs. Do anything, except the current status quo.

 

[PhatBoy]

Put yourself in Headingley, in that final over from Lyon against Stokes. Lyon got him dead in front, LBW. Joel Wilson is too cowardly to call it out in defiance of the baying English crowd.

Tim Paine now has a choice here; does he genuinely put the entire game on the line? If Australia's review is rejected due to not being out, they lose the game via the penalty runs. If Australia's review is upheld, the game is won by Australia, but the decision was originally given 'Not out.' so there's going to be doubt in his mind.

He's still being forced to be an umpire, but unlike an umpire he's now under even more pressure. I do not see how this is a better status quo than the present, because this kicks a captain even harder if they're wrong.

Give the reviews to an umpire. Take all LBW's upstairs, as you do run outs. Do anything, except the current status quo.

That's a very good point. Would be all very well and good when a team is 3-120 in the first innings. Might be a bit different in the scenario you're describing.

 

[big_e]

Take all LBW's upstairs,

Only problem is that it takes time to go through the process for an LBW - did they hit it? Check hotspot and snicko, and then get the ball-tracking, etc.

Umpires hardly ever call run-outs themselves even when they are miles in or out, so we waste time going upstairs when they often shouldn't really need to. If we had to do the full process for every half-shout for LBW we'd have 70 overs in a test day if we were lucky.

 

[Gethelred]

Only problem is that it takes time to go through the process for an LBW - did they hit it? Check hotspot and snicko, and then get the ball-tracking, etc.

Umpires hardly ever call run-outs themselves even when they are miles in or out, so we waste time going upstairs when they often shouldn't really need to. If we had to do the full process for every half-shout for LBW we'd have 70 overs in a test day if we were lucky.

I'd prefer it if you couldn't review for line on LBW's, only for pitching outside leg or an edge. I don't like how the status quo relies on captains being better umpires than umpires are, and how it undermines the umpire's call. I don't like hawkeye or ball tracking, as I don't trust it.

But if you want decisions to be correct, this current status quo doesn't serve either camp. It functions as a way for suspense and tension for the broadcasters, and occasionally overturns a shocker, but otherwise it's used to try and pinch a wicket.

 

[big_e]

I'd prefer it if you couldn't review for line on LBW's, only for pitching outside leg or an edge. I don't like how the status quo relies on captains being better umpires than umpires are, and how it undermines the umpire's call. I don't like hawkeye or ball tracking, as I don't trust it.

But if you want decisions to be correct, this current status quo doesn't serve either camp. It functions as a way for suspense and tension for the broadcasters, and occasionally overturns a shocker, but otherwise it's used to try and pinch a wicket.

Why don't you trust it, despite millions of data points? Plus the margin for error being built in to the system, which is why we have umpire's call?

 

[Gethelred]

Why don't you trust it, despite millions of data points? Plus the margin for error being built in to the system, which is why we have umpire's call?

Because the last time I looked into it, even the maker of Hawkeye and the balltracking software was a mite dubious about its reliability.

There's also the fact that - outside of where the ball pitched and whether or not the bat hit the ball before it hit the pad - LBW is an opinion. It's not an objective fact, not always. I'd prefer for it to be the umpire's opinion, to keep the human element in the game; yes, it'd mean that blokes like Bucknor and Joel Wilson go unquestioned, but so too does it mean that England don't spend half their time bowling reviewing speculative LBW's because Stuart Broad is sure that this time - THIS TIME! - it's absolutely out.

If you could only review for pitching outside or edge, then those LBW's aren't reviewed. It's back to the traditional status quo.

 

[big_e]

Because the last time I looked into it, even the maker of Hawkeye and the balltracking software was a mite dubious about its reliability.

There's also the fact that - outside of where the ball pitched and whether or not the bat hit the ball before it hit the pad - LBW is an opinion. It's not an objective fact, not always. I'd prefer for it to be the umpire's opinion, to keep the human element in the game; yes, it'd mean that blokes like Bucknor and Joel Wilson go unquestioned, but so too does it mean that England don't spend half their time bowling reviewing speculative LBW's because Stuart Broad is sure that this time - THIS TIME! - it's absolutely out.

If you could only review for pitching outside or edge, then those LBW's aren't reviewed. It's back to the traditional status quo.

I think we have a higher number of correct decision now than we have ever had in international cricket, and that's far more important to me than "the human element", which is a nice tradition, but fraught with danger.

 

[Gethelred]

I think we have a higher number of correct decision now than we have ever had in international cricket, and that's far more important to me than "the human element", which is a nice tradition, but fraught with danger.

... which is a situation I'm cool with, provided the current status quo is changed to reflect the new situation. In the new situation, we want to get the correct decision, or the old status quo - in which the umpire's decision is paramount - would've been fine, so we do not care how long the reviews take so long as the correct decision is reached.

That's how this needs to be decided. Is rule idiosyncracy okay - in which case removing balltracking and the parts of the LBW review that undermines the umpire makes more sense than the current rules - or do we want to get the correct call every time?

 

[swampy]

Question on DRS and LBW. I saw a replay of Hawkeye on the Pucovski dismissal suggesting that impact in line was “umpires call”. Why is there umpires call at all for whether impact is in line? That’s not a projection, that’s just lining up the stumps with where the ball collided?

of course Puc didn’t review (and would still have been out if he had) but seems like a strange anomaly in how DRS is used.

 

[Wonderdog]

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.

I guess it depends on what you mean by controversia.

Paine clearly did not believe he it. The conventional wisdom has been that a batsman always knows if he has hit it, so that wisdom eas not correct in this case.

Secondly on the video shown while the TV umpire was deliberating it was reasonable to give him out as it was with Pujura earlier in the test. But in the footage shown after the decision was made it shows a clear shadow on the bat as the ball passes.That is Paine’s pt, it is not about the technology it is about consistent interpretation & looking at all the available footage. That later shot changed everything.

 

[gopi2255]

DRS should only be used for assistance, final say must be umpires in situations when technology behaves wierdly.. Check out the worst DRS decision in history of cricket: https://exe.io/wQVkhttps://exe.io/DRS

 

[theiaofseed]

India retain this review despite it missing leg stump if it was correctly lined up.

 

[k31th]

View attachment 1038351

India retain this review despite it missing leg stump if it was correctly lined up.

I don't see what people are looking at here... if you draw a line on that image from the outside of the "stumps visible through Smith's body" (or use the edge of the "darker wicket-indication pathway in front of Smith") it intersects with a few pixels of the blue circle at the end of the blue projected pathway, as per the ball-tracking animation shown on the coverage, e.g it should be umpire's call as less than 50% of the ball is impacting the stumps on the projection.

for example:

 

[theiaofseed]

I don't see what people are looking at here... if you draw a line on that image from the outside of the "stumps visible through Smith's body" (or use the edge of the "darker wicket-indication pathway in front of Smith") it intersects with a few pixels of the blue circle at the end of the blue projected pathway, as per the ball-tracking animation shown on the coverage, e.g it should be umpire's call as less than 50% of the ball is impacting the stumps on the projection.

for example:
View attachment 1038474

How blind are you? Look at the position of off stump to the graphic image of off stump.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Looks like it’s clipping to me.

 

[dogs105]

Looks like it’s clipping to me.

Which set?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Which set?

Leg stump on the first set haha. It looks clear to me.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't see what people are looking at here... if you draw a line on that image from the outside of the "stumps visible through Smith's body" (or use the edge of the "darker wicket-indication pathway in front of Smith") it intersects with a few pixels of the blue circle at the end of the blue projected pathway, as per the ball-tracking animation shown on the coverage, e.g it should be umpire's call as less than 50% of the ball is impacting the stumps on the projection.

for example:
View attachment 1038474

Look where the off stump of the animated set is in relation to where the actual off stump in picture is, and you'll start to see the problem.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Look where the off stump of the animated set is in relation to where the actual off stump in picture is, and you'll start to see the problem.

Oh, haha. That’s trippy.

 

[k31th]

How blind are you? Look at the position of off stump to the graphic image of off stump.

Look where the off stump of the animated set is in relation to where the actual off stump in picture is, and you'll start to see the problem.

Right... I see your point now haha (was looking at the leg stump, not the off stump haha) gee, that's a shocker if they project the stumps behind the batsman different to reality... I hope it's just an issue with fore-shortening (parralax) of cameras vs reality, otherwise it's a fair stuff up...

 

[kickazz]

Probably easier said with diagrams, but can't be stuffed with that, so here goes:

How does ball tracking, and specifically, the "50% of the stump - umpires call" 'rule' apply for a big spinning delivery?

Consider a ball hitting the pad a fair way outside the line of off stump, with the batsman not offering a shot. It is given not out, but bowler reviews.

In this case, is the requirements to hit 50% of the stump:

- 50% of the surface that is facing the umpire, or
- 50% of the surface that is facing the direction the ball is coming from?


I imagine that if the first of the above two apply, then as the angle gets bigger (from bigger spinning balls) then the chances of hitting 50% (as per surface facing umpire) diminishes quite a bit.

 

[k31th]

Probably easier said with diagrams, but can't be stuffed with that, so here goes:

How does ball tracking, and specifically, the "50% of the stump - umpires call" 'rule' apply for a big spinning delivery?

Consider a ball hitting the pad a fair way outside the line of off stump, with the batsman not offering a shot. It is given not out, but bowler reviews.

In this case, is the requirements to hit 50% of the stump:

- 50% of the surface that is facing the umpire, or
- 50% of the surface that is facing the direction the ball is coming from?


I imagine that if the first of the above two apply, then as the angle gets bigger (from bigger spinning balls) then the chances of hitting 50% (as per surface facing umpire) diminishes quite a bit.

It's the 2D projection of the 3D ball in line with the plane between the two sumps where they're perfectly lined up with one another. It's 50%+ of the ball hitting in line with the outer line of off-stump, in this case, to overturn a decision. Less than 50% of the ball hitting in line with the outer line of off-stump, would be "umpire's call".

 

[holybishop]

Hmmmm

 

[melanChronic]

The problem of the 50% umpire's call tolerance not including the top of the stumps/bails has been looming for a while, and now it might play a big part in deciding a tight series.

You've got to wonder who made the decision and how they justified it. It's far too generous to the batsman and makes a mockery of the predictive technology they are hanging the whole system on.