Remove this Banner Ad

DRS

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

holybishop said:
View attachment 1042907

Hmmmm
Click to expand...
It really doesn't make any sense when compared to the previous not out decision, does it?

Coupled with that stump misalignment farce, there seems to be a few bugs in the system at the moment. Will get lost in the storm around Australia's loss, but who is responsible for this crap?
 
melanChronic said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is far too generous to the umpire, not the batsman or the bowler as it's the "umpire's call" zone that's lengthened as compared to the left and right outer-edges of the stumps.
 
They simply need to make it so that if less than X% of the ball is hitting any part of the stumps it's umpire's call, and if the ball is missing the stumps by X% of the ball's diameter it's also umpire's call. You can tune X to whatever you think is appropriate, but you won't get ridiculous situations where the ball is hitting leg stump flush but because the centre of the ball is slightly outside the centre of the stump it's umpire's call (unless you set X to 90% or something ridiculous), and you can get an umpire's call if the ball is projected to miss by a bee's dick. I'd suggest using 25% as a starting point. This will also shift things in the bowler's favour a little, while keeping the overall range in which umpire's call is relevant approximately equal.

It strikes me that the current rules have been written by people with no understanding of maths, probability, or the projection technology.

Taking the time to make sure stump projections are properly aligned would also help - even if it's just a visual issue and has no impact on the actual assessment and decision, it undermines the confidence of the public.

They also need to stop using Snicko as primary evidence. As far as I'm concerned, if there's no Hot Spot then you can't conclude the batsman has hit it. If a Snicko appears, you can make it Umpire's Call and uphold, but not overturn, a decision.

Make those changes and the vast majority of DRS complaints will be resolved.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BarneyBent said:
They simply need to make it so that if less than X% of the ball is hitting any part of the stumps it's umpire's call, and if the ball is missing the stumps by X% of the ball's diameter it's also umpire's call. You can tune X to whatever you think is appropriate, but you won't get ridiculous situations where the ball is hitting leg stump flush but because the centre of the ball is slightly outside the centre of the stump it's umpire's call (unless you set X to 90% or something ridiculous), and you can get an umpire's call if the ball is projected to miss by a bee's dick. I'd suggest using 25% as a starting point. This will also shift things in the bowler's favour a little, while keeping the overall range in which umpire's call is relevant approximately equal.

It strikes me that the current rules have been written by people with no understanding of maths, probability, or the projection technology.

Taking the time to make sure stump projections are properly aligned would also help - even if it's just a visual issue and has no impact on the actual assessment and decision, it undermines the confidence of the public.

They also need to stop using Snicko as primary evidence. As far as I'm concerned, if there's no Hot Spot then you can't conclude the batsman has hit it. If a Snicko appears, you can make it Umpire's Call and uphold, but not overturn, a decision.

Make those changes and the vast majority of DRS complaints will be resolved.
Click to expand...
Your suggestions are good except for having "umpire's call" for missing the stumps inside %X, as that'll just add further confusion.
 
big_e said:
Might be worth putting this in, from the ICC playing conditions for test cricket.

View attachment 1043256
Click to expand...
your screenshot would be more useful if you'd included the entirety of the "Wicket Zone" definition as the part you've got there refers to it many times haha
 
k31th said:
your screenshot would be more useful if you'd included the entirety of the "Wicket Zone" definition as the part you've got there refers to it many times haha
Click to expand...
Bugger. That's why you should never screenshot from a mobile....

Here's the full section (from here) with the bolded bits highlighting mention's of umpire's call and the wicket zone.

3.4 Review of LBW Decisions

3.4.1 In assessing whether a batsman is Out LBW in accordance with clause 36, the third umpire shall first judge whether the delivery is fair (as set out in clause 36.1.1), and second, whether or not the ball has touched the bat before being intercepted by any part of the striker’s person (as set out in clause 36.1.3).
3.4.2 If the batsman is still eligible to be Out, the ball-tracking technology shall then present three pieces of information to the third umpire relating to the path of the ball:
3.4.2.1 The point of pitching (where applicable) (PITCHING)
3.4.2.2 The position of the ball at the point of first interception (IMPACT)
3.4.2.3 Whether the ball would have hit the wicket (WICKET)
3.4.3 This Decision Review System (DRS) and Third Umpire Protocol includes a category of Umpire’s Call, which shall be the conclusion reported where the technology indicates a marginal decision in respect of either the point of first interception or whether the ball would have hit the stumps.

3.4.4 PITCHING
3.4.4.1 The interpretation of “pitches in line between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.2 shall refer to the position of the centre of the ball at the point of pitching, in relation to the Pitching Zone.
3.4.4.2 The Pitching Zone is defined as a two dimensional area on the pitch between both sets of stumps with its boundaries consisting of the base of both sets of stumps and a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.
3.4.4.3 Where applicable, the ball-tracking technology shall report that the ball pitched in one of the following three areas in relation to the Pitching Zone: In Line The centre of the ball was inside the Pitching Zone Outside Off The centre of the ball was outside, and to the off side of, the Pitching Zone Outside Leg The centre of the ball was outside, and to the leg side of, the Pitching Zone
3.4.4.4 Subject to the satisfaction of the other elements of clause 36, the batsman can be Out if the balltracking technology reports that the ball pitched Outside Off or In Line, but the batsman shall be Not out if the ball pitched Outside Leg.

3.4.5 IMPACT
3.4.5.1 The interpretation of “the (first) point of impact, even if in above the level of the bails, is between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.4 shall refer to the position of the ball at the point of first interception, in relation to the Impact Zone.

3.4.5.2 The Impact Zone is defined as a three dimensional space extending between both wickets to an indefinite height and with its boundaries consisting of a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.

3.4.5.3 The ball-tracking technology shall report that the point of first interception was in one of the following categories in relation to the Impact Zone:
In Line: The centre of the ball was inside the Impact Zone
Umpire’s Call: Some part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, but the centre of the ball was outside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-category of ‘Umpire’s Call (off side)’ where the centre of the ball was to the off side of the Impact Zone and the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman.
Outside: No part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-categories of ‘Outside (off)’ and ‘Outside (leg)’ to indicate the location of the point of first interception in relation to the Impact Zone when the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman.

3.4.5.4 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was In Line for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.

3.4.5.5 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of impact was In Line, or Umpire’s Call (off side), or Outside (off) for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.

3.4.5.6 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was Outside for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.5.7 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was Outside (leg) for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.6 WICKET
3.4.6.1 The interpretation of whether “the ball would have hit the wicket” in clause 36.1.5 shall refer to position of the ball as it either hits or passes the wicket, in relation to the Wicket Zone.

3.4.6.2 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.

3.4.6.3 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

3.4.6.4 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Hitting for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out. However, where the evidence shows that the ball was Hitting, the point of first interception was In Line, and the ball pitched In Line or Outside Off, but that:
• The point of first interception was 300cm or more from the stumps; or
• The point of first interception was more than 250cm but less than 300cm from the stumps and the distance between the point of pitching and the point of first interception was less than 40cm, the on-field decision shall stand (that is, Not out).

3.4.6.5 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Missing for the on-field decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.7 When the ball strikes the batsman on the full, and the evidence provided by the ball-tracking technology indicates that the ball would have pitched before striking or passing the wicket, there will be no information available from that delivery that will allow the ball-tracking technology to accurately predict the height of the ball after pitching.

3.4.8 With regard to determining whether the ball would have hit the wicket under these circumstances, the ball-tracking technology shall project the line of the ball in accordance with clause 36.2.3 (it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not), and display the simulated path of the ball from directly above the wicket.

3.4.9 The third umpire shall advise the bowler’s end umpire only on the point of first interception and whether the ball would have hit the stumps (in line with the process set out in paragraph 3.4 above), but shall make no comment on the predicted height of the ball after pitching, which shall remain a judgment of the bowler’s end umpire.
 
big_e said:
Bugger. That's why you should never screenshot from a mobile....

Here's the full section (from here) with the bolded bits highlighting mention's of umpire's call and the wicket zone.

3.4 Review of LBW Decisions

3.4.1 In assessing whether a batsman is Out LBW in accordance with clause 36, the third umpire shall first judge whether the delivery is fair (as set out in clause 36.1.1), and second, whether or not the ball has touched the bat before being intercepted by any part of the striker’s person (as set out in clause 36.1.3).
3.4.2 If the batsman is still eligible to be Out, the ball-tracking technology shall then present three pieces of information to the third umpire relating to the path of the ball:
3.4.2.1 The point of pitching (where applicable) (PITCHING)
3.4.2.2 The position of the ball at the point of first interception (IMPACT)
3.4.2.3 Whether the ball would have hit the wicket (WICKET)
3.4.3 This Decision Review System (DRS) and Third Umpire Protocol includes a category of Umpire’s Call, which shall be the conclusion reported where the technology indicates a marginal decision in respect of either the point of first interception or whether the ball would have hit the stumps.

3.4.4 PITCHING
3.4.4.1 The interpretation of “pitches in line between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.2 shall refer to the position of the centre of the ball at the point of pitching, in relation to the Pitching Zone.
3.4.4.2 The Pitching Zone is defined as a two dimensional area on the pitch between both sets of stumps with its boundaries consisting of the base of both sets of stumps and a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.
3.4.4.3 Where applicable, the ball-tracking technology shall report that the ball pitched in one of the following three areas in relation to the Pitching Zone: In Line The centre of the ball was inside the Pitching Zone Outside Off The centre of the ball was outside, and to the off side of, the Pitching Zone Outside Leg The centre of the ball was outside, and to the leg side of, the Pitching Zone
3.4.4.4 Subject to the satisfaction of the other elements of clause 36, the batsman can be Out if the balltracking technology reports that the ball pitched Outside Off or In Line, but the batsman shall be Not out if the ball pitched Outside Leg.

3.4.5 IMPACT
3.4.5.1 The interpretation of “the (first) point of impact, even if in above the level of the bails, is between wicket and wicket” in clause 36.1.4 shall refer to the position of the ball at the point of first interception, in relation to the Impact Zone.

3.4.5.2 The Impact Zone is defined as a three dimensional space extending between both wickets to an indefinite height and with its boundaries consisting of a line between the outside of the outer stumps at each end.

3.4.5.3 The ball-tracking technology shall report that the point of first interception was in one of the following categories in relation to the Impact Zone:
In Line: The centre of the ball was inside the Impact Zone
Umpire’s Call: Some part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, but the centre of the ball was outside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-category of ‘Umpire’s Call (off side)’ where the centre of the ball was to the off side of the Impact Zone and the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman.
Outside: No part of the ball was inside the Impact Zone, with the further sub-categories of ‘Outside (off)’ and ‘Outside (leg)’ to indicate the location of the point of first interception in relation to the Impact Zone when the bowler’s end umpire communicates to the third umpire that no genuine attempt to play the ball was made by the batsman.

3.4.5.4 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was In Line for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.

3.4.5.5 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of impact was In Line, or Umpire’s Call (off side), or Outside (off) for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out.

3.4.5.6 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was Outside for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.5.7 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, and it is judged that the batsman has made no genuine attempt to play the ball, the ball-tracking technology must report that the point of first interception was Outside (leg) for the decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.6 WICKET
3.4.6.1 The interpretation of whether “the ball would have hit the wicket” in clause 36.1.5 shall refer to position of the ball as it either hits or passes the wicket, in relation to the Wicket Zone.

3.4.6.2 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.

3.4.6.3 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

3.4.6.4 Where a Not out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Hitting for the batsman to be eligible to be given Out, otherwise the batsman shall remain Not out. However, where the evidence shows that the ball was Hitting, the point of first interception was In Line, and the ball pitched In Line or Outside Off, but that:
• The point of first interception was 300cm or more from the stumps; or
• The point of first interception was more than 250cm but less than 300cm from the stumps and the distance between the point of pitching and the point of first interception was less than 40cm, the on-field decision shall stand (that is, Not out).

3.4.6.5 Where an Out decision is being reviewed, the ball-tracking technology must report that the ball was Missing for the on-field decision to be reversed to Not out, otherwise the batsman shall remain eligible to be given Out.

3.4.7 When the ball strikes the batsman on the full, and the evidence provided by the ball-tracking technology indicates that the ball would have pitched before striking or passing the wicket, there will be no information available from that delivery that will allow the ball-tracking technology to accurately predict the height of the ball after pitching.

3.4.8 With regard to determining whether the ball would have hit the wicket under these circumstances, the ball-tracking technology shall project the line of the ball in accordance with clause 36.2.3 (it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not), and display the simulated path of the ball from directly above the wicket.

3.4.9 The third umpire shall advise the bowler’s end umpire only on the point of first interception and whether the ball would have hit the stumps (in line with the process set out in paragraph 3.4 above), but shall make no comment on the predicted height of the ball after pitching, which shall remain a judgment of the bowler’s end umpire.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that! There it is in plain light!
"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."

Why the blooming hell is it the bottom of the bails? Bearing in mind also that the bottom of the bails are lower than the top of the stumps!! Ridiculous!

And further, why was the Cummins to Pujara review (pictured above) given as Umpire's Call, when the projection showed the ball completely missing the defined Wicket Zone area?:

"Umpire’s Call: The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone "

Because it was hitting "the wicket" of course! A separate and undefined other zone of the stumps that is clearly inclusive of the bails (and makes much more sense). Why isn't the "Wicket Zone" just "the wicket"? This is ludicrous, the plot thickens.
 
Last edited:
I know it would appear as a sore loser type stance, but the continued issues with the DRS laws have reared up again in this series. Australia should kindly ask the ICC to investigate the vagaries of these definitions. The fact is Pujara would have been out to Lyon on review if this "Wicket Zone" was actually defined correctly.

This kind of shit needs to be watertight, what the hell were they thinking? I know they changed the laws at some point to go from the centre of the outer stumps to the outside of the outer stumps. But why did they continue to use the bottom of the bail instead of the top?
 
melanChronic said:
Thanks for that! There it is in plain light!
"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."

Why the blooming hell is it the bottom of the bails? Bearing in mind also that the bottom of the bails are lower than the top of the stumps!! Ridiculous!

And further, why was the Cummins to Pujara review (pictured above) given as Umpire's Call, when the projection showed the ball completely missing the defined Wicket Zone area?:

"Umpire’s Call: The ball was hitting the wicket, but the centre of the ball was not inside the Wicket Zone "

Because it was hitting "the wicket" of course! A separate and undefined other zone of the stumps that is clearly inclusive of the bails (and makes much more sense). Why isn't the "Wicket Zone" just "the wicket"? This is ludicrous, the plot thickens.
Click to expand...
Thinking about this, the Laws of Cricket define the bails as sitting on top of the wickets. By definition, they are not actually part of the wickets, which further means that to be out LBW (but for the ball hitting the player, it would have gone on to hit the wickets), then hitting the bails only would not have been enough.

It makes sense when you consider that it is possible under the Laws of Cricket to play without bails.

Not saying I agree with it, just that I think that is why the DRS rule for the wicket zone might be written like that.
 
big_e said:
Thinking about this, the Laws of Cricket define the bails as sitting on top of the wickets. By definition, they are not actually part of the wickets, which further means that to be out LBW (but for the ball hitting the player, it would have gone on to hit the wickets), then hitting the bails only would not have been enough.

It makes sense when you consider that it is possible under the Laws of Cricket to play without bails.

Not saying I agree with it, just that I think that is why the DRS rule for the wicket zone might be written like that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm good point, in that case though then the uppermost part of the stump (consisting of the groove in which the bails sit) is still being ignored.

Further, the undefined "the wicket" in the Umpire's call clause then becomes more confusing. In the case of the Cummins to Pujara review, was a tiny milimetre of the ball skimming the top of the stump (assuming we ignore the bails in this case)?.

I can't see what purpose it serves to have both "the wicket" and "the Wicket Zone" defined as two different things in these laws.
 
k31th said:
Your suggestions are good except for having "umpire's call" for missing the stumps inside %X, as that'll just add further confusion.
Click to expand...

Not if it's communicated properly. It's simple - if the umpire thinks it's missing but it's just clipping, umpire's call. If the umpire things it's hitting but its just missing, umpire's call.

At the moment umpire's call only benefits the batsman when it comes to whether it's hitting or not. This would even it up

Granted, maybe make the other changes first.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

LordLucifer said:
What was the main reason for implementing DRS in the first place ??
Click to expand...
It was mostly due to the fact that broadcasters were showing umpiring decisions to be clearly wrong for a long period of time before technology was developed and trialled to be accurate enough to prove the umpiring decisions wrong on top of broadcaster showings.

Most people consider these easily provably wrong decisions as "howlers".

Since then, the DRS system has significantly evolved and changed over time and is used much more tactically than specifically to prove obviously wrong decisions.

Here's a nice early take (this guy was very negative on DRS over the introduction of it, if you read his blog) on the introduction of the system:

Third Umpire Referrals in Test Cricket

cricketingview.blogspot.com cricketingview.blogspot.com
 
k31th said:
It was mostly due to the fact that broadcasters were showing umpiring decisions to be clearly wrong for a long period of time before technology was developed and trialled to be accurate enough to prove the umpiring decisions wrong on top of broadcaster showings.

Most people consider these easily provably wrong decisions as "howlers".

Since then, the DRS system has significantly evolved and changed over time and is used much more tactically than specifically to prove obviously wrong decisions.

Here's a nice early take (this guy was very negative on DRS over the introduction of it, if you read his blog) on the introduction of the system:

Third Umpire Referrals in Test Cricket

cricketingview.blogspot.com cricketingview.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
I've never understood the alleged "tactical" use of DRS. Surely you only review when you think the decision is incorrect?
 
big_e said:
I've never understood the alleged "tactical" use of DRS. Surely you only review when you think the decision is incorrect?
Click to expand...
A lot of time batsmen and captains use reviews simply because they hope the decision is incorrect - usually on the last recognised batsman in an innings.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

big_e said:
It's wishful thinking and a poor use of the technology, but not tactical.
Click to expand...
If you’re changing your risk-reward decision based on the value of the wicket, or the match situation, or anything else external then you’re using DRS in a tactical manner.

A non-tactical use of DRS would ignore match context, which is clearly not what most teams do.
 
Last edited:
LordLucifer said:
What was the main reason for implementing DRS in the first place ??
Click to expand...

To have the ability to overturn an obvious poor decision. Unfortunately it's used in the hope that an umpire may or may not have got got wrong, and that's what I dislike about it.
 
Adelaide Hawk said:
To have the ability to overturn an obvious poor decision. Unfortunately it's used in the hope that an umpire may or may not have got got wrong, and that's what I dislike about it.
Click to expand...

Finally I get the correct answer.


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

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom