Remove this Banner Ad

Remove DRS LBW

  • Thread starter Thread starter Topkent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Carl Hooper said:
I think it has to go...

it's ruining the game and making the players as much umpires as the actual umpires.

take away the ball tracking bullshit all together.

I'm with darren berry.


Click to expand...
Agree
How does it 100% know where the ball is going
It's been a farce so far this series surely balls hitting top of any stump is doubtfuly not out
 
It's not 100% not claims to be.

But why do we never see some calibration shots? For example, for a ball that goes through to the keeper:

Take measurements up to when the ball passes the batsman.
Then show the Hawkeye projection, along with where the ball actually ended up. Show this for 100 balls and what the error margin is.
 
When you have two umpires that are favoring one team like these two are looking after England the review system is just flawed.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Said the same thing in Brisbane. Hawkeye completely over estimates the bounce. Either the calculations have been entered incorrectly or robots and computers can't solve everything.

Look at the Marsh one. That was out. Plumb. Watch the ball. Sure it pitches back but it was slow off the pitch and already on its downward trajectory. Hawkeye had it springing up as though it was loaded with springs. (I initially called review as I thought it was pitching outside leg but no way was that clearing the bails).

Even the Paine one after was iffy. Not sure that would've gone over either.

The thing with LB is they are always a subjective call. The ball hits the pad to prevent it hitting the stumps in essence so it is up to the umpire to determine if it would've hit. Human eye> machine in this case. (I'd keep the review but let the 3rd umpire call it without hawkeye).
 
Run n Spread said:
Said the same thing in Brisbane. Hawkeye completely over estimates the bounce. Either the calculations have been entered incorrectly or robots and computers can't solve everything.

Look at the Marsh one. That was out. Plumb. Watch the ball. Sure it pitches back but it was slow off the pitch and already on its downward trajectory. Hawkeye had it springing up as though it was loaded with springs. (I initially called review as I thought it was pitching outside leg but no way was that clearing the bails).

Even the Paine one after was iffy. Not sure that would've gone over either.

The thing with LB is they are always a subjective call. The ball hits the pad to prevent it hitting the stumps in essence so it is up to the umpire to determine if it would've hit. Human eye> machine in this case. (I'd keep the review but let the 3rd umpire call it without hawkeye).
Click to expand...

The Marsh one was not out that is rubbish that it was on the downward trajectory.
 
Run n Spread said:
Agree to disagree.

Also the main issue I have is the bounce. I reckon Hawk Eye massively over estimates just how high it is going.
Click to expand...

You get a stride in and get hit above the knee roll you shouldnt be out.
 
Carl Hooper said:
I think it has to go...

it's ruining the game and making the players as much umpires as the actual umpires.

take away the ball tracking bullshit all together.

I'm with darren berry.


Click to expand...
What is Berry on about? The ball has bounced, its amount of spin is already determined. Its not gonna magically start spinning more in mid-air.

Even if it is, its the exact same thing that the umpire has to do, judge where it will end up based on where it hit the pad.
 
Run n Spread said:
Said the same thing in Brisbane. Hawkeye completely over estimates the bounce. Either the calculations have been entered incorrectly or robots and computers can't solve everything.

Look at the Marsh one. That was out. Plumb. Watch the ball. Sure it pitches back but it was slow off the pitch and already on its downward trajectory. Hawkeye had it springing up as though it was loaded with springs. (I initially called review as I thought it was pitching outside leg but no way was that clearing the bails).

Even the Paine one after was iffy. Not sure that would've gone over either.

The thing with LB is they are always a subjective call. The ball hits the pad to prevent it hitting the stumps in essence so it is up to the umpire to determine if it would've hit. Human eye> machine in this case. (I'd keep the review but let the 3rd umpire call it without hawkeye).
Click to expand...
Humans means emotions control the decisions,no thanks.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

That Ali LBW was interesting. My immediate reaction seeing it live was that it was pretty adjacent.

Hawkeye had it just hitting the top of off though. To me however, it kind of looked Hawkeye had it bouncing more than it appeared to be to the naked eye.

PhatBoy - thoughts? (since you asked in the game thread)
 
Doss said:
That Ali LBW was interesting. My immediate reaction seeing it live was that it was pretty adjacent.

Hawkeye had it just hitting the top of off though. To me however, it kind of looked Hawkeye had it bouncing more than it appeared to be to the naked eye.

PhatBoy - thoughts? (since you asked in the game thread)
Click to expand...

Honestly haven’t seen it yet mate, just read the analysis on cricinfo. I’ll get back to you :)
 
I thought it was not out honestly
 
Umps do seem to give more of those to the spinners now, that Ali one was just out but even ten years ago he wouldn't have been given on the field.

Still batsmen makes a mistake misses the ball and it's likely hitting the stumps is it a bad thing they get given now?
 
frankrizzo said:
Still batsmen makes a mistake misses the ball and it's likely hitting the stumps is it a bad thing they get given now?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is how I always look at it. If you're subject to a serious LBW appeal, you screwed something up, so you can't be too narky if you get given out.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Roy Slaven had a solution years ago for the lbw rule and its surrounding controversies:

Get rid of the rule altogether.

But don't allow batsmen to wear pads.

Solved!
 
the_interloper said:
The one Anderson had turned down the other day by DRS was plumb in my opinion, should have been given. I think it's good for picking up inside edges and whether it pitches outside leg, not as sure about the ball tracking for hitting the stumps.
Click to expand...
It is basic mathematics, calculating speed, angle, movement, etc based on what the ball actually does. 110% more reliable then an umpire in the half a second he gets to work out those same things in his head while also focusing on everything else.
 
Demosthenes said:
Because your average punter is going to completely misinterpret this sort of data and it will muddy the waters further.
Click to expand...
Lazy thinking.

As if there aren't crackpots making conspiracy theories already. Give people the facts, let them see/do the working out, and you've got a workable system. A lack of transparency creates situations like this, where two umpires are overturned what, 8-9 times over a test match? And all LBW?

If it's accurate, say how accurate. If it's not, say where it's weak. Give us the facts, to evaluate for ourselves.
 
davis_756 said:
It is basic mathematics, calculating speed, angle, movement, etc based on what the ball actually does. 110% more reliable then an umpire in the half a second he gets to work out those same things in his head while also focusing on everything
Click to expand...

It’s also still an approximation and a prediction, I believe the ump is in the best spot to make the call.
 
Gethelred said:
Lazy thinking.

As if there aren't crackpots making conspiracy theories already. Give people the facts, let them see/do the working out, and you've got a workable system. A lack of transparency creates situations like this, where two umpires are overturned what, 8-9 times over a test match? And all LBW?

If it's accurate, say how accurate. If it's not, say where it's weak. Give us the facts, to evaluate for ourselves.
Click to expand...
You realise this stuff is not a secret, right? A simple Google search will give you more 'facts' than you ever wanted to know about the specifics, assumptions, probabilities and margins of error involved in the Hawk-Eye system.

The reality is that your average punter doesn't want to deal with all that, because it's too complicated. Which is fair enough, but it's kind of a package deal.

Showing a 'calibration shot' on TV like the other poster suggested is simplistic, because understanding what that calibration shot means requires the context of an understanding of how the system works.

When it comes to complex systems, you are better off explaining nothing, than providing a partial explanation that will add to misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom