Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => Australia => Topic started by: mad_abt_cricket on December 27, 2011, 11:06:57 AM
-
Lately there has been lot of heated debate on 'DRS' at every level.
It seems pretty illogical on behalf on one cricket board to oppose this system when it can help umpires making whole lot of decisions much better, particularly the pretty obvious ones.
In general the debate is mainly focused on the accuracy of the technology. Though I think it is much more than that. It is more about "‘technology policing’ which should be the requirement if the system comes into place at a full scale.
The decisions taken on a cricket field are a result of a split second judgement which brings about the human error factor. Any delay to that decision and help of a technology would certainly reduce those errors but it will also allow another grim aspect to sneak in.. which is manipulation of technology.The time taken from the moment a team appeals till the third umpire takes a decision seems like an eternity which does open a sufficient window in which the technology can be manipulated ( I am not saying that it is being done, but there is a certain possibility of it happening if the proper safeguards are not in place).
Third umpire is dependent on a particular footage to be able to decide on a judgement.
1. A technician sends a video clip of a ball to the third umpire to check if it is a no ball or not. Who will ensure that the clip is from the previous ball ? Another human error scope ? Even though the technology is so new, there are already some incidents questioning the whole process:
http://www.supersport.com/cricket/blogs/mike-haysman/Dhoni_noball_outrage
2. How accurate is the Hawk eye? Is the ball projection is always correct and can't be manipulated? . Also the qustion is how to ensure that it won't be manipulated ? As it does open a new angle for controversies..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86yWY-HDYoe
3. Same goes for hotspot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqexagbPcvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bUybhF2JUY&feature=related
In my view, the technology should be used only for the blunders made by the on field umpires.
No referrals, only that the third umpire should have the power to overturn the decisions which are blunders by an on field umpires.
The blunders should fall under following category:
1. Which are so obvious that they can be judged and conveyed within 10 seconds to on field umpires.
2. No LBW overturn by third umpire, with the only exception of an obvious inside edge.
3. No more microscopic run out decisions which they take ages to make. ICC should change the rule and if the batsman is touching the line he should be fine, same should be for the no balls. It seems ridiculous to spend so much time to decide if the bat has crossed the line.
4. Only obvious nicks.
The idea should be to avoid the blunders and not to make the whole decision making full proof. In my opinion in trying to make it 100% correct they are opening windows to new areas of error.
Sure this seems heavily tilted in favor of batsmen but it can be easily balanced if the pitches can be made more sporting ( favoring both batsman and bowlers.)
-
hawkeye is as accurate as they come. The technology was used for missile tracking lol!
The cheaper alternatives aren't as accurate, I think the aussie version has a huge margin of error. That's why Hawkeye is used in major tennis tournaments and not others.
-
The one that the aussies used last year I think it was eagle eye was attrocious. Ill never forget Paul Collingwood being judged lbw by eagle eye at the WACA off Johnson to a ball that was apparently comfortably hitting the stumps. or a 50/50 call off Strauss 1st ball of innings 2 at the Gabba, which eagleeye had missing by 30cm
-
Article which confirms to my view :
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/548069.html
-
not that the guy quoted is biased at all.
I don't disagree with you - however I also like Dhoni's view:
“This is a game in which people commit mistakes,” he said. “If a bowler doesn’t commit a mistake, then a batsman cannot score runs; if a batsman does not commit a mistake, then a bowler cannot take a wicket. We’ll make the umpires a part of that, too . . . if mistakes are not committed intentionally, then I’m perfectly fine with it.”
-
not that the guy quoted is biased at all.
I don't disagree with you - however I also like Dhoni's view:
“This is a game in which people commit mistakes,” he said. “If a bowler doesn’t commit a mistake, then a batsman cannot score runs; if a batsman does not commit a mistake, then a bowler cannot take a wicket. We’ll make the umpires a part of that, too . . . if mistakes are not committed intentionally, then I’m perfectly fine with it.”
I still think the 3rd umpire should be able to reverse shocking calls, where the umpire may have lost concentration. Batsmen, Bowlers and Fielders can lose concentration for a second, and umpires aren't immune to this, especially if it is a hot day. So I think that should be where it is implemented.
-
not that the guy quoted is biased at all.
I don't disagree with you - however I also like Dhoni's view:
“This is a game in which people commit mistakes,” he said. “If a bowler doesn’t commit a mistake, then a batsman cannot score runs; if a batsman does not commit a mistake, then a bowler cannot take a wicket. We’ll make the umpires a part of that, too . . . if mistakes are not committed intentionally, then I’m perfectly fine with it.”
don't need a car when we have a horse. He wouldn't get on to well at a performance appraisal at my workplace.
-
3. No more microscopic run out decisions which they take ages to make. ICC should change the rule and if the batsman is touching the line he should be fine, same should be for the no balls. It seems ridiculous to spend so much time to decide if the bat has crossed the line.
Whilst I agree that the process to make these decisions is rather slow, this would make absolutely no difference to the speed at which decisions can be made, all you're doing is making the distance a batsman has to run about 2 inches shorter. There would still be very tight calls regarding whether the batsmen had touched the line or was just short. Slowed-down and microscopic cameras would still be needed. It will still be a line decision and therefore will still need a 3rd umpire
-
Yep, you either use 3rd umpire for line calls or you don't. If you do, you can't be vague about it can you?!
Imagine the 3rd umpire returning a verdict of "Oh he was probably safe there!"
As soon as you use technology you have to take the decision to the next level in terms of accuracy.
-
don't need a car when we have a horse. He wouldn't get on to well at a performance appraisal at my workplace.
Sounds like there would be a few cricket administrators who would struggle with the performance appraisal at your workplace!
The thing is - Cricket hasn't really adapted - the Laws have been mostly the same for years - and this is a big thing as it encourages people to challenge the authority of the umpire - which is very ugly when you have the guy at first slip in a league or village game doing the "t" sign when a decision goes against his team. It can undermine the umpire.
Personally I prefer Langers view - that the umpires should be able to check decisions they are not sure about, rather than the batting or bowling teams
-
im all for this tech stuff.
hawkaye and hotspot is grate! i love waiting for the 3rd umpires decision lol
-
Personally I prefer Langers view - that the umpires should be able to check decisions they are not sure about, rather than the batting or bowling teams
I'd go along with this. The standard of umpiring nowadays is pretty decent to be fair and they know which are the tight calls. The only problem I can foresee with this is the likelyhood of players asking umpires anyway and we could end up with extended appealing
Whatever is decided should be the rules for all nations playing at test level - no opt-outs!
-
some umpires wouldn't want to admit to a mistake or are to proud to refer. Doesn't work. DRS causes less problems than not having DRS. Apart from the odd hotspot issue and some marginal hawkeye calls in 2/3 years it's been in operation, everyone bar India is happy. As the eagle eye guy says, get it setup right and even they won't happen. 1 test match in Aus and 4? rank decisions.
Don't hear tennis players bleating about it.
-
the difference in tennis is that it is just for line calls and it is after the ball has actually landed - in cricket there is the element of guess work on the future path of the ball.
Umpires proud? possibly - but there is a third (and 4th) umpire to say - hold on, this is an ugly/poor decision
-
I still think it makes the umpires lazy and not as focused as umpires from years gone by. Heck they can't even call a no ball without going upstairs these days.. They may as well not have umpires out in the middle if they can't even do that
-
the difference in tennis is that it is just for line calls and it is after the ball has actually landed - in cricket there is the element of guess work on the future path of the ball.
it's missile tracking Buzz, doesn't get any better.
-
Whilst I agree that the process to make these decisions is rather slow, this would make absolutely no difference to the speed at which decisions can be made, all you're doing is making the distance a batsman has to run about 2 inches shorter. There would still be very tight calls regarding whether the batsmen had touched the line or was just short. Slowed-down and microscopic cameras would still be needed. It will still be a line decision and therefore will still need a 3rd umpire
I would say it would be much easier to spot if the batsman has touched the line or not as compared to figure out if the batsman has crossed the line. The width of the line is so less that it makes really difficult even after so many slow motion replays. Even more complicated is to judge the foot while deciding on a no ball or a stumping.
-
im with nick if its good enough for the airforce to track missiles im sure its good enough for a cricket ball.
i dont think they would but peoples lives at risk unless they where 99% confidant of the software
-
but the missile tracking is for after the event has happened - not as a guess what might happen
I am not knocking it - I really like it and think it is a great addition to the sport - its use is where my issues are and the challenging the authority of the umpire which I really don't like
-
What I will try and do is to see if I can get hold of Paul (Hawkins) and get him to do some Q&A on the forum. I'll ask my father for his details, if he still has them. I played with Paul for a long time, through colts and seniors. Hopefully he can help me out.
-
it's missile tracking Buzz, doesn't get any better.
I think it is not the technology but the system which needs to be reviewed. The guys who handle the technical aspects of this technology are not under ICC and the decisions are made based on that information.
One example is how to make sure if the replay of the no ball which umpire wants to refer to the third umpire has been provided correctly and not from a previous footage. It did happened in the short history of DRS:
http://www.supersport.com/cricket/blogs/mike-haysman/Dhoni_noball_outrage
There is so much money involved in each ball being bowled (betting) that it is highly possible that at some stage it will be manipulated.
Even though it is missile tracking it is still the future path and with the time at hand during review can be altered from that actual path manually.
one such video doing rounds in youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_naNHkJj0&feature=related
Can't say much about the decision but surely even with DRS there will be plenty of controversial decisions in future.
My take -- Use DRS only to avoid blunders from the umpires and third umpire can very well over turn such decisions ( ex: a clear nick, a clear inside edge to the bat within a time frame.
-
not got hold of Paul yet, I think the mobile number I have is an old one. However, here's a very interesting piece on Hawkeye by Paul himself:-
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf?PHPSESSID=256c926433da35aa10ea46e84138f89e
It also shows explains why the cheaper alternatives aren't as good as hawkeye ie. hawkeye can use up to 8 cameras and something like virtual eye tries to get away with 4, sometimes 2
-
Pah, this has all come about cheating aussies not walking when they muddled it to the keeper, or the formally biased biased home umpiring.
the quality of umpires if now much better, but I am not sure about all these lbws.
and that guy from hawkeye is hardly going to say, yes well all the competition firms are actually as good as my system...
-
Pah, this has all come about cheating aussies not walking when they muddled it to the keeper, or the formally biased biased home umpiring.
the quality of umpires if now much better, but I am not sure about all these lbws.
and that guy from hawkeye is hardly going to say, yes well all the competition firms are actually as good as my system...
are you on drugs?
the reason that DRS is needed is because of sub-continental teams being a mob of cheats. there's nothing cheating about not walking, that's what the umpire is there for. I don't recall the last time i actually saw anyone walk. Oh yes I do, it was an aussie.....
Batoff is a good name for you because clearly you spend a lot of time doing it
-
urm, some of the 70-80's Aussie umpires were just as bad. this isn't a subcontinental thing.
-
urm, some of the 70-80's Aussie umpires were just as bad. this isn't a subcontinental thing.
Long time a go though, so I wouldn't call it an Australian thing.
-
point I was trying to make was in relation to the "cheaper" alternatives like Virtual Eye who try and get away with less cameras. There was an incident in the recent test match where only 2 cameras were working (out of 4). Anybody remember last years ashes where a cheaper system was used some tracking decisions looked odd? Hawkeye costs more but you don't get the issues that cause people to question decisions.
-
urm, some of the 70-80's Aussie umpires were just as bad. this isn't a subcontinental thing.
Umpires in the 70's & 80's have had a huge influence on DRS.... Jeez you post a
Lot of cods
-
you need to learn some cricket history, the poor umpires meant the intetnational game turned independent umpires then in early 2000's we saw the introduction or two independent umpires. this was at a time when the technology was being developed.
this led with the influx of the tv money to the development of the run out replays, sniko the hawk eye and eventually drs system.
think before you shoot your mouth off.
-
awp wind ur neck in lad just because some one doesnt agree with you no need for coments like that is there?
-
Keyboard warrior
-
arh a classic internet forum post... it has all the hall(?) marks of a classic, a sort of interesting but slightly ambiguous opening question, some slightly miss understood assertions, a few sensibleness comments and debate, and some (No Swearing Please) mouthing off at other people...
For what its worth, I did research project on "error analysis in a kimentice tracking system", or some such title, - basically Hawk Eye - , at the University of Leeds, c2002.
It was used by the LTW when they looked at using Hawkeye or not, and I think someone at the ICC might have read it because the rules they have picked are not a million miles away from what you would get to if you created a set of rule on my work - having said that I'm sure you could come to them independently if you had knowledge of what was going on - I know people how work at the ICC, so hence why I think they must have seen my paper!!! lol!!!
I wont bore you all with the details, but I'll question a few things that have been said so far: - BTW this is not an attack on any one, all good natured!!! :-)))
"2. How accurate is the Hawk eye? Is the ball projection is always correct and can't be manipulated? . Also the qustion is how to ensure that it won't be manipulated ? As it does open a new angle for controversies..
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b86yWY-HDYoe[/url]"
I get the question your asking, but the video here shows that either, the law was followed correctly, and there was no error, or that an error was made by the 3rd umpire, in which case, we can conclude that errors can also be made using DRS... image!...TV replay for a catch anyone?
hawkeye is as accurate as they come. The technology was used for missile tracking lol!
Hawkeye. might be the best, I don't know, but suggestion its "Accurate" because it use the same technology as missile tracking, is like saying SAAB car, Aeroplane thing, its just not relevant...and in the case of Hawkeye, I SUSPECT it not even really true...
the difference in tennis is that it is just for line calls and it is after the ball has actually landed - in cricket there is the element of guess work on the future path of the ball.
This is a Key point, Tracking is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH easier than Predicting. Also not there are 2 players on a tennis court, and you know where they will be 90% of the time, and its often not near the path of the ball (i.e. as it comes over the net), players can get it the way very easily in cricket.
Basically the predictive element of hawk-eye, means that by LOGICAL ANALYSIS ONLY you can discount many of its predictions, as guesses. Why this is never discussed (on the TV etc) I don't know... BTW this is a limit of physics, not the hawk-eye system solely.
So anyway, it all good fun, I agree with what most people are saying, its basically a good thing, that still needs some work in how its used... I guess that is that hard part.
One thing I would say though is that they need to get rid of video replays for catches!! its embarrassing!
-
here's another interesting piece:-
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20response%20to%20Ian%20Taylor_2.pdf
-
hawkeye is as accurate as they come. The technology was used for missile tracking lol!
Even this is still fallible, what about collateral damage!!! ;)
-
got me thinking, when I played with Paul he use to get right over the ball...and then cop one in the head as it lifted off a length. Must of been hit more times from age 11-14 than any colt I can remember lol