Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16th December 2012, 06:21   #181
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Just had the Channel Nine commentators sounding off about the DRS in Australia / Sri Lankan. Two batsmen wasted their reviews trying to overturn plumb LBWs, then Herath had the "shocker" given LBW after a massive inside edge onto the pad.

In his eyes, because the DRS was unable to right this shocker, the DRS is wrong. It should be up to the umpires to decide when to review decisions, not the players (subsequently refined to the third umpire).

This is rubbish. The Sri Lankans were unable to right their shocker because they misused the system.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2012, 09:31   #182
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Just had the Channel Nine commentators sounding off about the DRS in Australia / Sri Lankan. Two batsmen wasted their reviews trying to overturn plumb LBWs, then Herath had the "shocker" given LBW after a massive inside edge onto the pad.

In his eyes, because the DRS was unable to right this shocker, the DRS is wrong. It should be up to the umpires to decide when to review decisions, not the players (subsequently refined to the third umpire).

This is rubbish. The Sri Lankans were unable to right their shocker because they misused the system.
I suppose the point is that the DRS system still allows decisions to stand that are every bit as shocking as those that used to stand with the old system. There can still be long periods of play in which ever howler stands.

I think it is impossible to maintain that this is not a problem for the current system. It's true that DRS overturns some bad decisions. But that tends to highlight the ones it leaves as they are. If it's worth fixing some, it's worth trying to work out how to fix more.

There's no point in blaming the players, they're not perfect. They're just like umpires in that regard, aren't they? Saying that DRS would work perfectly if the players would only use it correctly is a bit like saying that the old system (as in use in the current India / England series) would work perfectly if the umpires would only make all their calls correctly.

It's worth remembering that the umpire is in a much better position to make the correct call, for example on an LBW decision, than the batsman or the bowler are. So if the umpire gets it wrong, it's by no means clear that the players would be in a good position to say so.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2012, 10:19   #183
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,865
I think one thing drs has shown is that umpires tend to be much better at making decisions than players.
In the NFL, the review system has been in place for some years with coaches allowed two reviews per game. Just recently they've extended it such that all scoring plays or when when possession is turned over are checked automatically. Therefore, pretty much all objective yes/no decisions will be reviewed.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2012, 10:38   #184
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I suppose the point is that the DRS system still allows decisions to stand that are every bit as shocking as those that used to stand with the old system. There can still be long periods of play in which ever howler stands.

I think it is impossible to maintain that this is not a problem for the current system. It's true that DRS overturns some bad decisions. But that tends to highlight the ones it leaves as they are. If it's worth fixing some, it's worth trying to work out how to fix more.

There's no point in blaming the players, they're not perfect. They're just like umpires in that regard, aren't they? Saying that DRS would work perfectly if the players would only use it correctly is a bit like saying that the old system (as in use in the current India / England series) would work perfectly if the umpires would only make all their calls correctly.

It's worth remembering that the umpire is in a much better position to make the correct call, for example on an LBW decision, than the batsman or the bowler are. So if the umpire gets it wrong, it's by no means clear that the players would be in a good position to say so.
This is interesting, I agree, although one advantage the system gives is the two heads being better than one. I can be worse at making decisions than my friend but if I disagree strongly with him occasionally, it's quite likely I've picked up a bad decision he's made. If I think that on balance he may be wrong on a judgement call and take it up with him every time I'm not sure he's right, I'll end up looking silly quite often, because he's better at making decisions than me. So, it's sensible for players to appeal the obviously awful but probably not the ones they're not sure about. Problem is, the system sometimes rewards appealing what seems to be a marginal call, especially lbws, because we're all really bad at judging those, relatively speaking.

My view is that we should do what Duncan Fletcher wanted in the first place (as we're talking about him on other threads) and make it three reviews. This will encourage a few more frivolous ones, particularly from the fielding side but not that many (clearly the absolute limit is two more per innings) and will make it far less likely that lower order batsmen will be swan off unable to dispute the point.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2012, 18:23   #185
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
There's no point in blaming the players, they're not perfect. They're just like umpires in that regard, aren't they? Saying that DRS would work perfectly if the players would only use it correctly is a bit like saying that the old system (as in use in the current India / England series) would work perfectly if the umpires would only make all their calls correctly.
The big difference is that in the non-DRS system the players have no right of redress for the howlers - there are no checks and balances. If the umpires make howlers, the players suffer. But if the players make the howlers in their use of the DRS, it's the players themselves who suffer.

The only way to guarantee removing all howlers is to have the third umpire review all decisions automatically. Not only would this slow the game down dramatically, but it would also render the purpose of the on-field umpire moot.

Having the umpires make the decision as to which decisions to review is futile, because the umpires obviously don't believe they made a howler in the first place. Plus if they have the option to refer before making a decision, they have little incentive to make the decision in the first place and the game slows down.

Giving the decision to the players gets round most of these - by and large they know when a howler has occurred. Where it breaks down is where they are speculating that it might be a mistake.

The main issue with the DRS is that the "cost" of a speculative review is intangible - what the players stand to lose is the potential to make a referral later in the game, and the better the umpiring, the less valuable this is. This can be addressed by adding an immediate cost - say ten runs - if the appeal is turned down (the NFL charges the team a timeout if memory serves me correctly).

But the principle seems clear - the players suffer the consequences of howlers, give them the tools to right them, but prevent them abusing the system.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2012, 23:24   #186
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
The big difference is that in the non-DRS system the players have no right of redress for the howlers - there are no checks and balances. If the umpires make howlers, the players suffer. But if the players make the howlers in their use of the DRS, it's the players themselves who suffer.

The only way to guarantee removing all howlers is to have the third umpire review all decisions automatically. Not only would this slow the game down dramatically, but it would also render the purpose of the on-field umpire moot.

Having the umpires make the decision as to which decisions to review is futile, because the umpires obviously don't believe they made a howler in the first place. Plus if they have the option to refer before making a decision, they have little incentive to make the decision in the first place and the game slows down.

Giving the decision to the players gets round most of these - by and large they know when a howler has occurred. Where it breaks down is where they are speculating that it might be a mistake.

The main issue with the DRS is that the "cost" of a speculative review is intangible - what the players stand to lose is the potential to make a referral later in the game, and the better the umpiring, the less valuable this is. This can be addressed by adding an immediate cost - say ten runs - if the appeal is turned down (the NFL charges the team a timeout if memory serves me correctly).

But the principle seems clear - the players suffer the consequences of howlers, give them the tools to right them, but prevent them abusing the system.
I have no sympathy for the players, given that they are so keen to not walk when they know they are out, and so keen to appeal when they know it is not out, etc. etc. So although you say that when the umpires make mistakes the players suffer, I don't care. Let them suffer, the cheating rotters. And now, as you point out, it is the players taking liberties that stop the system working as it potentially could, and perpetuate the howlers. But are the players complaining?

Judging by the comments during the England--India series, I suspect that the main point in favour of the DRS at this point is that it gives people an excuse to scoff at the India team when umpiring mistakes are made against them. When that happens, nobody seems to regret that the howler stands. Quite the opposite, in fact. Likewise, when a howler is made that is in England's favour, it is as if the howler is actually the BCCI's fault and the England team deserve the advantage. This being the case, it seems quite unlikely that anyone actually wants to improve the standard of decision.

Incidentally, perhaps the system you suggest -- charging a team ten runs if an appeal is made but turned down -- could be applied to the game of cricket without DRS. I suspect that there would be far less need for DRS if it were. Maybe this should have been thought of years ago?
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 14:13   #187
sharky
Legendary
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 9,975
Hopefully Dhoni will lose the captaincy after this and someone else like Kohli can take the Indians into the 21st century so we don't have the farcical situation over DRS we currently have.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 17:06   #188
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
Hopefully Dhoni will lose the captaincy after this and someone else like Kohli can take the Indians into the 21st century so we don't have the farcical situation over DRS we currently have.
They're all in the same century at present. What do you mean?

I think the Indian attitude to DRS -- which I don't think has much to do with Dhoni -- is laudable. Giles Clarke explained it all this morning on TMS in the lunch interval. The ICC insisted on an all-or-nothing approach to DRS, so when the BCCI insisted, quite rightly, that the predictive element of Hawkeye is not good enough, there was no option but not to use any of the DRS.

It will be fine to make review decisions based on tracking up to the point of impact. That's what the umpire sees, that's what the cameras see, that's what the commentators see -- so any howler must be able to be remedied on that basis.

The Indian approach is going to lead to a much better system. I can't understand why there has been so much rudeness about their stance. Anyone would think they poked the Queen in the eye or something.

Addendum: Also most amusing in the lunch break -- straight after the Clarke interview -- was the Etheridge and Pringle show. They're both fools and I can't tell them apart, but one of them was full of the standard bluster about the DRS. He insisted that it was totally unacceptable for there to be different systems in place in different test series. Then he said it again. Then, seemingly unable to expand on that or give any supporting evidence or reasoning, he had to move on to some other point. I was left with no inkling of why he thinks what he thinks.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 17:12   #189
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,865
Not sure why DRS has to be included all-or-nothing. Perhaps the TV companies can't license the use of the individual components to the ICC/cricketing boards at present.

If not, its a bit strange and flies in the face of precedence. After all, line calls for stumpings/run outs were reviewable years back; then later it was decided catches could be checked upstairs.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 17:40   #190
Jock McTuffnel v3
World Class
 
Jock McTuffnel v3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): England
Posts: 5,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Just had the Channel Nine commentators sounding off about the DRS in Australia / Sri Lankan. Two batsmen wasted their reviews trying to overturn plumb LBWs, then Herath had the "shocker" given LBW after a massive inside edge onto the pad.

In his eyes, because the DRS was unable to right this shocker, the DRS is wrong. It should be up to the umpires to decide when to review decisions, not the players (subsequently refined to the third umpire).

This is rubbish. The Sri Lankans were unable to right their shocker because they misused the system.
If I was a test captain I'd suggest nobody with less than say 50 runs should be reviewing a LBW decision unless they hit the ball.
__________________
Jock McTuffnel v3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 17:48   #191
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
They're all in the same century at present. What do you mean?

I think the Indian attitude to DRS -- which I don't think has much to do with Dhoni -- is laudable. Giles Clarke explained it all this morning on TMS in the lunch interval. The ICC insisted on an all-or-nothing approach to DRS, so when the BCCI insisted, quite rightly, that the predictive element of Hawkeye is not good enough, there was no option but not to use any of the DRS.

It will be fine to make review decisions based on tracking up to the point of impact. That's what the umpire sees, that's what the cameras see, that's what the commentators see -- so any howler must be able to be remedied on that basis.

The Indian approach is going to lead to a much better system. I can't understand why there has been so much rudeness about their stance. Anyone would think they poked the Queen in the eye or something.
It won't lead to a better system, because they can just keep asking for a better system. There will never be a perfect system, so a better one is always in the pipeline.

I don't see how their position is laudable. I recall they had a similar position on using line technology for runouts too. That system wasn't as good then as it is now but it was put in place and, as with DRS now, it was better than not having it at all. The BCCI wanting something better might be laudable as a general rule, but that doesn't mean that the DRS system on offer now isn't good enough to use. Get it in place, use it, learn to use it (more importantly in India's case), and improve it.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 19:26   #192
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
It won't lead to a better system, because they can just keep asking for a better system. There will never be a perfect system, so a better one is always in the pipeline.

I don't see how their position is laudable. I recall they had a similar position on using line technology for runouts too. That system wasn't as good then as it is now but it was put in place and, as with DRS now, it was better than not having it at all. The BCCI wanting something better might be laudable as a general rule, but that doesn't mean that the DRS system on offer now isn't good enough to use. Get it in place, use it, learn to use it (more importantly in India's case), and improve it.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 21:22   #193
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
It won't lead to a better system, because they can just keep asking for a better system. There will never be a perfect system, so a better one is always in the pipeline.

I don't see how their position is laudable. I recall they had a similar position on using line technology for runouts too. That system wasn't as good then as it is now but it was put in place and, as with DRS now, it was better than not having it at all. The BCCI wanting something better might be laudable as a general rule, but that doesn't mean that the DRS system on offer now isn't good enough to use. Get it in place, use it, learn to use it (more importantly in India's case), and improve it.
I think the Indian stance is likely to lead to a better system faster. Who else is campaigning for the non-use of Hawkeye, and with what force? Common sense gets met with advertising blurb.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th December 2012, 21:35   #194
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
I don't get your correlation. Technology tends to improve through use, not through political campaigning. Not sure what you mean by advertising blurb.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 02:08   #195
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
I don't get your correlation. Technology tends to improve through use, not through political campaigning. Not sure what you mean by advertising blurb.
I think Sans means that he doesn't believe that Hawkeye is any good at predicting the track of the ball after it hits pad and that anyone saying otherwise is caught up in hype. I'm not totally sure why he thinks this though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 07:51   #196
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think the Indian attitude to DRS -- which I don't think has much to do with Dhoni -- is laudable. Giles Clarke explained it all this morning on TMS in the lunch interval. The ICC insisted on an all-or-nothing approach to DRS, so when the BCCI insisted, quite rightly, that the predictive element of Hawkeye is not good enough, there was no option but not to use any of the DRS.

It will be fine to make review decisions based on tracking up to the point of impact. That's what the umpire sees, that's what the cameras see, that's what the commentators see -- so any howler must be able to be remedied on that basis.
My understanding is that HE assumes (as the laws mandate, and therefore the umpires must assume) that the ball continues without any further deviation after hitting the pad. If the tracking before impact is deemed sound, then it is strange - to put it no higher - that a simple extrapolation of the the trajectory is considered unsound. Any half decent high school physics student could probably put together the equations for this.
Quote:
The Indian approach is going to lead to a much better system. I can't understand why there has been so much rudeness about their stance.
Disagree.

What is going to lead to a better system is usage and consequential refinements.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 08:01   #197
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
If I was a test captain I'd suggest nobody with less than say 50 runs should be reviewing a LBW decision unless they hit the ball.
Or we could argue that if the didn't hit the ball, they don't deserve the reprieve anyway...

It's an interesting question when the batsman should review. Not touching a catch, edge into the pad are obvious. For LBW, I'd be tempted to go with "striker and non-striker agree why it is clearly not out".
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 21:41   #198
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
It will be fine to make review decisions based on tracking up to the point of impact. That's what the umpire sees, that's what the cameras see, that's what the commentators see -- so any howler must be able to be remedied on that basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
My understanding is that HE assumes (as the laws mandate, and therefore the umpires must assume) that the ball continues without any further deviation after hitting the pad. If the tracking before impact is deemed sound, then it is strange - to put it no higher - that a simple extrapolation of the the trajectory is considered unsound. Any half decent high school physics student could probably put together the equations for this.
The presentation of a precise extrapolated trajectory of what the ball would have done had the pad not got in the way is misleading. And there is a further temptation to think that it is even more misleading in some cases (e.g. when the ball strikes the pad immediately after pitching) than in others.

The example used by Clarke in the TMS interview -- to explain his understanding of the BCCI mistrust of the Hawkeye extrapolated trajectory -- was of a delivery from a spinner which after pitching might go straight on, or might change direction by a reasonable number of degrees, or anywhere in between.

We also know e.g. that the ball may swing, swerve, dip, and/or wobble after pitching.

Much depends on how much is seen of the ball's post-pitch journey before it hits the pad. That "how much" varies from hardly anything at all, to two foot or more.

What the umpire sees or what the replay viewer sees is no less than what the Hawkeye cameras see. The calculation that Hawkeye performs is essentially the same as the one that the umpire or replay viewer performs in their head when they wonder whether the ball would have hit the stumps. In some cases it's impossible to tell. Yet Hawkeye always provides a precise trajectory, even when that one is just one of many ones the ball might have been liable to have.

I don't think Hawkeye adds to the validity of the review decision. The human umpire or replay viewer is able judiciously to incorporate the levels of obvious doubt into the call that is made, out or not out. It's possible to spot and rectify the bad first-umpire decisions on the basis of a third-umpire review of the replay / slo-mo replay. So Hawkeye doesn't really add anything; but it often has problems of its own.

The current use of an "umpire's call" zone on the TV diagrams is unsatisfactory because the size of the zone doesn't enormously expand and contract as it should, depending on how much post-pitch trajectory was viewable. And it splits space digitally -- but the doubt cloud, if you like, is actually much more subtly graded.

The "umpire's call" convention also leads to the odd situation where TV audiences are shown a picture of the ball hitting the stumps and yet a not out verdict is reviewed and stands. That situation, in a way, is Hawkeye in a nutshell.

One conceivable drawback to the solution I propose is that it could lead to diplomatic problems between umpires -- because the third-umpire call is a judgment call from a person rather than from Hawkeye. Here -- as with the whole issue -- the training and support of umpires is key.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 22:50   #199
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
The replay viewer is watching in 2D, so they're out of the equation.

"...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."

Both the umpire and hawkeye do this. There should be no judicious level of doubt incorporated. This includes the scenario where the ball hits just after pitching. Both the umpire and hawkeye must assume the ball was going on straight. What hawkeye adds is reproducibility. While the umpire has a split second to construct the scenario and make the decision, hawkeye can reconstruct it as slowly as it needs to.

It's also not infallible, but none of your post suggests that it's detrimental either, so the BCCI's decision not to use the entire review system because they have a hunch that one aspect of it (that of the trajectory after hitting) isn't more accurate than the umpire, still doesn't add up.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th December 2012, 23:06   #200
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,661
Hawkeye adds independence.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org