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 24th August 2011, 23:11   #81
luckyluke
International Cricketer
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,900
Few either side (Broad's plumb lbws at Lord's, then his hat-trick lbw with the big inside edge, Raina's shocker on Monday) but I don't think the BCCI will too bothered about it, they've got a lot more to worry about at the minute. If the series was closer and such decisions would have changed the result (or even the result of a test) then maybe.

Reminiscent of that goal that crossed the line last summer. Unlike previous sporting injustices against England, not much was made of it because everybody knew that Germany absolutely twatted us anyway.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2011, 11:37   #82
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
Few either side (Broad's plumb lbws at Lord's, then his hat-trick lbw with the big inside edge, Raina's shocker on Monday) but I don't think the BCCI will too bothered about it, they've got a lot more to worry about at the minute. If the series was closer and such decisions would have changed the result (or even the result of a test) then maybe.

Reminiscent of that goal that crossed the line last summer. Unlike previous sporting injustices against England, not much was made of it because everybody knew that Germany absolutely twatted us anyway.
Yes, that's a fair assessment. India's batsmen batted so poorly that it can't be said that a particular decision could have been the difference between winning and losing, and England's batting had such depth that one player missing out through a wrong decision didn't affect the ability to post a big total.
__________________
As balanced and focused as the next man
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 08:43   #83
patlee111
County 2nd Team
 
patlee111's Avatar
Nemo me impune Lacessit.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 200
Comments from Simon Taufel.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/sri-lank...ry/530864.html
patlee111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 11:49   #84
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
He says what I and others have said since the WC. Test it independently and have consistency. Hopefully the ICC finally do this and fund the poorer boards to use UDRS
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 11:57   #85
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
He says what I and others have said since the WC. Test it independently and have consistency. Hopefully the ICC finally do this and fund the poorer boards to use UDRS
Test it however you want. I still think they're missing the point. Even if the tests verify inconsistencies (which is likely as no system is perfect), it's still a more accurate system, together with the umpires original decision, than no DRS at all.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 12:04   #86
High Druid Nathan Barley
Posting God
 
High Druid Nathan Barley's Avatar
Don't look at me with those freak show eyes
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): Essex, Southend
Age: 41
Posts: 12,012
Isn't part of the problem here that the frame rates being used here are too slow to provide enough information to the hawk-eye system, particularly if it hits the pad close to where it pitches?
__________________
Then one day it happened, she cut her hair and I stopped loving her.

Self defence is not simply about punching someone repeatedly in the face until they're unconscious, is it?

She took all I had and then she fed me dirt.
High Druid Nathan Barley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 12:12   #87
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Test it however you want. I still think they're missing the point. Even if the tests verify inconsistencies (which is likely as no system is perfect), it's still a more accurate system, together with the umpires original decision, than no DRS at all.
What's the consistency in having 2 different variations of ball tracking.

It is still a broadcaster extra more than an umpire aid.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 12:15   #88
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
Isn't part of the problem here that the frame rates being used here are too slow to provide enough information to the hawk-eye system, particularly if it hits the pad close to where it pitches?
Hawkins said frame rates aren't the problem. In AUS, the frame rate is more than in England but less accurate.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 12:20   #89
High Druid Nathan Barley
Posting God
 
High Druid Nathan Barley's Avatar
Don't look at me with those freak show eyes
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): Essex, Southend
Age: 41
Posts: 12,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
Hawkins said frame rates aren't the problem. In AUS, the frame rate is more than in England but less accurate.
OK, the point is still there that more needs to be done than just test Hawk-eye itself, the broadcasting technology used world-wide needs to be included in any such appraisals.
__________________
Then one day it happened, she cut her hair and I stopped loving her.

Self defence is not simply about punching someone repeatedly in the face until they're unconscious, is it?

She took all I had and then she fed me dirt.
High Druid Nathan Barley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 12:45   #90
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
What's the consistency in having 2 different variations of ball tracking.
Because you can look at it objectively. Look at the umpiring mistakes that have been overturned since the system has been implemented, don't just focus on the relatively few mistakes that have been made by what is still a new system. Just because it can, and will, be improved, doesn't mean it isn't good now.

Similar inconsistencies occurred with cyclops in tennis, and third umpires for runouts (which India also objected to), but they were still recognised as being better than not having them.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 13:58   #91
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,738
The problem with appealing to the various howlers that have been overturned and using that as a justification of Hawkeye etc. is that it is very easy to think of any number of alternative systems that would also have achieved this. The notion of a howler rather suggests that the umpire has made an obvious error that any other fool could correct if he had the power to do so. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Hawkeye is beside the point and more trouble than it is worth.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 14:18   #92
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Test it however you want. I still think they're missing the point. Even if the tests verify inconsistencies (which is likely as no system is perfect), it's still a more accurate system, together with the umpires original decision, than no DRS at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ddb View Post
He says what I and others have said since the WC. Test it independently and have consistency. Hopefully the ICC finally do this and fund the poorer boards to use UDRS
"Our message as umpires was rather strong at the ICC cricket committee meeting where we said, we either want to use everything or nothing at all, let's try to make it consistently easier for everybody. That's what we want to work towards."

A bit of a dig at India it would seem, seeing as they are the only ones who seem to not want to use all the technology available.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2011, 19:02   #93
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
Because you can look at it objectively. Look at the umpiring mistakes that have been overturned since the system has been implemented, don't just focus on the relatively few mistakes that have been made by what is still a new system. Just because it can, and will, be improved, doesn't mean it isn't good now.

Similar inconsistencies occurred with cyclops in tennis, and third umpires for runouts (which India also objected to), but they were still recognised as being better than not having them.
You didn't quote the main point. The tech is a broadcaster gimmick rather than a umpire aid, there is little consistency in the laws and that needs to be corrected if it is used.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2011, 13:37   #94
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
The problem with appealing to the various howlers that have been overturned and using that as a justification of Hawkeye etc. is that it is very easy to think of any number of alternative systems that would also have achieved this. The notion of a howler rather suggests that the umpire has made an obvious error that any other fool could correct if he had the power to do so. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Hawkeye is beside the point and more trouble than it is worth.
You think without any particular supporting evidence that the view you held all along is still right? I'm astonished.

If you're so convinced that an alternative way of correcting on field howlers would be just as good, propound one. While I tend to agree that there might well be other valid ways of correcting the for example inside edge errors (which don't use Hawkeye) or the clearly missing or hitting lbws given wrongly, you need reliability and validity in them.

Hawk eye is testable and has been tested. I'd like to see it tested and refined more but as above, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system now.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2011, 20:38   #95
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
You think without any particular supporting evidence that the view you held all along is still right? I'm astonished.

If you're so convinced that an alternative way of correcting on field howlers would be just as good, propound one. While I tend to agree that there might well be other valid ways of correcting the for example inside edge errors (which don't use Hawkeye) or the clearly missing or hitting lbws given wrongly, you need reliability and validity in them.

Hawk eye is testable and has been tested. I'd like to see it tested and refined more but as above, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system now.
You re-present my position in a rhetorically charged and spectacularly ungenerous fashion? I'm not at all surprised.

As for alternative systems, we could easily get hung up on definitions of "howler", but if we start with a working definition in terms of a mistake that TV viewers can easily and quickly identify as such, either in real time or with the benefit of a slow-motion replay, then the obvious corrective system would involve a viewer of said replay being able to press a button indicating to the on-field umpire that a howler has occurred. Given adequate remuneration I would be happy to perform this role, and I am sure there would be many other possible takers. But my preferred system would be to have a number of trained upstairs umpires with specific roles, viewing different replays or the same replay with different questions -- one checking for no-balls, one for where the ball pitched, one for whether it was likely to hit the stumps, etc. You could even have an umpire checking hotspot, as long as the visuals could be produced swiftly and the umpire knew he was checking for evidence of contact rather than evidence of non-contact. In the case of players wrongly given out, it would be quite easy to correct the decision by walkie-talkie before the player had left the field. In the case of players wrongly given not out, time is more crucial, especially if a slow bowler is operating; hence the plurality of upstairs personnel with clearly defined parallel roles. Slow bowlers would soon get in the habit of delaying the next ball slightly if they thought there was a good chance of the decision being overturned from upstairs; and this wouldn't delay play as much as a fast bowler meandering back to the end of his run-up does currently.

I agree that Hawkeye is a useful system to some extent, but to that extent I'm not convinced it's often doing something that couldn't equally well be done without it.

In particular I think that having an upstairs no-ball checker would be a real boon, as it is tricky for an umpire to scrutinise the foot and the line and then such a short time afterwards (shortest in the case of fast bowlers) have to comment authoritatively on exactly what happened in a very different direction of sight and at a very different focal length. If the on-field umpire was spared the duty of calling no-balls, I suspect the accuracy of on-field decisions concerning what happened down the other end would be significantly increased. That's just a hunch, but it's not a particularly weird one, even by the standards you are pleased to apply to me.

One of my main aims in devising a new system would be to divest the players of the responsibility of referral. The fielding side -- with the wicketkeeper significantly unsighted and the other fielders viewing events from various oblique(arse) angles -- is sometimes not in a position to spot errors that would be obvious to the TV viewers. One could say that if the fielders aren't aware of the error then it doesn't matter, but it seems to me that the drive to improve decision-making has come from the TV and from the TV viewers and commentators, to improve the integrity of the game from the perspective of the armchair. Which is a real consideration.

The other obviously ridiculous thing about the current player referral system is that if the fielding side call for referrals unsuccessfully on the first two balls of the innings, then all howlers to their disadvantage in that innings will stand uncorrected. Added to which we know -- because so many of them don't walk, and/or appeal even though they don't think it's really out -- that the players are not particularly interested in correct decisions per se.

The system I've suggested would presumably fail to correct some errors -- but they would either be non-obvious ones, or they would be very rare (in cases where the upstairs umpires duplicated the mistake of the on-field umpire). At present, with Hawkeye, it seems to me that the system is in danger of trying to correct non-obvious errors about which no-one would complain except technophiliac fundamentalists.

The most important thing for the system is for it to be introduced from above and across the board, after a good period of planning and sensible reflection on, and thoughtful circumvention of, the obvious problems that are likely to occur. I don't claim to have done this myself yet; the above is merely a first stab, and I would be grateful for comments. It seems to me that the UDRS, as we have seen it so far, has been driven by the carping of TV commentators, and that it has been introduced in an ad hoc and variable fashion that gives a rather dubious (and sometimes internationally divisive) impression -- and this is perhaps why opinions are so much more polarised on this issue than they really should need to be.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2011, 08:52   #96
patlee111
County 2nd Team
 
patlee111's Avatar
Nemo me impune Lacessit.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 200
patlee111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2011, 07:12   #97
3hard
International Material
 
3hard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Adelaide
Team(s): The mighty redbacks.
Posts: 1,892
So the Hawkeye bods admit the system stuffed up on the Phil Highes LBW in Sri Lanka. Have to say this is not the first time I have seen this happen - a few years ago (before the introduction of the DRS) I remember a player being given out LBW after a deflection from from the front pad to back pad where hawkeye assumed the back pad was the point of contact. I thought the system might have improved since then, but obviously there are still technical issues. Mind you it was the umpire that made the initial error with Hughes - it was just that Hawkeye was not good enough to show him up.
__________________
Quote:
"Yet your argument is that of a retarded 11 year old, who is also crippled."
3hard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2011, 13:43   #98
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3hard View Post
Mind you it was the umpire that made the initial error with Hughes - it was just that Hawkeye was not good enough to show him up.
A point well worth remembering amidst the outcry surrounding the Hughes dismissal.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2011, 14:35   #99
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,738
Sounds like a problem that would have been solved if the third umpire had used the replay rather than Hawkeye.

[Added later:]
One thing I'm not sure about is the introduction of this 40 cm magic figure. It gives the impression that if the distance between pitching and impact is less than 40 cm then Hawkeye is not to be trusted, and that if the distance is more than 40 cm then Hawkeye is to be trusted. But in fact the reliability of Hawkeye will be continuously variable depending on the distance between pitching and impact, and there is no way of knowing in advance how reliable Hawkeye needs to be in order to be more reliable than alternative methods of tracking the ball.

By alternative method here I am thinking of the tracking that a person does when they watch the replay. In the Hughes dismissal the idea that Hawkeye had made a mistake was prompted in the first instance by the discrepancy between the eye-and-mind tracking (i.e. viewing the replay and imagining the ball continuing as if the pad had not intervened) and the Hawkeye picture. Given such a discrepancy, the eye-and-mind is to be trusted, it seems.

It is important to realise that the factor compromising the accuracy of Hawkeye in this case -- i.e. a short distance between pitching and impact, and so a relatively small amount of data from which to extrapolate -- will also compromise the accuracy of the eye-and-mind extrapolation. Yet it seems that given the limited data, the eye-and-mind is able to perform the extrapolation better than Hawkeye. If the data set is increased (i.e. the ball travels further between pitching and impact) then Hawkeye will be more accurate. But the eye-and-mind will also be more accurate in such cases, since its data set is also increased, by the same amount. What I don't understand is: if Hawkeye is less accurate than the eye-and-mind for small data sets, then on what basis does one suppose that it would be more accurate than the eye-and-mind for large data sets? Rather, wouldn't one expect the accuracy of eye-and-mind relative to Hawkeye to be a constant, irrespective of data-set size?

Last edited by sanskritsimon : 6th September 2011 at 16:15.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2011, 21:56   #100
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,255
I was just about to admit that I agreed with the large majority of your last two posts, Sans, when I got to the end of the last one. To be characteristically more interested in the bits I can argue with:

1. While I like a lot of your ideas about off field reviews, and especially agree about no balls, the problem with lbws is that the off field reviewer will at most correct some of the very obvious errors, not all of them and certainly not the ones that probably are wrong even to him but which he doesn't quite feel up to over-ruling his colleague on. We sort of already know this from the umpire led review system used in the Australia v rest of world tests. I appreciate that your biggest focus isn't on accuracy but you must accept that there's a problem with consistency with your approach. There's also the huge issue that we don't have enough good umpires to have three a game at the moment, let alone more.

2. Hawk eye, like a lot of mechanical systems, can be fooled by things that a human might pick up (although the on field umpire didn't, as discussed). That doesn't generalise to your further points though. Hawk eye doesn't suffer from a large number of cognitive biases that humans do and humans definitely don't stop making errors when the ball bounces 40 cm in front of the pads. Neither perhaps entirely does Hawk eye but it does become more reliable with more data in a predictable way. One certainly wouldn't expect human accuracy versus Hawkeye to be constant, as the two systems are using entirely different technology, as it were, to make the same judgement, as the discussion just above shows.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger 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 14:17.



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