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 12th October 2011, 20:54   #121
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
You may well be right, but I don't think I know enough about human cognition to understand this. Hawkeye will be limited by the frame speed (i.e. the gaps between data points), but I don't know how continuously the mind can receive data from the eye, or how accurately it can extrapolate on the basis of that data in comparison with the computer, or how its specific cognitive biases affect the issue. On the face of it, eye-and-mind and camera-and-processor would seem to be performing similar types of operation when they extrapolate the hypothetical path of the ball, but they are obviously wired up in different ways. Nonetheless, if the proof of the pudding is whether the TV viewer would deem a howler to have been made, then the eye-and-mind might be the bottom line even if it were to be less accurate than Hawkeye, since won't the TV viewer perform the armchair extrapolation on the same basis as the third (or fourth, fifth, sixth) umpire?
I'm not entirely sure anyone knows enough about human cognition to understand this entirely. Still, it's fairly well recognised that the human eye is an utterly amazing piece of kit, as is the human brain. Both of them are far, far, far cleverer than Hawkeye. The problem is that their relationship isn't optimised for explicit prediction of things like the track of a ball. By contrast, they are optimised for implicit prediction of such things, as can be seen by the batsman's ability to hit a ball with a bat an awful lot of the time, despite the additional difficulty of the actual moving of the bat. So, hand eye coordination is something we're amazing at but the same batsman who can hit a cricket ball pitched on the stumps 9 or more times out of 10 won't be able to tell you for sure whether the ball is on the stumps when he's batting as often as that and will be even worse at doing so if he's standing at the other end of the pitch watching.

I do wonder whether Chris Martin would be better at judging lbws than hitting the ball though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2011, 22:42   #122
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Also in practice.
No. Really?
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2011, 16:54   #123
truth
County 2nd Team
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Germany
Team(s): The World Champs
Posts: 261
The humans behind DRS can make balant blunders. This was the case when a player was given out even on a No ball. The reason given was wrong replay of the bowlers foot was shown to the 3rd umpire by the human sitting behind the DRS. Not surprisingly it favoured the home side.

The technology behind the Hawk eye is just simple manual calculations which can be very easily modified by person working on the DRS.

Hence the BCCI feels that the technology is not matured enough as of now.

BTW... you know what is the other name for DRS after the recent India England series? ---- Dravid Removal System!
truth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 10:30   #124
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3 View Post
Surely the argument should not be is DRS compulsary but what is included - if hot spot is dodgy then turf it out - don't throw DRS out with it though.
Yup - but even then, there are guidelines which can be adopted for Hotspot (presence of a spot indicates contact, absence of a spot does not preclude contact).

IMHO the BCCI and ICC are being somewhat farcical here - hobbling a system which reduces the number of umpiring errors on the basis that it doesn't eliminate them altogether.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 10:31   #125
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth View Post
The humans behind DRS can make balant blunders. This was the case when a player was given out even on a No ball. The reason given was wrong replay of the bowlers foot was shown to the 3rd umpire by the human sitting behind the DRS. Not surprisingly it favoured the home side.

The technology behind the Hawk eye is just simple manual calculations which can be very easily modified by person working on the DRS.

Hence the BCCI feels that the technology is not matured enough as of now.
And if all else fails, adopt a conspiracy theory.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 10:55   #126
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by truth View Post
The humans behind DRS can make balant blunders. This was the case when a player was given out even on a No ball. The reason given was wrong replay of the bowlers foot was shown to the 3rd umpire by the human sitting behind the DRS. Not surprisingly it favoured the home side.

The technology behind the Hawk eye is just simple manual calculations which can be very easily modified by person working on the DRS.

Hence the BCCI feels that the technology is not matured enough as of now.

BTW... you know what is the other name for DRS after the recent India England series? ---- Dravid Removal System!
Come on Truth. DRS stands for Dev Revival as a Substitute.
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 11:01   #127
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I do wonder whether Chris Martin Read would be better at judging lbws than hitting the ball though.
Just for you slogger should you be browsing!
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 11:39   #128
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Just for you slogger should you be browsing!
Cr@p. Where has slog been? Helping people!
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2011, 13:40   #129
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 26,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Yup - but even then, there are guidelines which can be adopted for Hotspot (presence of a spot indicates contact, absence of a spot does not preclude contact).

IMHO the BCCI and ICC are being somewhat farcical here - hobbling a system which reduces the number of umpiring errors on the basis that it doesn't eliminate them altogether.
Heaven forbid a system that would actually favour bowlers*


*although this will no doubt end up being used mainly on lbws to prove inside edges rather than to adjudicate on edges behind.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2011, 09:06   #130
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Heaven forbid a system that would actually favour bowlers*.
Indeed - what would the world be coming to?

In the case of edges, there's a case that the bowler, having beaten the bat, is more entitled to the benefit of the doubt (the bowler's job is to beat the bat, the batsman's job is to control the ball with the bat).

In practice what it means is that for the finest edges - where Hotspot is alledged to have a blind spot - the third umpire will give more wieght to other aspects such as whether or not the ball appeared to change rotation as it passes the bat, snicko or the like.

It's much harder to convincingly demonstrate the bat didn't hit the ball, so the imperfect proxy is currently being used - absence of convincing proof of contact is taken as "proof" of no contact.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2011, 16:46   #131
truth
County 2nd Team
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Germany
Team(s): The World Champs
Posts: 261
Physics time....

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Not _that_ much slower.
Are you kidding??


Speed of Light:
Measured at 299,792,458 meters per second


Speed of sound
Measured at 344 meters per second
truth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2011, 16:53   #132
truth
County 2nd Team
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Germany
Team(s): The World Champs
Posts: 261
Well at the end of the day errors made by Umpires can be excused as human errors. However the errors made by DRS (some of them atrocious) are just unpardonable.
truth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 13:23   #133
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,249
Does anyone know if the full UDRS will be in place for England's winter tours to UAE and Sri Lanka?
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 15:40   #134
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,307
Well Pakistan gained sponsorship for DRS in an ODI series, you'd think they could do that for Tests and ODIs against England, they're a more marketable team. I can see Sri Lanka claiming it's too expensive, seeing as their board is broke.

You'd hope the 'enhanced DRS' used in South Africa will now become the norm (better frame rates being the only really thing 'enhanced', I believe).
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 23:03   #135
3hard
International Material
 
3hard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Adelaide
Team(s): The mighty redbacks.
Posts: 1,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
Well Pakistan gained sponsorship for DRS in an ODI series, you'd think they could do that for Tests and ODIs against England, they're a more marketable team. I can see Sri Lanka claiming it's too expensive, seeing as their board is broke.

You'd hope the 'enhanced DRS' used in South Africa will now become the norm (better frame rates being the only really thing 'enhanced', I believe).
I thought the system worked very well in the SA-Aus series - which is borne out by the lack of publicity it received regarding decisions.
__________________
Quote:
"Yet your argument is that of a retarded 11 year old, who is also crippled."
3hard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 23:05   #136
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3hard View Post
I thought the system worked very well in the SA-Aus series - which is borne out by the lack of publicity it received regarding decisions.
I agree. Best run of it I have seen thus far.
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 23:16   #137
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,307
Hawkeye is improved immensely with better frame-rate cameras, I'd assume Hotspot does as well.
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd November 2011, 23:32   #138
ddb
Established International
 
ddb's Avatar
http://www.cricket-match-special.com/
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey View Post
Hawkeye is improved immensely with better frame-rate cameras, I'd assume Hotspot does as well.
Didn't Hawkins disagree with that assumption? Here:

Quote:
One of the significant disagreements between Hawk-Eye and Virtual Eye is over frame-rates of the cameras used in ball-tracking, and the role they play in determining an accurate track. Hawk-Eye's cameras track the ball at 106 frames per second, and Virtual Eye, during the Ashes in 2010-11, tracked it at 230. In an interview on ESPNcricinfo's audio show Time Out, Ian Taylor, chief of Virtual Eye, said the higher the frame-rate, the better the decisions can be due to more data being available for establishing a ball-track. Hawkins, however, challenged that claim.

"It's completely misleading, in fact it's wrong," Hawkins said. "If it was just about frame-rates, why not have cameras of 1000 frames per second, or 2000 frames per second. You can get cameras that run for 10,000 frames per second. We have run a higher frame-rate system alongside our lower frame-rate system and our lower frame-rate system has worked better, just to explain to you how important frame-rates are in the overall scheme of things.

"You need very high-resolution cameras in order to accurately find the centre of the ball in each image. You need very accurate calibration mechanisms to know exactly what the calibration or the lens distortions of the cameras are, you need to be able to very accurately synchronise your cameras so that an image taken from one camera is taken at exactly the same time as an image taken from another camera. Or you need to compensate for that by knowing the time difference between the cameras. And you need to be able to compensate for any wobble there might be in the camera."
__________________
"Well, like a few, creaking Terminators, we're back..."
Dravid on his and Sachin's return to Australia to lose 4-0.
ddb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2012, 08:11   #139
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
From the Guardian

Quote:
The system has palpably gone way beyond its original brief, which was to eradicate howlers, and there is an increasing concern that the International Cricket Council has created a monster even if the result has been some often thrilling cricket. Dave Richardson, the ICC's general manager, said: "I think if we're totally honest, DRS has affected the game slightly more than we thought it would."
Apparently one of the side-effects of the DRS is that batsmen are being given out LBW to spinners when the ball would have hit the stumps had they not used their pads. This is in stark contrast to previous generations, and has meant that batsmen such as KP are having to change their techniques accordingly.

Quote:
..."In my career so far, this is the toughest I've ever found it," said Kevin Pietersen in February. "Batters are not getting the benefit of the doubt (*) any more. Umpires are giving a lot more lbws. It just has to be clipping and you're out. Two, three, four years ago you were never, ever out. I have had to change my game, but it's not just me..."
Yep, that's right - the monster it has created is one which means that the batsmen have to use their bat if the ball would otherwise have hit the stumps...

(*) I'd argue that the batsmen still largely get the benefit of the doubt - I've yet to see a ball the technology sees as "just missing" given as "umpire's call", it automatically goes in the batsman's favour - it's just the window of doubt has been dramatically reduced.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2012, 01:13   #140
3hard
International Material
 
3hard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Adelaide
Team(s): The mighty redbacks.
Posts: 1,892
No doubt KP misses the old days:
Quote:
35.1 Warne to Pietersen, no run, full and on the pads, Pietersen kicks it away tucking bat behind pad
35.2 Warne to Pietersen, no run, once again on the pads and Pietersen does the same thing again, kicking the ball to short leg
37.2 Warne to Pietersen, no run, this is a straight one and on the stumps, Pietersen pads up with bat close, loud, loud shout for lbw but Pietersen is well forward and survives
etc etc
Wouldn't Warney have loved the DRS back in 2005?
__________________
Quote:
"Yet your argument is that of a retarded 11 year old, who is also crippled."
3hard 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 09:48.



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