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 9th December 2017, 08:21   #561
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
I see that Hawk-Eye is not being used, but something called Virtual Eye.

Cricket Paper
On England's 2010/11 Ashes tour, after Virtual Eye's Eagle Eye 3-D analysis was blamed for a couple of dodgy calls, Hawkeye's founder claimed their system was nine times less reliable than his.

At the time, even Virtual-Eye's director admitted his company's graphics should be used for entertainment purposes only.

"We provide graphics for TV based on the belief that the game doesn't depend on it and that if there is a mistake made, there is no major consequence."

In that context, whether or not the outcome of any of the aforementioned DRS predictions consititued a "major consequence" events are Adelaide this week raise the questions of whether Virtual Eye's system has actually improved in the last seven years and, if not, why on earth is it being used at all?

More widely, they have done nothing to ease continuing doubts over whether any form of prediction, unless it is proven to be 100 per cent spot on every time, should be regarded as more trustworthy than that made by an onfield umpire, standing 22 yards away with the best view in the house.
**** me, how can the flat-earthers still think that?
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th December 2017, 09:57   #562
thedon
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
More widely, they have done nothing to ease continuing doubts over whether any form of prediction, unless it is proven to be 100 per cent spot on every time, should be regarded as more trustworthy than that made by an onfield umpire, standing 22 yards away with the best view in the house.
Unlikely any predictive technology can achieve 100% accuracy. Though knowing what accuracy it actually is would help. Are there any genuine objective experiments showing the derived accuracy, and how it is achieved, in a variety of conditions, bowling styles etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
**** me, how can the flat-earthers still think that?
Lol.
__________________
carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
thedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th December 2017, 19:44   #563
square leg umpire
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 8,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1000yardstare View Post
I see that Hawk-Eye is not being used, but something called Virtual Eye.

Cricket Paper
On England's 2010/11 Ashes tour, after Virtual Eye's Eagle Eye 3-D analysis was blamed for a couple of dodgy calls, Hawkeye's founder claimed their system was nine times less reliable than his.

At the time, even Virtual-Eye's director admitted his company's graphics should be used for entertainment purposes only.

"We provide graphics for TV based on the belief that the game doesn't depend on it and that if there is a mistake made, there is no major consequence."

In that context, whether or not the outcome of any of the aforementioned DRS predictions consititued a "major consequence" events are Adelaide this week raise the questions of whether Virtual Eye's system has actually improved in the last seven years and, if not, why on earth is it being used at all?

More widely, they have done nothing to ease continuing doubts over whether any form of prediction, unless it is proven to be 100 per cent spot on every time, should be regarded as more trustworthy than that made by an onfield umpire, standing 22 yards away with the best view in the house.
Thought there was something ropey about the DRS in Adelaide, especially concerning that lbw that got overturned. didn't realise they were using a duff system.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th December 2017, 11:52   #564
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 830 Cummins 149 Wagner 147 TCurran 21 SCurran 9
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,848
The Cricket Prof.‏
@CricProf
Joe Root's successful review against Cameron Bancroft gives him the highest successful review percentage of any captain to have made 20+ reviews in Test cricket.

Root 34%
Ponting 33%
Du Plessis 28%
Strauss 25%
Smith 24%
Clarke 23%
Cook 22%
Dilshan 22%
G Smith 22%
Kohli 21%
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2018, 15:18   #565
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,572
I think I'm probably a bit more sensitive than usual on this topic at the moment because of the recent rash of Australian cheating. But because the DRS is working reasonably well at reducing the incidence of poor decisions and thus the ability of batters to affect games by not walking, so the instances of flagrant non-walking seem more and more heinous. This morning in the early hours Bairstow was out caught when he had 2, but the umpire didn't notice, and because NZ happened to have no reviews left, he was able to cheat with impunity by not walking. It could mean the difference between NZ winning the series (perhaps 2-0, perhaps 1-0) and England drawing it. It seems particularly sad because the technology is all there and there is no need for such instances. The system still sucks, perhaps more than before because the chance of such instances evening out across the course of a game or series is presumably slimmer than it used to be when non-corrected howlers were more frequent.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th April 2018, 08:45   #566
Sir Coolerking
County Pro
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Berks
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think I'm probably a bit more sensitive than usual on this topic at the moment because of the recent rash of Australian cheating. But because the DRS is working reasonably well at reducing the incidence of poor decisions and thus the ability of batters to affect games by not walking, so the instances of flagrant non-walking seem more and more heinous. This morning in the early hours Bairstow was out caught when he had 2, but the umpire didn't notice, and because NZ happened to have no reviews left, he was able to cheat with impunity by not walking. It could mean the difference between NZ winning the series (perhaps 2-0, perhaps 1-0) and England drawing it. It seems particularly sad because the technology is all there and there is no need for such instances. The system still sucks, perhaps more than before because the chance of such instances evening out across the course of a game or series is presumably slimmer than it used to be when non-corrected howlers were more frequent.
But why did NZ have no reviews left? Arguably because they were trying to cheat the system. If an lbw comes up as umpire's call then you don't lose a review, so it's actually not that close if you've lost one for that. I don't know what they lost them for and perhaps there needs to be a little more leeway on whether a review should be lost on catches that clip something but not bat etc. But if you have no reviews left then you've made 2 poor appeals and your team needs to be working better together to get these right.

No issue for me if Bairstow stood where he was, would expect every batsman to do likewise.
Sir Coolerking 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 20:17.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org