Umpire’s call

[bowl_out]

13 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Too many not outs is okay. Batsmen should be dismissed only if there is no doubt.

 

Currently same scenario can be out or not out based on umpire's decision. Allows bias to influence games.

 

But isn't that how it has been always. Umpire's decision is final.

What DRS does is to allow the players to successfully appeal for the umpire's decision to be overturned if there is sufficient proof available for it. If sufficient proof isn't available, then the umpire's decision stays, as it has always been since the inception of the game.  

 

This is the best possible set up in my opinion because it let's the umpire be the judge of decisions, yet gives the players redemption if there is a glaring error like inside edges, pitching outside leg etc.

[coffee_rules]

44 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

 I agree. Umpire's call should only for predictive events, not for events that have already happened. 

Get rid of umpire's call for impact. I don't think they use it for where it pitched(?)

 

Umpire's call should stay for ball hitting stumps

Impact is not for where it pitched , but where it intercepted the pad in line of stumps. 

[bowl_out]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Impact is not for where it pitched , but where it intercepted the pad in line of stumps. 

Yes. That is what I'm saying too.

 

For where it pitched, they don't use umpires calls because the event is certain.

 

By that same logic, they should remove umpires call for impact as well because that event is also certain. You know exactly where the impact was, so it is either in line or outside the line. There is no reason to use umpires call here.

 

The only place where umpires call is needed is whether it will hit the stumps, because this is only a projection of an event that hasn't happened.

[Lord]

2 hours ago, bowl_out said:

 

But isn't that how it has been always. Umpire's decision is final.

What DRS does is to allow the players to successfully appeal for the umpire's decision to be overturned if there is sufficient proof available for it. If sufficient proof isn't available, then the umpire's decision stays, as it has always been since the inception of the game.  

 

This is the best possible set up in my opinion because it let's the umpire be the judge of decisions, yet gives the players redemption if there is a glaring error like inside edges, pitching outside leg etc.

 

Yeah the system is basically for howlers only.

 

But it still leaves room for human bias. Sufficient proof is needed to rule the batsman out, not to overturn the decision. If sufficient proof is not there, how do we know umpire got it right? Why do we back his decision where even technology is not 100% sure.

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, Lord said:

 

Yeah the system is basically for howlers only.

 

But it still leaves room for human bias. Sufficient proof is needed to rule the batsman out, not to overturn the decision. If sufficient proof is not there, how do we know umpire got it right? Why do we back his decision where even technology is not 100% sure.

 

Because that is his job and he is paid to do that.. It is similar to asking why do we need a judge when laws are out there for everyone to read.

[Trichromatic]

6 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Yeah the system is basically for howlers only.

 

But it still leaves room for human bias. Sufficient proof is needed to rule the batsman out, not to overturn the decision. If sufficient proof is not there, how do we know umpire got it right? Why do we back his decision where even technology is not 100% sure.

Modern day umpires are said to have accuracy of 92 or 97%, I don’t remember the numbers.

[coffee_rules]

14 hours ago, MK55 said:

Of course, cricket lbw  is different than tennis. Where have I not said that lol? And mainly (among other reasons) coz 0f the prediction of the ball trajectory after impact.

 

You’re right about the removal of the umpires call part for where the ball pitched. My bad here. I was under the impression that there’s an umpire call thing even for that ridiculously obvious thing. I think they updated that and wasn’t the case when they introduced this thing.

 

Now the impact in the line of the stumps part - off course it’s more complicated than the pitching outside leg component but a loss less complicated than the prediction of the trajectory after impact part. Do u know where they came up with this ‘50 percent’ ball area part? Also they have the same 50 percent number even for the hitting the stumps part after impact. Like I said, these two aspects, ‘checking impact in line’ and ‘predicting hitting the stumps’, surely in real terms will have a different margin of error relative to each other. 
 

At least for starters, they should try and remove the umpires call thing for the impact in the line of the stumps part. I bet you don’t need 50 percent area to account for that margin of error over here specifically. Reduce that and get rid of umpires call. They gotta look at it relatively with how good that margin of error is wrt to a human standing 22 yards away.

I think that 50% of the ball rule was always there. Came across this video where Tony Greg is commenting. Must be in 2010/11 series. They were using inferior cameras compared to today. The wicket zone was the middle of the stumps. The 50% was used to compensate for the margin of error. I think they have moved the line to the edge of the stumps but still keep the 50% error. It could be that they don’t want to give up the human element into the decision making. 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by coffee_rules

[rollingstoned]

11 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Too many not outs is okay. Batsmen should be dismissed only if there is no doubt.

 

Currently same scenario can be out or not out based on umpire's decision. Allows bias to influence games.

Lbw is based on a hypothetical event, not something which actually happened so if you keep the mode of dismissal you cannot eliminate some amount of conjecture no matter what you do. Umpires call makes sense in that case. 

They talk about refining it further based on whether the umpire thinks there is an inside edge, whether it is hitting in line or not, pitching outside leg or not, going down leg or not but that needs a whole lot of legislation and will be cumbersome to implement me thinks with all the moving parts. You will probably need to give reviews over to the umpire completely which will not eliminate bias or the need for integrity on the part of the umpire. 

[Lord]

12 hours ago, bowl_out said:

 

Because that is his job and he is paid to do that.. It is similar to asking why do we need a judge when laws are out there for everyone to read.

 

Poor analogy. Where did I say umpire is not needed? But once reviewed his decision should be irrelevant.

[MK55]

6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I think that 50% of the ball rule was always there. Came across this video where Tony Greg is commenting. Must be in 2010/11 series. They were using inferior cameras compared to today. The wicket zone was the middle of the stumps. The 50% was used to compensate for the margin of error. I think they have moved the line to the edge of the stumps but still keep the 50% error. It could be that they don’t want to give up the human element into the decision making. 

 

 

 

Yes, could be. 
But who are these people to take the call? Ideally, any margin of error determination should be backed by back-testing and statistics. Else, they will make a mess of it. 
As you said, in earlier times, it could be that the 50% was in fact close to the actual margin of error either intentionally or unintentionally. But it's been years now and they gotta use new data to recalibrate. 

[bowl_out]

4 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Poor analogy. Where did I say umpire is not needed? But once reviewed his decision should be irrelevant.

Then questioning his "bias" is stupid. He is there to do his job and is paid to do so. Questioning bias after trusting him is meaningless. 

 

Just like I explained before this is hypothesis testing where Null hypothesis is the umpire's decision and DRS is the test that we are running. 

If there is sufficient evidence to reject the Null hypothesis, then we reject it. If sufficient proof is not available, then we CANNOT reject the Null hypothesis. 

 

This is hypothesis testing framework used for data-based decision making in every big company across the world. Why would cricket be any different