Anyone thinks Sachin LBW referal showed the flaw in UDRS?

[kabira]

Sehwag looked not out too then with the angle.why nobody talking about it

yes it looked not out, but Atherton explained the reason, Zaheer khan would never be able to do what Riaz did, Riaz has a slingy action so more likely to deliver it from the straight line.

[flamy]

:headshake: if (Tendulkar) screwrest=true;

[rajmarie]

The ball was just missing the leg stump marginally. thats why the decision got reversed. If it was even clipping the leg...then the onfield umpire decision stand.

[rajmarie]

yes it looked not out' date=' but Atherton explained the reason, [b']Zaheer khan would never be able to do what Riaz did, Riaz has a slingy action so more likely to deliver it from the straight line.

What r u talking abt. Zaheer is one of the few bowlers who move the ball both way. Yes..Riaz slingy action makes his delievery more straight...but Zaheer dont have to do that...he can swing it in.

[panesarv]

if (Tendulkar == True ) { if ( Paakis == BowlingTeam) { screwbowlingteam == True ; } } :hmmm:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[kabira]

^guess you did not understand, Zaheer has to be full to get an LBW or ball round the wicket and he has to swing it in. Whereas Riaz because of his action can bowl short of good length and still can get LBWs.

[rajmarie]

^guess you did not understand' date=' Zaheer has to be full to get an LBW or ball round the wicket and he has to swing it in. Whereas Riaz [b']because of his action can bowl short of good length and still can get LBWs.

OK....that is true...& he had 2 in the SF as proof

[jusarrived]

I was cursing Tendulkar for taking the review . That was no way missing the stumps.

[Deleted_User_1]

Have you heard of parallax errors. You want to believe naked eye, that too over a TV screen over precise calculations made by machine using mutiple cameras. Geez! Hawk-eye in its zone is more believable than naked eye 100/100. Live in the 21st century.

[siddhu]

I haven't gone through the thread.. so apologies if already posted. Sachin was about 2.5 m away from the stumps. The ball pitched a good 3-5 inches outside the line of Off-stump and hit him round about in front of the middle stump. Since sachin has stepped out of the crease and was about 2.5 meters away from the stumps it is possible that UDRS predicted the path correctly.... Just because you get hit in front of stumps does not mean you are always out. The amount of turn or swing etc have to be taken under considerations.

[Online]

Look at the angle on the delivery. It's very plausible that it would have missed leg stump.

better pic without the pesky pause button in the middle of the screen

[CSK Fan]

I was cursing Tendulkar for taking the review . That was no way missing the stumps.

Even though he had advanced a lot from his crease? It would have hit the leg stump if he had been hit at the crease. Of course a flat TV screen does not show depth and the two would seem same to the naked eye

[akshayxyz]

Given that the ball pitched at about 2.5 meters from the stumps, 4 inches outside off, and hit pads at about 1 meter from the stumps in front of the middle stump. Using only naked eyes and brains - how many of you can calculate the angle in degrees and hence predict whether the ball would have missed the leg stump by 2 millimeters or would have clipped 2 millimeters of leg stump? Some things are better done by technology. Our eyes/brains are good at pattern recognition and such stuff where precision/error of few millimeters does not make a difference. e.g. Given two straight lines drawn parallel to each other on a piece of paper.. one being 12 mm other being 10 mm. but separated by lets say 15 mm. How many naked eyes would be able to notice the difference of 2 mm? Predicting the trajectory of the ball after it has been blocked by legs or say bat - with current technology and computing power- is relatively easier problem to solve - and with high level of accuracy - more accurate than naked eyes. There are numerous examples of research projects that are capable of this much and more. Few of the errors that the H/E may not be able to take care of in this case is - e.g. exact 3-d position of stumps - it is possible that stumps are not perfectly vertical or moved by a mm or so - but that could go either way.

[akshayxyz]

[ame=

- High Speed Robotic Hands[/ame] still any doubts on current technology?

[akshayxyz]

if that still does not convince you - read about what people have been doing using Microsoft Kinect and similar technologies.

[fineleg]

boss bhai, == is a comparison, so your screwbowlingteam syntax is incorrect :) On topic: It did look out on naked eye, but hopefully this will help Tendulkar be a bit more favorable to UDRS when it comes to subsequent Test matches :thumbs_up: He deserves such luck since usually luck is against him

[Anakin]

boss bhai, == is a comparison, so your screwbowlingteam syntax is incorrect :) On topic: It did look out on naked eye, but hopefully this will help Tendulkar be a bit more favorable to UDRS when it comes to subsequent Test matches :thumbs_up: He deserves such luck since usually luck is against him

Syntax is incorrect. There was no luck involved there. SRT knew right away the ball was missing legstump. Just because it looked out in a split second on tv screen, doesn't make that right. On the same note, Sehwag looked not-out on tv.

[cybervickey]

better pic without the pesky pause button in the middle of the screen

LOOKS OUT TO ME.no way the ball would've turned that much

[kabira]

No sir, see bowl is already turned and if you just take the straight path it was missing the leg or may be just clipping. Either way not plumb for my liking.

[akshayxyz]

LOOKS OUT TO ME.no way the ball would've turned that much

It had already done the turning part!!!!! It just had to follow that 'turned' path. It is basic trigonometry once the trajectory of ball from pitching to impact on pads is tracked down.