Let's talk about the DRS

[The Outsider]

What do you mean by "predicitve" part? Eveything Hawkeye does is prediction, whether it says ball is pitched in line or if says a Tennis serve/ground stroke is inside or beyond the line when it makes impact with the ground or whether a cricket ball is going to hit the stumps when it makes it that far.

No. There are actual cameras which capture the image of the ball when it is in flight. How is that prediction? Are you saying the TV images you see or photographs you take are predictions? But quite obviously it cannot capture images of a real ball hitting the stumps because the event never happened, since it was impeded by the batsman's pad. In such cases, Hawk Eye uses the data up to the point of impact and some algorithm based on the trajectory, speed, air friction, gravity etc. to predict where the ball would have hit the stumps.

I would like to know the difference between: a) A Cricket ball hitting the stumps b) A Tennis ball hitting the serve/side line and why a) is less reliable than b). One thing I can see is that the ball pitches in a) first and then is moving as it gets to the target. Isn't hawkeye accounting for that already when it determines if the ball is even hitting in line?

a) The event never happened in reality b) The event happened in reality and was captured by the Hawk Eye cameras - think they use 8-10 of them.

[saneindian]

One thing that they need to do is to stop showing the replays on the big screen during such reviews. Although it adds to the vieiwing experience, it has the potential to be disastrous at times.

[yoda]

It is guessing after the impact based on the speed, swing (wind etc) and turn. In the air, after the pitch, there is less guess work. After the impact, it is tough to say how the ball would traverse, it would probably go above the wickets or miss it with more swing than the software would predict. I think it also uses LOS for the prediction part before the impact. So, there is no line of sight after the impact, it is all pure prediction.

So there are no cameras to assist it determine trajectory after impact? Everything is guess work after impact? Again, why is hitting in line which also happens after impact not considered predictive?

[asterix]

As usual, over-analyzing the situation. The Law and UDRS is fine. It only take a egoistic, baised, eccentric umpire to conveniently hide behind the law.. Billy joker has a long history with the Indian team..(remember Gambhir being banned after the Delhi match)..

[Raghav_12]

What do you mean by "predicitve" part? Eveything Hawkeye does is prediction, whether it says ball is pitched in line or if says a Tennis serve/ground stroke is inside or beyond the line when it makes impact with the ground or whether a cricket ball is going to hit the stumps when it makes it that far. I would like to know the difference between: a) A Cricket ball hitting the stumps b) A Tennis ball hitting the serve/side line and why a) is less reliable than b). One thing I can see is that the ball pitches in a) first and then is moving as it gets to the target. Isn't hawkeye accounting for that already when it determines if the ball is even hitting in line? BTW on a different note, I have noticed only during this WC, that hawkeye seems to show less deviation than what you can see in real time or even replays (without hawkeye ofc).

What is predictive about camera showing where ball had landed or hit?? I hope you not alluding to Hiesenberg's Uncertainity Principle :winky:?

[yoda]

a) The event never happened in reality b) The event happened in reality and was captured by the Hawk Eye cameras - think they use 8-10 of them.

Good point. So can use of additional cameras help eliminate this back and forth and make it auto in Cricket even though it still has to "predict"?

[yoda]

What predictive about camera's showing where actually ball landed?? I hope you not alluding to Hiesenberg's Uncertainity Principle :winky:?

LOL! I assumed that in Tennis also, it was projection based on cameras all over, not necessarily based on exact point of impact. BTW, I think there is some prediction in Tennis also, but based on cameras right around point of impact. I am going by the fact that guys like Federrer had some reservations about use of HK there as well.

[The Outsider]

Good point. So can use of additional cameras help eliminate this back and forth and make it auto in Cricket even though it still has to "predict"?

I don't know what's the limiting factor in their predictions - if it's the number of cameras, yeah it will help. But if it's the resolution limit of the lenses on the cameras then just adding more cameras will be of no use. There is no prediction in tennis or even in cricket for where the impact was, since the event actually happened. There might be technological limitations to which the position of impact can be resolved, but that has nothing to do with path predictions.

[Zero_Unit]

This is bullcrap! Either you follow the rule or you take it out. There is nothing in between. Dhoni had the right idea from the begening

[Iconoclast]

What a horrible OP. "Manny" there is absolute consistency between this decision and Bell's. In both cases the on field umpires call was upheld so I don't know what you are going on about.

[ravishingravi]

This is essentially a pathetic system. I think Dhoni nailed it when he said don't mix technology with human element.

[Ultimate_Game]

This is essentially a pathetic system. I think Dhoni nailed it when he said don't mix technology with human element.

Fully concur. Once review has been called for, the decision should be made by the 3rd umpire irrespective of whether the distance was more or less than 2.5 m. The logic for the same is simple - the review was asked for in the first place as the player(s) felt the umpire made a mistake. Now if the same umpire has to decide on the call even after the review, what's the point? It's akin to appealing a judgement in a court case (going to High Court after losing the appeal in Lower Court) and finding out that the judge is the same!!! Thus for the DRS there should not be any grey area - if the decision goes to 3rd umpire he should make the call and 2.5m factor shouldn't be taken into account as it creates more confusion than helping matters.

[The Outsider]

^ Even if the applied technology is not capable of accurately predicting the trajectory for more than 2.5 meters after impact? Waah!

[Ultimate_Game]

^ Even if the applied technology is not capable of accurately predicting the trajectory for more than 2.5 meters after impact? Waah!

Bowden's decision showed for all the world to see that the technology is definitely much more reliable than Bowden. If the technology is not reliable then don't use it. If you have decided to go with it then go the full distance and use it fully. It's the half-step approach that's muddying the waters. Between I would back Technology to be more accurate than umpire's perception in case the distance is >2.5 m. At the end of the day both will need to predict where the ball will end up after 2.5 m. At least technology would be more predictable and consistent as compared to a human.

[Tapioca]

Fully concur. Once review has been called for, the decision should be made by the 3rd umpire irrespective of whether the distance was more or less than 2.5 m. The logic for the same is simple - the review was asked for in the first place as the player(s) felt the umpire made a mistake. Now if the same umpire has to decide on the call even after the review, what's the point? It's akin to appealing a judgement in a court case (going to High Court after losing the appeal in Lower Court) and finding out that the judge is the same!!! Thus for the DRS there should not be any grey area - if the decision goes to 3rd umpire he should make the call and 2.5m factor shouldn't be taken into account as it creates more confusion than helping matters.

The 3rd umpire is taking a decision, which is that he doesn't have enough information to take a decision, which is perfectly fine. Naturally, the 1st umpire decision stands unless he himself wants to change it. In the absence of replays, 1st ump cannot change his original decision. But in the Bowden case, he would have seen the replays and could have decided to give Bell out. Perhaps it is the ego as some suggested, or may be changing the decision would impact his career as ICC should be keeping scores for umpires too.

[Ultimate_Game]

The 3rd umpire is taking a decision, which is that he doesn't have enough information to take a decision, which is perfectly fine. Naturally, the 1st umpire decision stands unless he himself wants to change it. In the absence of replays, 1st ump cannot change his original decision. But in the Bowden case, he would have seen the replays and could have decided to give Bell out. Perhaps it is the ego as some suggested, or may be changing the decision would impact his career as ICC should be keeping scores for umpires too.

Bottom line is DRS is not helping getting correct decisions. Either go with 3rd umpire and DRS or stick to the umpire in the middle. You can't mix and match the two and come up with inconsistent results.

[Tapioca]

Bottom line is DRS is not helping getting correct decisions. Either go with 3rd umpire and DRS or stick to the umpire in the middle. You can't mix and match the two and come up with inconsistent results.

DRS is not helping to get correct decisions once in a while (ie, under circumstances its accuracy is not good enough to help take a definite decision). Which is still better than not having it.

[Ultimate_Game]

DRS is not helping to get correct decisions once in a while (ie' date= under circumstances its accuracy is not good enough to help take a definite decision). Which is still better than not having it.

Ultimately I want to see DRS bring consistency in the decision making process. If that doesn't happen I am happy with the current system. Essentially we can get into a situation where DRS favors Team A while they are bowling but doesn't get the decision right when its Team B's turn to bowl and ask for the review. How is it any different from the current situation?

[bulbul]

UDRS is just started..one or 2 technical errors are not big issues..eventually they will be sorted out..only thing is need to explain the rules more clearly to players and also to supportes. It already avoided atleast 25 LBW issues...so its a big plus also this help in avoiding Sidney like issues in future..

[Ultimate_Game]

UDRS is just started..one or 2 technical errors are not big issues..eventually they will be sorted out..only thing is need to explain the rules more clearly to players and also to supportes. It already avoided atleast 25 LBW issues...so its a big plus also this help in avoiding Sidney like issues in future..

Sydney was different case altogether. In the Sydney test even stumpings were not referred to 3rd umpire!!! Symonds was out stumped twice but the umpires refused to even refer the decisions to the 3rd umpire in both the cases!!! No amount of UDRS and related technology would have helped there at all.