Let's talk about the DRS

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

how does this prove that H/E was incorrect and it didnt take into account the nature of the pitch ?

I was giving example for pitching in line and hitting in line not necessarily means hitting stumps for sure. On a crumbler pitch turn could be more than normal. If batsman is well forward there is a slight chance ball could miss the stumps altogether despite pitching and hitting in line coz of the distance it has to travel after pitching. That should be benefit of doubt for batsman. But with UDRS that benefit is taken away.

[Gunner_Mania]

6.4 Muralitharan to Sehwag, OUT, Mahela asks for the Review for the lbw. The ball pitched on the leg stump line - - half outside leg and half inside- and straightened and Sehwag shouldered arms. The ball clipped the inner half of the front pad - which was placed around the leg stump line - and then went on to hit the back pad in front of the stumps. It's a slightly tough one. It hit the front pad first and then deflected. After the chat with the third umpire, Benson has given it out. Joy for Sri Lanka. What a blow from Murali.

Under the UDRS now, this would be not out, because the umpire originally declared it not out. The moment the ball pitches half & half, the decisions reverts back to Umpire's call i.e. the original decision stays. This is the point I made in my earlier post. Don't compare the current UDRS with the SL-India series. It was a trial. Yes it had problems and there have been improvements.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Under the UDRS now, this would be not out, because the umpire originally declared it not out. The moment the ball pitches half & half, the decisions reverts back to Umpire's call i.e. the original decision stays. This is the point I made in my earlier post. Don't compare the current UDRS with the SL-India series. It was a trial. Yes it had problems and there have been improvements.

What is this about half and half, Gunner? I thought Hawkeye has clear instructions on this point that at least more than half of the ball must be pitching in that shaded region for it to be given out. Where is there any scope of an umpire's discretion here? The 3rd umpire, by the way, has no discretion. He CANNOT ignore the evidence placed by Hawkeye. Albeit in special circumstances (again inexplicably) the decision goes back to the on field umpire!

[vvvslaxman]

Again ... in the example that you provided ... how did the pitch factor influence H/E wrongly ?

Pitch factor.variable bounce. speed of the pitch will definitely affect the trajectory. If the ball hits a spot it could take an unexpected turn which is unusual from natural path.

[vvvslaxman]

Under the UDRS now, this would be not out, because the umpire originally declared it not out. The moment the ball pitches half & half, the decisions reverts back to Umpire's call i.e. the original decision stays. This is the point I made in my earlier post. Don't compare the current UDRS with the SL-India series. It was a trial. Yes it had problems and there have been improvements.

Are you sure that is the case? Imagine a ball pitched on the off stump and makes impact on the leg stump when the batsman is way way infront. If the umpire gives that out how would you know how far it turns or swings or seams. There was one decision in IPL where ball was in line with Vijay's pads and hit him in line. But predictive path said it was going out. He was given out. I am pretty sure UDRS would not have givne benefit of doubt to Vijay.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

And its not lke it will deviate by 45 degress over a yard or two at the very worst case ... had it not hit the pad .... once you have the data points from the point it hit the ground and the point of impact on the pads ... its very straightforward physics to project the rest of the path. The way to test this would be to bowl a bunch of balls that hit the stumps get the complete datapoints from end to end note down the impact point on the stumps. then feed the software Only the datapoints upuntill say 21 out of the 22 yards and see what it comes up with and tally that with the actual hit point on the stumps which you already had.

How will account for pitch deterioration through the day. Just get good umpires and get rid of lousy umpires like Koertzen. You won't need UDRS and all. I have seen so many brilliant calls from Taufel which was seemingly out on the first glance. There was once snicko didn't pick a sound for Dinesh Karthik when he was out for 91 at the oval. We were all cursing the umpire. But next day Karthik admitted he nicked it. Umpire beat UDRS there. I tell you what. there will be more controversy with UDRS than without it.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[vvvslaxman]

dude ... by the time the damn thing has hit the pads the pitch has already done its thing and sent the ball at a certain angle which wont change mid-air ... how many times did you flunk in physics :--D

No. i am talking about after pitching. The day when Sachin gets a rough one through UDRS you will be up in arms against it :cantstop: . I am going to revisit this thread once Indai gets the UDRS implemented in one of the series.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[straight.drive]

Halk eye all the way. Justice transcends charm and nostalgia. It is the ultimate ideal.

[thevortex]

Justice? Principle of natural justice works in this fashion - not even a single innocent should be punished. And that is precisely where Hawkeye fails. To not put too fine a point on it.

[Gunner_Mania]

What is this about half and half, Gunner? I thought Hawkeye has clear instructions on this point that at least more than half of the ball must be pitching in that shaded region for it to be given out. Where is there any scope of an umpire's discretion here? The 3rd umpire, by the way, has no discretion. He CANNOT ignore the evidence placed by Hawkeye. Albeit in special circumstances (again inexplicably) the decision goes back to the on field umpire!

The decision that VVVS is talking about is when the UDRS was first trialled about 2 yrs ago - Then the 3rd umpire could make the decision and the decision did not revert back to the on field umpire (which is not the case now and by the way is also explicable - as I explained to you on the other thread) and the instructions on this point was not clear.

[Gunner_Mania]

Justice? Principle of natural justice works in this fashion - not even a single innocent should be punished. And that is precisely where Hawkeye fails. To not put too fine a point on it.

How does it fail? Prior was plumb in the BD-Eng game, Had Hawk-eye been used, he would have been given out and not gone on to score a half century. It was the umpires that punished the 'innocents' Bangladesh, Hawk eye would have rectified it. This from the BD captain http://www.cricinfo.com/bdeshveng2010/content/current/story/453049.html

We would have been in a very good position if [uDRS] was in use here," he said. "I think we would have asked for a referral four times with full confidence, and three of them would have come to our way for sure. It's really bad for us that we did not use the referral system, which we could have done." Bangladesh's sense of injustice was also ramped by Andy Flower's pre-series suggestion that weaker teams are less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt by the umpires. "I've felt that my whole career," said Siddons. "I definitely never felt Australia were on the wrong end but, with Bangladesh, I definitely think it comes out against us. I don't know why.

[Bodza]

I'm a big fan of UDRS. The aim is to remove howlers and I think it is doing that. The marginal decisions go with the umpire - it's consistent. The referrals also take the wind out of disgruntled cricketers who in the past would have carried on like petulant children when the decision didn't go their way. I have really enjoyed watching batsmen being given out, looking pleadingly at their batting partner and being told not to refer the decision - says it all really.

[Bodza]

I would like to see a couple of small changes to the UDRS. 1. Every dismissal is reviewed for no ball purposes. 2. Fielding team does not lose a review if it turns out the delivery was a no ball. 3. Each team gets one incorrect review only - with the proviso that "benefit of the doubt to the umpire" does not constitute an incorrect review (but obviously the umpire's decision is still upheld)

[thevortex]

How does it fail? Prior was plumb in the BD-Eng game, Had Hawk-eye been used, he would have been given out and not gone on to score a half century. It was the umpires that punished the 'innocents' Bangladesh, Hawk eye would have rectified it. This from the BD captain http://www.cricinfo.com/bdeshveng2010/content/current/story/453049.html

We both know which side of the bridge we stand on, Gunner :). If Hawkeye would correct obvious mistakes without introducing complications and mistakes of its own, then I have no problem with it. But such is not the case. And this overzealousness on the part of the ICC as well as other stakeholders to push it into Test cricket does not look good. Not one bit. I am in IT and if there is one thing life and work have taught me it is that even the best solutions have no choice but to fail if they are not implemented properly.

[Gunner_Mania]

I am in IT and if there is one thing life and work have taught me it is that even the best solutions have no choice but to fail if they are not implemented properly.

Tell me about it. I work in IT auditing:)