ICC pushes again for DRS, BCCI says no

[cricketrulez]

Our disagreements aside' date=' I admire your quest for the data and look forward to Dr. Rosten's response.[/quote'] Conclusions can have a confirmational bias. Raw data "most" of the times doesn't. given the amount of acrimony even among same team supporters like in ICF, the ICC should show some leadership and influencing skills by making the proof of performance public. This would quickly shut up skeptics like me and will do more to get BCCI to cooperate than public declarations about BCCI's stubbornness on this matter.

[cricketrulez]

Bull****! you accept a dozen things every single day with looking at the test figures. The restaurant you eat at, the detergent you use and so on. Guess what, If I have bad experience with one I dump it/return it and move to a different brand. The amount of scrutiny you do depends on how critical the matter is. hair stylist: not so much. Orthopedic Surgeon: you bet I'm going to look up his surgery statistics Watching on television is as much testing as one shall get for HE. you cannot be serious! Which is similar to driving a car, except you drive a car a mile or two. What you are talking about would be how Consumer Reports obtained the torque/bhp vs rpm curves, their *method of testing* in your own words. I'll trust their & other reviews, you go ahead and demand their methodology while you use public transport until you are fully convinced. Which i hope has drivers with better judgement than Dharmasena & Co. guess what, in 5 mile test drive you can get plenty of information on how the car handles and I always have 1) warranty and 2) the consumer protection laws to fall back on. There is also the fact that Consumer reports have earned the trust, atleast in case of cars with years of performance to back it up. If a car manufacturer says it will go 0-60 in 5 sec or says it will stop from 60mph in 100 feet they have to show the public that it actually does. since you made the car comparison, tell me what proof have you seen from Hawkeye? Oh wait, you already admitted that they haven't provided any. Now bowling machines are the problem ? Does the cricket pitch discriminate between a human being & a machine ? you are kidding right? swing and spin from a bowling machine? Did you bunch of critics see the test match that ended 2 days back ? Strange how you have to go so far back to prove some conflict of opinion while there's a crisis ever so often. Once again, those howlers could have been prevented with existing video replay technologies without HE or Hot spot You mean among the few voices here and there as opposed to all boards (except BCCI) and now Cambridge Univ group's backing ? I think you reading too much into this Cambridge university connection 1) its not a group. It is an individual 2) he is not listed as a faculty or staff member and I can't find any information on exact nature of his association with Cambridge. 3) I learned from RSC posting that it the 'testing" was done using 14 deliveries. I'll reserve judgement on this testing until I get some more information Even if you have a valid point, how's the status quo working out? We have lived with status quo for 50+ years waiting a bit more till they have something solid is better than throwing money at garbage A dead link from hawk eye innovations and some numbers he/she is unsure about, that's all there was in the link. I'll let you draw your own conclusions why they removed information on claims of accuracy and tolerance limits Which now is ICC+MCC+HE+All* cricket boards+Cambridge ?

None of whom will do the easiest of tasks by providing information on the test and the results. But will spend half a decade *****ing and moaning about big bad BCCI

[superstar]

Why do these fools keep asking every month? BCCI has clearly stated they will not use it. Refuse to use these fools will call we are cheating by saving our players. Accept to use these fools will accuse us of using vaseline. Bloody idiots. How was DRS evaluated? Which test series did they evaluate? Was it a spinning or bouncy track? Did he evaluate every single delivery or just the ones that were reviewed? What about different light conditions? Camera? Effect of wind? Rain? Dew? 9 boards bullying us. Of which 4 are beggars who are doing it just for money.

[superstar]

Oh, and hear you squeal when you talk about the 70's etc As the inventors of the game, we had a vested interest. We were and still are a lot more honest and fair in our dealings than the BCCI Still we are number one despite your boards crooked dealings, behind closed doors

We did not let our cricketers wives give a lap dance to a criminal :giggle: Btw World 11 is actually no.1 ATM. It involves players from SA and Ireland :D

[Desi Cartman]

And India became number 1 with lots of series wins in Australia and South Africa. Oh wait... England becoming number 1 shouldn't at all of changed your opinion on the ranking system since India played the majority of their tests in the period against Sri Lanka. And I fail to see why you should have to win in Asia to be number 1, the next rivals for the number 1 spot, haven't even won a series against a top 5 team since 2009 FFS! Who do you think should be number 1 now? India? :hysterical:

Are you saying India played more than 50% tests against Sri Lanka ?

[Sehwag1830]

And India became number 1 with lots of series wins in Australia and South Africa. Oh wait... England becoming number 1 shouldn't at all of changed your opinion on the ranking system since India played the majority of their tests in the period against Sri Lanka. And I fail to see why you should have to win in Asia to be number 1, the next rivals for the number 1 spot, haven't even won a series against a top 5 team since 2009 FFS! Who do you think should be number 1 now? India? :hysterical:

Once again you omit the main points like a typical English fan. IND has managed to win 4 test series outside Asia in last decade. In contrast ENG have won grand 0 test series in Asia against IND,PAK,SL last decade. :hysterical::hysterical: You were whitewashed by a no.6 ranked Pakistan. :hysterical::hysterical:.This has to be a joke .

[cricketrulez]

Any comments on Cambridge Univ ? Are they also part of the conspiracy ?

It turns out that there is no Cambridge university involvement in the testing 1) Ed Rosten is a former "lecturer" at cambridge. Not even tenure track. 2) testing was not done Cambridge uni 3) It was done at Ed rosten's company. I'm trying to get details on that. There goes the "Cambridge Uni" BS. It also turns out the that the "testing" was done on 14 deliveries from SA-Aus series. 14 deliveries? Once again I'll let you decide why they gave people the impression that testing was done by a Cambridge Uni professor and his group. Or was it a case of you coming to that conclusion on your own based on half baked information? Anyway, I have Brian lawrence over at RSC to thank for digging up the 14 deliveries bit and that testing was done at a private company

[Crookbond]

Cricketrulez is right. Here's the official report

Decision Review System (DRS) The committee carried out its annual review of the Decision Review System. The Cricket Committee re-iterated its view that, depending on the ability to finance the technology, that DRS should be implemented universally in Test and ODI cricket. The Committee heard that once again there was a significant improvement in decision making in matches where DRS was being used. In Test matches, the increase in correct decisions was 4.27 per cent and in ODIs was 5.01 per cent producing an overall improvement of 4.49 per cent to 98.26 per cent. Following some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the ball tracking technology, ICC engaged Dr Edward Rosten, a former Cambridge University lecturer and an expert in this field, to provide an independent evaluation of the accuracy of the two ICC DRS accredited ball tracking suppliers. The committee was presented with a provisional report covering a review of ball trackings provided in the recent South Africa v Australia series. In the 14 examined sequences Dr Rosten said that his company's results were in 100 per cent agreement with the ball tracking system in use in that series. The committee also heard that the Hotspot developers have invested in new and improved cameras which are being used in the current England v West Indies series and, according to the host broadcasters, had provided much clearer and more accurate results. Mr Richardson said: "The committee noted that the improvements in DRS technology and that DRS has almost totally eradicated player-dissent. This is an extremely beneficial side effect of the DRS. "We have always said that DRS was there to assist the umpires in getting more decisions correct and eradicating the obvious mistakes. The statistics demonstrate that it has been effective in that objective. The committee re-affirmed this as the aim."

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=20417_1338564600 I am not sure how many people are into research here. Let me put forth a couple of views in this regard. It's not just "Accuracy" that counts. The testing should include "False Positives" and "False Negatives" as well. Ideally, in these systems it's the F1 score which should be reported which gives a balanced viewpoint on how the system is working. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_score

[Crookbond]

Clarke - So, you still believe that this method was rigoros enough for you to believe things have changed?

[cricketrulez]

It turns out that there is no Cambridge university involvement in the testing 1) Ed Rosten is a former "lecturer" at cambridge. Not even tenure track. 2) testing was not done Cambridge uni 3) It was done at Ed rosten's company. I'm trying to get details on that. There goes the "Cambridge Uni" BS. It also turns out the that the "testing" was done on 14 deliveries from SA-Aus series. 14 deliveries? Once again I'll let you decide why they gave people the impression that testing was done by a Cambridge Uni professor and his group. Or was it a case of you coming to that conclusion on your own based on half baked information? Anyway, I have Brian lawrence over at RSC to thank for digging up the 14 deliveries bit and that testing was done at a private company

BUMP for Clarke!

[Pagalpanti]

While I agree BCCI should get on with the DRS issue and agree for its use, but it is hilarious how everyone seems to be blaming BCCI alone, the vote is 8-1 yet they decided not to vote, don't just blame BCCI but blame those gutless boards who can't stand up. Can't have it both ways.

[Clarke]

It turns out that there is no Cambridge university involvement in the testing 1) Ed Rosten is a former "lecturer" at cambridge. Not even tenure track. 2) testing was not done Cambridge uni 3) It was done at Ed rosten's company. I'm trying to get details on that. There goes the "Cambridge Uni" BS. It also turns out the that the "testing" was done on 14 deliveries from SA-Aus series. 14 deliveries? Once again I'll let you decide why they gave people the impression that testing was done by a Cambridge Uni professor and his group. Or was it a case of you coming to that conclusion on your own based on half baked information? Anyway, I have Brian lawrence over at RSC to thank for digging up the 14 deliveries bit and that testing was done at a private company

What's the source for this private company & 14 deliveries ? cricinfo clearly stated earlier this year, which i would be inclined to believe. Please don't bring some cooked up info of a forum, that's less credible than BCCI of all bodies.

The most contentious aspect of the Decision Review System - the ball-tracker - is being put to the test by the ICC at the Cambridge University to establish the accuracy of the two rival tracker systems accredited by the ICC for the DRS.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/553449.html

[Clarke]

Clarke - So' date=' you still believe that this method was rigoros enough for you to believe things have changed?[/quote'] I don't know if that's all the testing that was done over a period of months besides whatever testing has been done before. So yeah, 14 deliveries can't really be the start to finish of product's testing lifecycle. I've said this earlier, i'm all for complete testing, transparency & truth and that's what i expect of ICC, MCC, Hawkeye/Sony and sometimes BCCI. Test all the technology more a thousand times and test the umpires too. The better system should then be used for the sake of cricket. Fact is, it shouldn't be so hard to predict the path of a cricket ball over a few yards. If this system is indeed rubbish and worse than Bucknor, why does Sony/ICC/MCC and whatever independent party there is swear by it ? Its a drop in Sony's bucket for which if the accusations are true will only hurt and the ICC/MCC as well as cricket boards end up spending a ton of money. The best ones of the latter already do so. Which is where my support for the tech comes from.

[cricketrulez]

What's the source for this private company & 14 deliveries ? cricinfo clearly stated earlier this year, which i would be inclined to believe. Please don't bring some cooked up info of a forum, that's less credible than BCCI of all bodies. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/553449.html

Here you go. Little bit more official than cricinfo. http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=20417_1338564600 Following some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the ball tracking technology, ICC engaged Dr Edward Rosten, a former Cambridge University lecturer and an expert in this field, to provide an independent evaluation of the accuracy of the two ICC DRS accredited ball tracking suppliers. The committee was presented with a provisional report covering a review of ball trackings provided in the recent South Africa v Australia series. In the 14 examined sequences Dr Rosten said that his company's results were in 100 per cent agreement with the ball tracking system in use in that series. There you have 1) no cambridge for you :--D 2) It was at a private company :--D 3) it was only 14 deliveries. You might want to take that finger back that you gave in your earlier post!

[cricketrulez]

Fact is, it shouldn't be so hard to predict the path of a cricket ball over a few yards. If this system is indeed rubbish and worse than Bucknor, why does Sony/ICC/MCC and whatever independent party there is swear by it ? Its a drop in Sony's bucket for which if the accusations are true will only hurt and the ICC/MCC as well as cricket boards end up spending a ton of money. The best ones of the latter already do so. Which is where my support for the tech comes from.

And yet, in 4 years they have come with ZILCH :hysterical::hysterical: And no shortage of people wiling to carry their water for them! :haha::haha:

[Crookbond]

I don't know if that's all the testing that was done over a period of months besides whatever testing has been done before. So yeah, 14 deliveries can't really be the start to finish of product's testing lifecycle. I've said this earlier, i'm all for complete testing, transparency & truth and that's what i expect of ICC, MCC, Hawkeye/Sony and sometimes BCCI. Test all the technology more a thousand times and test the umpires too. The better system should then be used for the sake of cricket. Fact is, it shouldn't be so hard to predict the path of a cricket ball over a few yards. If this system is indeed rubbish and worse than Bucknor, why does Sony/ICC/MCC and whatever independent party there is swear by it ? Its a drop in Sony's bucket for which if the accusations are true will only hurt and the ICC/MCC as well as cricket boards end up spending a ton of money. The best ones of the latter already do so. Which is where my support for the tech comes from.

It shouldn't be hard to recognize faces yet humans do 10x better than systems. If you understand how "prediction" works (and how research works), trust me you wouldn't use these systems in real time. It takes decades to perfect anything in science and there's no way to say they perform better than humans. Btw - let me add that it's the prerogative of automated systems to prove that they are better than humans and not vice versa. Currently, they are failing.

[Clarke]

Here you go. Little bit more official than cricinfo. http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=20417_1338564600 There you have 1) no cambridge for you :--D 2) It was at a private company :--D 3) it was only 14 deliveries. You might want to take that finger back that you gave in your earlier post!

Nopes, that was for the BCCI and any Indian cricket fan will have a dozen reasons. Their effin stance is give us a tech that's 100% accurate (Srinivasan's words) and that's just the current excuse. You can continue to live with the current system of andha kanoon as they prefer but i'll side with the ICC, MCC, ECB, CA & other organizations including the private company. Fair enough ?

[Clarke]

And yet' date=' in 4 years they have come with [b']ZILCH :hysterical::hysterical:

They have 'publicly released' no enough test data. The article you shared has the following results which of course be conveniently ignored:

The Committee heard that once again there was a significant improvement in decision making in matches where DRS was being used. In Test matches, the increase in correct decisions was 4.27 per cent and in ODIs was 5.01 per cent producing an overall improvement of 4.49 per cent to 98.26 per cent.

And no shortage of people wiling to carry their water for them! :haha::haha:

There's no shortage of people demanding a better system than the status quo to be precise. As for the people carrying water, which cricketing body is being the cheapskate here ?

[cricketrulez]

They have 'publicly released' no enough test data. The article you shared has the following results which of course be conveniently ignored:

I hope that you are simply trying to win an argument here and it is not a case of not being able to distinguish between evidence/proof vs claim. the statement by ICC is a claim similar to claims before. In terms of proof/evidence to they still have shown ZILCH.

[goggi]

Here you go. Little bit more official than cricinfo. http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=20417_1338564600 Following some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the ball tracking technology, ICC engaged Dr Edward Rosten, a former Cambridge University lecturer and an expert in this field, to provide an independent evaluation of the accuracy of the two ICC DRS accredited ball tracking suppliers. The committee was presented with a provisional report covering a review of ball trackings provided in the recent South Africa v Australia series. In the 14 examined sequences Dr Rosten said that his company's results were in 100 per cent agreement with the ball tracking system in use in that series. There you have 1) no cambridge for you :--D 2) It was at a private company :--D 3) it was only 14 deliveries. You might want to take that finger back that you gave in your earlier post!

I am all for UDRS. But reading this regarding testing based on 14 deliveries!! Is that a joke?? And the propaganda to say it was tested by Cambridge University :shakehead: I really come to think someone has an agenda (and financial interests) to push through this Hawkeye system.