DRS , good, bad or could be better

I love using technology to help the game- however what i hate is this strange use of DRS, that more than half the time reviews go back to the original umpires decison. its immaterial whether the unpire calls decison out or not out, his decision stays

It doesnt make the best sense- cant we just have clear guidlines as to what is in or out after review- ie half the ball has to hit the stumps means its out, if it doesnt its in!

Is it not to do with the decision making power of the TV umpire?

id rather just have clear guidlines on review and trust hawkeye. because we all know that an umpire can give a decision out or not out, and either decision can be seen as correct! that in itself shows the system up

i think the issue is that would be seen as undermining the onfield umpire even more and could essentially mean you are just using hawkeye to make lbw decisions

what you have to remember is the system is not reviewing whether the batsman was in or out, it is reviewing whether the onfield umpire's decision was correct or not and the benefit of the doubt goes to the original decision

given the existing reservations in some areas about the tracking aspect of hawkeye i dont think anyone would support just removing the onfield umpire from the process

i understand the logic behind the system as it is- and i agree it has made an improvemnet.

the problem is hawkeyes margin of error. if this margin of error is really great it shouldnt even be used surely.

However the margin of error isnt that big(i think its pretty accurate).

If its been proved to be effective with a half a ball margin of error- lets just trust that.

At least this way the decisions could be 100% consitant, not 100% correct but what we are eliminateing is the umpires margin of error- and sadly the fact is - i trust a computer over a human in this scenarios

The idea is to make sure that it doesnt overturn decisions unless theres clear evidence the umpire was wrong.
That way it cant be accussed of making good decsions into bad ones, but can correct bad ones.
SOme of the objections have been daft, like Pakistan complainning that hotspot hadnt been availabel for one review. Yes thats sub optimal, but the umpires decision was upheld. If there had been no DRS then the same outcome would have occured. In this cas ethe technology failed, but it didnt have any afffect on the game. If an umpire were to blink (which will happen) he still has to make a decision, having DRS there offers players the chance to refer to a back up system if they think a mistake has happened.

Theres still some way to go to get total consistency with the 4th umpires and the way they interpret ambiguous data, but the general priciples are sound, as is the technology despite some bizzare statements from BCCI

i agree its made a big improvement- however there doesnt seem much use for hawkeye the way the review system works- it really isnt needed as it is- the review system still could be used, but in the case of a bad decision- where an umpire has blinked(as you say) could be dealt with anyway by replays!

hawkeye has been proved to be effective- id rather trust that as law,(with a margin of error) rather than the on field umpire

mystiroakey wrote:i agree its made a big improvement- however there doesnt seem much use for hawkeye the way the review system works- it really isnt needed as it is- the review system still could be used, but in the case of a bad decision- where an umpire has blinked(as you say) could be dealt with anyway by replays!

hawkeye has been proved to be effective- id rather trust that as law,(with a margin of error) rather than the on field umpire

Hawkeye is still used in ways replays cant be, even if its just where the ball picthed and wif it struck in line.
The predictive element annoys people and theres many who simply refuse to beleive its as good an an umpires guess, but I agree with you that Id rather be judgesd on an objective equally applied system than the guesswork ( influenced by psychoilogical factors) of an umpire.
As someone who referees sport Id also say that I really hate having to make those game changing calls. Maybe thats my failing, perhaps the best at the job have a greater degree of emotional detatchment and arrogance ( I know what I saw, I know Im right, I am utterly confident to make this call) but when the whole game can ride on one decision that you arent even sure on yourself, its not a great place to be.

see perfect example just now - how is that call right against KP, that should not have been out in anyones eyes- it clipped high and wide.

the umpire gets a correct call applied to something that really wasnt a good decsiion.

due to the fact that its obvious no person could tell for sure that that hit, and offcourse hawkeye has a margin or error over 2.2 millimeters!!!

the benefit of the doubt has to allways go to the batsman- not the umpire!!

Umm a little confussed?

Hawkeye suggested it was a good dscision and upheld it? It was one the umpire may not have given out, had he not then the review wouldve gone in the batsmans favour. An ambiguity perhapos but in this case you have two system,s agreeing, it was out. The traditionalist view wouldve been " oh you cant give that out because of the arbitrary rule of thumb)"
BS .
The law stipulates what lbw was, and that was lbw. Sorry KP.

i think your missing the margin of error that has to be applied if hawkeye was to be given the final say. I have made it quite clear we should have a margin of error.

Im confussed by what you mean , youre saying that hawkeye shouldnt be able to give it out and should overule an umpire if it shows theres any margin for error?

my suggestion is that hawkeye should be given the final say - with a margin or error applied- a certain percentage of the ball must hit the wicket for it to be given out- I have used a rough estimate of half the ball must hit the stumps- but that figure should really be figured out based on testing and staticians- if the margin or error is way to high based on this testing hawkeye shouldnt be used at all!- howevre i think it has been proven that hawkeyes margin or error is less than half a ball anyway

Just clarifying mystiroakey, I think you're saying that if the decision is inside the Hawkeye margin for error the decision should be "not out" rather than "umpire's call", returning the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

I could live with that.

As a stats geek I'd also prefer it if the Hawkeye graphic showed a "circle"* around the ball to show the size of the margin for error


* I suspect the error margin is probably more of an ellipse as on pitches with regular bounce the height probably has less error margin than sideways movement.

yep thats it

Kiwireddevil wrote:Just clarifying mystiroakey, I think you're saying that if the decision is inside the Hawkeye margin for error the decision should be "not out" rather than "umpire's call", returning the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

I could live with that.

As a stats geek I'd also prefer it if the Hawkeye graphic showed a "circle"* around the ball to show the size of the margin for error


* I suspect the error margin is probably more of an ellipse as on pitches with regular bounce the height probably has less error margin than sideways movement.

Agree on the circle, meh on the "benefit of the doubt"


But

What we are looking at there is hawkeye saying that probably hit. What is the margin of error there, and by that I mean what is the probability that it wouldnt have hit?
Are we really going to say that you cant give a batsman out when theres a 98% chance he was out? Isnt that pushing things too far into the realms of ignoring the evidence?

One thing that should be emphasised in this discussion is that the ICC's intention with the DRS protocols was to minimise the number of clearly incorrect decisions, not necesasarily to confirm or overturn every marginal decision - from that perspective it generally does a good job, and the allowance for 'umpires call' is reasonable: if there is a marginal decision like the KP lbw, the issue is not with the review system (asthe evidence was insufficient to overturn the decision) but with the original on-field decision not giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

It's not a perfect system (what is?) but I think the bigger issues relate to hotspot and how it is integrated with the on-field sound (and the failure so far to get snicko working well enough to form part of the DRS tools).

"One thing that should be emphasised in this discussion is that the ICC's intention with the DRS protocols was to minimise the number of clearly incorrect decisions, not necesasarily to confirm or overturn every marginal decision"

yes thats correct- and it is working to reduce incorrect decisions, however my point is more about the role of hawkeye and drs, and how we could improve cricket with technology.

Is there a point to using hawkeye in the predictive use, if the margin of error is significant- why use it. If it is minimal then it could be much better to use it as law over the umpires decision(which is prone to human error).

Hotspot is bringing up alot of issues, and i think it is starting to be proved to be very imperfect.

The great thing about hawkeye- is that with significant tetsing we can work out how accurate it is!

could someone please do a documentary on it- i wouold be interested- could someone give us an accurate marginal of error through significant testing!

hotspot seems to do very random things, it needs alot of improving

good example of drs in its glory re morgans decision.

mystiroakey wrote:good example of drs in its glory re morgans decision.

Example of it working with no controversy?

yep it worked perfectly, overturned a bad decison.

shame both have gone against england , but thats another story

atherton makes a very good point on the commentary- drs is changing the game in a fundemental way

is it?

you mean the players arent spending so much time whinging at the umpires and stomping around?

lbws have become legal to give out?

Its shown in this game to be very importnat. Theres beena lot of tough calls, several decisions upheld several overturned. I think youd be hard pressed to argue that this game hasnt been positivley affected by the DRS use. Any controversy with its application ( Pakistani opener, KP ) is far outweighed by the controversy had it not been in place.

crick kp was the best batsman out of the 16 that were out- he was desperately unlucky- and batted the best out of anyone, so its unfair to just say he fell to left arm spin again


Edit - Kiwireddevil

I've shifted this post and those in response to it (down to about 5.30pm Friday UK time) to this thread from the Eng vs Pak 3rd test thread

i know he was,

im one of KP's BIGGEST FANS, however it isnt unfair to say he fell to left arm spin again, as its the truth. He always does.

its nothing to do with being his fan or not

he shouldnt have been out, and he played the best on the day

it was a bad decision- therefore he might as well have got out in any unfair way

it wasnt a bad decision, it was clipping the stumps, therefore it was hitting..

all the players know that if its clipping the stumps then its out, UMPIRE'S CALL

how was it clipping the stumps- what proof do you have?

hawkeye showed that 2.2 millimetres- yes thats right 2.2 mm hit the top corner of the stumps.

hawkeye is good but it isnt that acurate.

no umpire should call a decision that close out (the umpire was guessing- thats the key point)- the batter has to be given the benefit of the doubt when its that 50/50

:facepalm, you dont understand DRS, or umpiring decisions at all do you.

read up on the rules before spouting.

believe what you want to believe- your just ignorant

i understand drs completely. the umpire shouldnt have called out- end of story- bad call, and drs is flawed in that respect

im sorry but its incredibly frustarting when people dont read up on the rules, and then criticise umpiring decisions..

it was clipping the stumps, NO ONE ELSE USUALLY COMPLAINS, when it clips the stumps

Regardless of whether the ball would have hit the stumps or not (it may have, it may not, but both the umpire and Hawk-eye think it would have so who are we to argue? And also, the umpire (and Hawk-eye) always "guess" when they give an LBW), Pietersen shouldn't have missed the ball in the first place, so is every bit as culpable as the umpire/DRS/anyone else you want to blame.

Indeed, I get fed-up when people call a bad decision "unlucky": except in a few cases (e.g. going for a sweep with the knowledge your front pad is outside the line but still being given out LBW, taking evasive action successfully but the ball brushes your shoulder yet being given out caught behind, playing inside the line but being given out caught etc.) the batsman has already made an error when the umpire wrongly gives him out. I am always bemused as to why we think the umpire's error (in adjudging the batsman out) is in any way worse than the batsman's original error (in KP's case, missing the ball).

it was to close to be called out- batters should have the benefit of the doubt in those situations, not the umpire due to predictive technolgy, which i believe should actually have precendent however it should allow for the systems weakness(and allow a marigin of error).

2.2 mm isnt good enough from point of view

to be honest we arent gonna agree, and im getting frustarted when people spout without reading the rules, so not gonna bother to keep arguing with you.

Mike Selig wrote:Regardless of whether the ball would have hit the stumps or not (it may have, it may not, but both the umpire and Hawk-eye think it would have so who are we to argue? And also, the umpire (and Hawk-eye) always "guess" when they give an LBW), Pietersen shouldn't have missed the ball in the first place, so is every bit as culpable as the umpire/DRS/anyone else you want to blame.

Indeed, I get fed-up when people call a bad decision "unlucky": except in a few cases (e.g. going for a sweep with the knowledge your front pad is outside the line but still being given out LBW, taking evasive action successfully but the ball brushes your shoulder yet being given out caught behind, playing inside the line but being given out caught etc.) the batsman has already made an error when the umpire wrongly gives him out. I am always bemused as to why we think the umpire's error (in adjudging the batsman out) is in any way worse than the batsman's original error (in KP's case, missing the ball).

the problem is simple

if the umpire judged it in(i think most would agree that 9 out of 10 they would)- and pakistain reviewed- he would still be in

no umpire - infact not even superman could call a lbw hitting the corner of the wicket by 2.2mm

batter should have the benefit of the doubt

cricketfan90 wrote:to be honest we arent gonna agree, and im getting frustarted when people spout without reading the rules, so not gonna bother to keep arguing with you.

do you honestly think i dont know the rules?

your ignoarnce isnt becoming- just because you cant debate your point sensibly

well with the things you are saying i would suggest not.

what exactly makes you think i dont understand the rules

mystiroakey wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:to be honest we arent gonna agree, and im getting frustarted when people spout without reading the rules, so not gonna bother to keep arguing with you.

do you honestly think i dont know the rules?

your ignoarnce isnt becoming- just because you cant debate your point sensibly

i have said my point as has mike, and yet you still dont get the rules...

if a ball is clipping the stumps and its given out, then so be it...its NOT A BAD DECISION, its a 50-50, REMEBER THE UMPIRE ONLY GETS ONE LOOK we get the benefit of IT BEING SLOWED DOWN, MANY TIMES....therefore remeber that next time you ridiclously question an umpire deicison which could have gone either way.

i think its time i left you in your ignorant bliss. maybe by the time you have posted another 15000 posts you may lose abit of your blind ignorance
.

you dont understand the point, its a very simple point- kp was unlucky to be given out, due to a questionable call, a call that is to close to judge, you dont agree thats fine. but rather than debateing you try and make out i dont understand drs, does it make you feel better?

you dont understand that 50/50's should allways go to the batsman- which tells me that its actually you that doesnt get the rules..

i think thats case closed

there is no point me continuing to talk to you, as we are going round in circles, come back when you know the rules

thanks

as i said case closed.

you havent brought anything to the discussion- you just repeat the same stuff.

are you a parrot?

that might answer the question of how you have managed to post so much, you repeat the same thing over and over again!

mystiroakey wrote:it was to close to be called out- batters should have the benefit of the doubt in those situations, not the umpire due to predictive technolgy, which i believe should actually have precendent however it should allow for the systems weakness(and allow a marigin of error).

2.2 mm isnt good enough from point of view

The laws state that as long DRS shows any part of the ball hitting the stumps, no matter how big or small, it can not over turn the umpires decision to give him not out. As you say he was unlucky to be given out because I'm sure that if the on field umpire gives it not out, the fielders appeal it would again be kept with the umpires decision, I may be wrong though, I'm sure CF can clarify that for me. Unlucky but by the laws of the game it was the right decision.

hampo171 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:it was to close to be called out- batters should have the benefit of the doubt in those situations, not the umpire due to predictive technolgy, which i believe should actually have precendent however it should allow for the systems weakness(and allow a marigin of error).

2.2 mm isnt good enough from point of view

The laws state that as long DRS shows any part of the ball hitting the stumps, no matter how big or small, it can not over turn the umpires decision to give him not out. As you say he was unlucky to be given out because I'm sure that if the on field umpire gives it not out, the fielders appeal it would again be kept with the umpires decision, I may be wrong though, I'm sure CF can clarify that for me. Unlucky but by the laws of the game it was the right decision.

not sure if you are purposefully trying to misudnerstand my post of not. its quite clear- i have clearly stated how i would like the game to be judged over the way that it is today.

offcourse by the laws of the game- kp was out, i am aguing he was unlucky as you are. CF cannot fathom that point

Didn't misunderstand, I was just shedding some light on the laws that surround the DRS system.

yes- if the umpire had given it not out , it would still have been not out, you are correct. Its a major part of my argument.

i will add - for some reason cf thinks i am arguing that the decison was incorrect by the laws of the game.

i am arguing agianst drs as it stands- just like half the cricket population.

i honestly believe that drs is a great thing(i have my own thread on it)- however i am suggesting ways to make it better.

I'm sure you understand that it has to be a 100% certain to be overturned, although today's decision does show that the game is becoming more of a bowlers game after years of it being batsmen friendly.

hampo i understand the rules as they stand- i am arguing against them, not the decision as the laws stand

50-50 = unlucky. Questionable, yes to the extent it was 50-50. Within the rules, yes. KP missed the shot, yes.

"I'm sure you understand that it has to be a 100% certain to be overturned"

well actually thats not completley correct.


the rules state (when you review an out decsion)that if hawkeye agrees with the umpire then the decsion stays with the umpire. its a good stystem- however the problem is is that hawkeye although good isnt 100% accurate.

on a not out(bowler) review hawkeye doesnt have to agree with the umpire, it brings a margin of error into play, but doesnt the other side.

basically if the bowler reviews a not out decision, and it shows the ball clipping the stumps - it still stays with umpire. this is a vey ambiguos position.

it does limit the bad decisions- but its not perfect by any stretch of the imagination


there is no 100% certainty at all, i think there should be a margin of error in out reveiws, as there is with not out reviews.

if hawkeye was 100% accurate we wouldnt need the umpire at all!