Usman Khwaja b. DRS

First topic message reminder :

the ashes
T3
D1
 
Usman Khwaja b. DRS
 
DRS gets his customary minimum one victim per inning.....that's 10% of the wickets gobbled up by this very potent wicket taker...the .DRS.

he is taking wickets.....but he's driving nails in his own coffin..this guy DRS

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Fairly sure Dave Richardson has said on a few occasions that DRS is not there to help with marginal decisions; don't think he ever used the word "howler"
.

Let ICC come out in open and clarify what the usage of DRS is......and clearly state it is for Howlers only?

it is a conveinent assumption used by many to excuse the mess-ups made by the DRS package.

and ICC has to note any of 3 component malfunction--- 1) Technology 2) 3rd umpire 3) inconsistency in rules
counts as a DRS failure

and the failure count stands at atleast 1 per inning in this series....whihc would be unacceptable to most people...and hence the furore over DRS

Can you back that up with any evidence?

my backing is in mass rejection that DRS faces now...from players, fans, ex-crickers, pundits and the media.......if DRS was a guy his a.s.s is on fire
It's ICC job to finish their reticence and bring evidence and credence to save this poor guy DRS's back-side.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Fairly sure Dave Richardson has said on a few occasions that DRS is not there to help with marginal decisions; don't think he ever used the word "howler"
.

Let ICC come out in open and clarify what the usage of DRS is......and clearly state it is for Howlers only?

it is a conveinent assumption used by many to excuse the mess-ups made by the DRS package.

and ICC has to note any of 3 component malfunction--- 1) Technology 2) 3rd umpire 3) inconsistency in rules
counts as a DRS failure

and the failure count stands at atleast 1 per inning in this series....whihc would be unacceptable to most people...and hence the furore over DRS

Can you back that up with any evidence?

my backing is in mass rejection that DRS faces now...from players, fans, ex-crickers, pundits and the media.......if DRS was a guy his a.s.s is on fire
It's ICC job to finish their reticence and  bring evidence and credence to save this poor guy DRS's back-side.

So one every innings means um....11 failures of the DRS system. Wow. What were they then kp_fan? Do enlighten me.

One drs failure..(trotts!)

thats it- against how many correctly overturned incorrect decisions??

Oh dear kp_fan, if mysti's right, then once again you're using meaningless hyperbole to back up your point. And if you feel the need to do that, maybe you don't have much of a point at all?

Duty281 wrote:
my backing is in mass rejection that DRS faces now...from players, fans, ex-crickers, pundits and the media.......if DRS was a guy his a.s.s is on fire
It's ICC job to finish their reticence and  bring evidence and credence to save this poor guy DRS's back-side.

So one every innings means um....11 failures of the DRS system. Wow. What were they then kp_fan? Do enlighten me.[/quote]
I told you...but you didn't get it...I don't have to prove anything anymore...
I have reached a point where me thousands can sit outside and throw stones at DRS...ICC is the one that needs to do the defence, evidence and justify everything

If the on field umpire and the off field(after review) both get the decision wrong due to a lack of evidence or just being blind!!!- That can not be seen as a failure of the system-(It does tell us we need an improved system if he want to make headway- But never a failure, because the decision would have been wrong anyway)

The system could only be seen as a failure If the third umpire overturns correct decisions more than he overturns incorrect ones)

This will never ever happen.

Well kp_fan you said that DRS was responsible for 11, nay, at least 11 failures. What were they?

Or is that more meaningless hyperbole to back up your very weak point?

mystiroakey wrote:If the on field umpire and the off field(after review) both get the decision wrong due to a lack of evidence or just being blind!!!- That can not be seen as a failure of the system-(It does tell us we need an improved system if he want to make headway- But never a failure, because the decision would have been wrong anyway)

The system could only be seen as a failure If the third umpire overturns correct decisions more than he overturns incorrect ones)

This will never ever happen.

Well Mysti, all this yet again come down to the wrong system of umpire's call. I am fairly sure Khawaja wouldn't have been given out had Kumar Dharmasena had a free mandate to take call on what he has seen rather than complicating it with what the onfield umpire had decided. Just an example....... The point is that the DRS has to be viewed as a package involving the technology, the third umpire and the particular rules governing DRS. Failure in any part has to be considered as the failure of the system. The typical hypes aside, I think this is the point that KPF has been making for some time.

Duty281 wrote:Well kp_fan you said that DRS was responsible for 11, nay, at least 11 failures. What were they?

Or is that more meaningless hyperbole to back up your very weak point?

OK.....you win
DRS wins.

well done

msp83 wrote:The point is that the DRS has to be viewed as a package involving the technology, the third umpire and the particular rules governing DRS. Failure in any part has to be considered as the failure of the system. The typical hypes aside, I think this is the point that KPF has been making for some time.

I agree with this bit - I have said since the start that simply saying "the system works, it the human error which is the problem" is hiding your head in the sand, because the humans are part of the system. However at the risk of repeating myself it is unhelpful to the case people are trying to make if they use hyperbole or complete mistatements, then get all defensive when people challenge them.

"Well Mysti, all this yet again come down to the wrong system of umpire's call"

dude i cant go back there just yet.I am happy to talk about if we are better with DRS as it stands or not for the time being

I believe we are

I have found a quote from Dave Richardson (after the first test):
"Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible."

Pietersens dismissal in the first innings was a howler by the third umpire too as hotspot clearly showed he nicked it on to his pads.

I think the issue is hotspot plain and simply, for whatever reason it isn't picking up the faintest nicks which arguably is what it's meant to be used for. Judging by Pietersens reaction in the second innings I genuinely don't think he nicked it regardless of what snicko suggests (the ball appeared to be past the bat when there was a noise). We technology that can be relied up on 100% like they do in Tennis, what hawkeye says is final and so it should be in cricket too. There is far too much leeway in LBW decisions, I could understand possibly 5% but not the 50% it currently is.

Take the word of the technology 100% or don't bother using it at all otherwise we get left with the mess we've got in this series.

Mike Selig wrote:I have found a quote from Dave Richardson (after the first test):
"Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible."

A very realistic statement indeed. Nothing there directing towards the 'Howler Only' norm. And it is official that the DRS is there to provide as many correct decisions as possible.
What is an obvious umpiring error? If a batsman edges behind and the umpire gives it not out, regardless of the umpire's call that is an obvious error if the technology establish it so on review regardless of whatever be the perceptions regarding how close a call the original one was.
Calls on LBW could be tricky here as close LBW calls could be marginal. But the problem with not establishing a clearer standard rather than giving the umpire the benefit of the doubt is that it could create serious inconsistencies for the system that could in turn undermine its very credibility.

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well kp_fan you said that DRS was responsible for 11, nay, at least 11 failures. What were they?

Or is that more meaningless hyperbole to back up your very weak point?

OK.....you win
DRS wins.

well done

What about your 10% claim in the opening post? Is that hyperbole as well?

Mike Selig wrote:I have found a quote from Dave Richardson (after the first test):
"Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible."

Thanks for finding this.
Now obviously that's not what palyers and teams expect ICC to deliver from DRS.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well kp_fan you said that DRS was responsible for 11, nay, at least 11 failures. What were they?

Or is that more meaningless hyperbole to back up your very weak point?

OK.....you win
DRS wins.

well done

What about your 10% claim in the opening post? Is that hyperbole as well?

¨

did I say 10% or one per inning?

ECB demands an apology from ICC........all over DRS

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Well kp_fan you said that DRS was responsible for 11, nay, at least 11 failures. What were they?

Or is that more meaningless hyperbole to back up your very weak point?

OK.....you win
DRS wins.

well done

What about your 10% claim in the opening post? Is that hyperbole as well?

¨

did I say 10% or one per inning?

Same thing really; 10 % of an innings or 1 per innings.

^either way..it's ICC problems to defend this shyte

Well not really, since 1 incorrect decision per innings is mere hyperbole by your very good self.

Duty281 wrote:Well not really, since 1 incorrect decision per innings is mere hyperbole by your very good self.

you could throw even a full toss at ICC on DRS issue and they will defend it tamely.

Here are Shane Watson's thoughts on the DRS.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/660041.html

If you're not confident with the technology sitting in front of your nose, and at a moment in crisis in an important international cricket match, you're gonna make the wrong decisions, Sods Law with 50/50 and all that.

One person making the decisions is wrong, at least three people viewing the same videos at least, one from England, one from Australia and a neutral, in the case of the Ashes anyhow.

msp83 wrote:Here are Shane Watson's thoughts on the DRS.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/660041.html

here is a summary of his view

There's supposed to be the benefit of the doubt going to the batsman," Watson said. "Bowlers get a chance to come back and bowl another ball, but for a batsman, if they're out, they're out. DRS, for me personally, makes things pretty complicated when the rules of the game were set up to be as uncomplicated as possible. Batting-wise, if there's benefit of the doubt, the benefit goes to the batsman. As a bowler you accept that.

"So it's going to be interesting to see how DRS evolves. At the moment, there's no doubt that for the amount of airtime the DRS has got over these last three Test matches, it's certainly not working to how it was supposed to be set up to work."

a sensisble and balanced anaysis of DRS and the flaws in it's 3 components...by Mike Selvey


Players, so we are led to believe by the conspiracy theorists, are tampering with their bats by attaching Hot Spot-defying tape to the outer edges of them to avoid snick-detection (stealth-bats as someone succinctly put it) and presumably sandpaper to the inside edges to enhance the chances of a nick showing up there. This is scientific bilge as much as anything. International Cricket Council bigwigs are flying in and out as if they were members of the UN security council trying to quell an uprising rather than checking on the competence of a cricket official to interpret television pictures. If we did not know better, it might be said that this is August and the Silly Season when, to judge by newspaper stories, more people get bitten by dogs or fall foul of obscure diseases than at any other time of year.

Its purpose, so it was said at the time, was to eliminate 'howlers' which is, of course, nonsense: it is there to try to ensure as many correct decisions as possible, which is not the same thing at all. We are assured, by the ICC, that more 'correct' decisions are being made these days as a result of its implementation, although presumably the benchmark for this is the technology itself, which by its very nature has its own flaws and margins of error. The idea that the umpire's decision is final, a cornerstone of the spirit of cricket enshrined in the laws, is effectively defunct.


But let us take this at face value and say that the principle of a technology-based decision-making process, strictly as an adjunct to the human umpire, is a good thing. Why, then, does it appear more often to be asking questions than providing answers? In its entirety the DRS has three components. First comes the technology, which includes Hawk-Eye for ball-tracking together with a predictive element; Hot Spot as a means of detecting edges by thermal imaging; Pitch Mat, designed to help identify where the ball pitches in relation to the stumps; slowmotion and superslowmotion as well as real-time pictures in high definition; audio from the stump mics; pictures for line decisions; and very likely a Nespresso machine to keep the third umpire awake. Next there is the human element, which starts with the players and umpires on the field and then involves the third umpire. Finally comes the process by which reviews and other decisions are made.

It is abundantly clear that, when all these elements are added together, their inherent flaws compound and create the potential for volatility.

What can happen, though, and probably will as a matter of urgency now before the game degenerates into a laughing stock, is that the flaws in each part are addressed and rectified as far as possible. This might mean abandoning Hot Spot in the first instance, for the technology supplied in this series is obviously not up to the mark and scarcely an advertisement for the future procurement of updated equipment being trialled at the moment. It will certainly mean re-examining the parameters within which the dreaded 'umpire's call' fall, the more fairly to reflect the more slender margin of error in the technology.

No review should be lost for a single 'umpire's call' and more than that should be automatically not out whatever the on-field decision. A real-time Snickometer, also being trialled, while again not definitive, should be a priority.

Most pertinent, though, has to come the realisation that the job of third umpire is not something that can be done on a rotational basis but is a specialist job requiring specialist training. There is no reason why a third umpire technician (for that is what he, or indeed she, would be) needs the same training as an onfield umpire. This is about interpreting the evidence of technology. It will not be long before there is a university degree in it.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/aug/07/drs-urgent-overhaul-ashes

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/current/story/660501.html
*Breaking*

ICC confirms that Hotspot will remain for the remainder of Ashes

Whoa.....that means that there was talks and demands of Hot spot being dumped in the midst of the series.  

and here is the technology company's recommended solution for edges in underlined text......ha ha Ha

we know that the majority of edges are detected by Hot Spot, but there are occasions when a fine edge isn't picked up.

"If there is no mark on Hot Spot, the TV umpire can use replays from different angles to see whether the ball has deflected off the bat, and he can listen to the sound from the stump-microphone to determine whether the batsman has edged the ball. Either deflection or sound can be used by the TV umpire to make his final judgment."

There has been crazy suggestions that KP and others may have used tape on the bat to fool HS.

However it is thought that the rumour started from the Australian inventor of Hotspot to deflect blame from his system!!


Anyway Hotspot isn't performing very well. Time for Hawkeye to step up to the plate. Its just a case of tracking the bat as well as the ball

mystiroakey wrote:There has been crazy suggestions that KP and others may have used tape on the bat to fool HS.

the orginial proponents of the cheating theory were the English when on the 2011 tour of Eng they claimed VVSL and some otehrs were using vaseline on the bat to fool Hot spot.

also I do believe the technology compnay has evidence but are being gagged by ICC throuhg requests and threats

It was former England skipper Michael Vaughan who started the nonsense regarding Vaseline

In fairness to Michael Vaughan, hero of 2005, you just don't know what tricks Johnny Foreigner is up to.

(if it wasn't abundantly obvious, this is sarcasm)

http://www.espncricinfo.com/thestands/content/story/659523.html

DRS is here to stay, according to this article.

my friend this is a blog from some cricket enthisiast....not an offical statement by anyone who matters.

who means DRS will survive and should stay in his opinion......

Good we resepect his opinion just as each one of us have our opinions

Ah...DRS works again.

KP can you update your OP to include all the correct DRS decisions?

DRS works once more!

it will go down as a gold lettered historic day. 

DRS seems to have had a real good day in office today. First time in the series it is generating some much needed feel-good factor about it.
But this doesn't mask any of the concerns either while showing the importance of the DRS.

I must be the only one on here who is not steamed up over DRS .

Personally can take it or leave it. It really doesn't bother me whether India use it or not. Does not spoil my enjoyment of series in India in the least , nor do I think it affects the results. The better team generally wins with or without Hawkeye , Hotspot , hot air...

This series has been arguably marred by too much fuss over umpiring. Mainly , in my view , because the men in the middle have made rather more mistakes than is "normal" for a major Test series. May be just one of those things , may be the likes of Hill and Erasmus just are not really good enough umpires at this level ?
Whatever , the involvement of DRS has been a bit of a smokescreen , as it has (mostly) helped correct errors. Just the couple of odd cases , like the Trott lbw and the Khawaja non-overturn , both of which were down to poor third umpire judgement , have focused attention on the reviews. And of course a couple of times fielding captains have not had reviews left to counter clear on field errors...too bad.
The fallibilities of hotspot were known before this series. Nothing has changed , just more cases have been referred , and some left still slightly debatable...which comes back to poor umpiring in the first place.
Hopefully more days like today will follow now and we can get back to enjoying the cricket. While ICC can continue working behind the scenes on technical improvement and umpire training.

the technology inventor makes a good point.
those using tapes to fool DRS will only put it longitudanally along the length of the outside edge...and not wrap it all around.


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/10/hot-spot-inventor-bat-icc

Hot Spot inventor calls on ICC to ban protective coatings on bats

• Warren Brennan expresses further concerns
• Channel 9 refuses to back down over allegations


Warren Brennan, who adapted Hot Spot technology for cricket and runs the company supplying the system, late on Friday night broke his silence on the controversy over batsmen possibly using silicone tape to prevent edges being detected – and did anything but back down.

Brennan claimed that "the majority of bats had some form of protective coating … strangely enough, this protective coating would cover only half the edge of the bat" and urged the ICC to ban all such coatings.

The England and Wales Cricket Board had demanded an explanation and apology from Channel 9 after the Australian broadcaster implied that Kevin Pietersen had used silicone tape on his bat to fool Hot Spot.

To right.

Apologize Mr hot spot!

KP_fan wrote:
• Channel 9 refuses to back down over allegations

Same old Aussies, always whinging.

DRS has brought to test cricket what.......bollywood/ cheer-babes/ sealzy after game parties bring to IPL....
a side-show of entertainment......

Now an "OUT" is no longer an absolute event....
it may be out by onfield ump and not out by 3rd ump.....and sometimes out depneding on what the onfield umpires call was.......and what is not out today might beocme out after a few months because of tweaking of some frame-work laws......

discussions / debates/ gigs of airtime and print-psace......it is an entertaning side-show in itself

Snicko may be used in the next Ashes series. Good to see the ICC expanding on the technology they have at their disposal.