General Cricket Discussion

[grkrama]

IN simple terms what Poker is saying is when you have a filter to reduce dirt, the filter itself shouldnt have a tear and abrasive toxins, its agreeable that dirt will come despite whatever filter you use but the filter itself shouldnt have a tear and some toxins that result in more complications.

DRS as a whole system needs a lot of changes both and implementing as well analyzing levels, not to add a few tweaks to the technological department as well though that's not as error prone as the other parts.

 

[MattW]

Also your argument that DRS blunders are okay, as long as at least more than half the DRS referrals are correct is frankly shocking. What is the point of having a system that aims to remove errors from Umpiring, when it itself is a cause for some of the most blatantly wrong decisions the game as ever seen !!

If more than half the overturned decisions are correct, there is an increase in the overall amount of correct decisions in the game. I would suggest it is significantly more than half - because if it was anywhere near wrong half the time, then there would be a DRS error every second match - there quite clearly isn't.

Exactly, including those that are messed up because the Umpires who are a vital part of the DRS, got it wrong or where the tech didn't work. Ultimately the tech can be as accurate as u want, but if eventually the person who has to act based on the tech data, is a chimp, the whole exercise is still rather pointless.

I'd suggest the solution to that would be to specifically train umpires that are specialist third umpires, not occasionally put field umpires up there for a stint. Professionals specifically qualified to operate the DRS, which is a different skill than being a field umpire.

I would also give them the ability to not make a judgement and return the decision to the field umpire - the third umpire previously had that ability on close run-out calls, they would have a white light in addition to the green and red ones to signal that there was too much doubt. The fact that the umpire can't just say that it is inconclusive, uphold the original decision and return the review to the team who asked for it, is a problem. The umpire currently has the pressure to make a decision, indeed to overturn decisions in close calls, because they would impact the game regardless by the team losing a review.

IN simple terms what Poker is saying is when you have a filter to reduce dirt, the filter itself shouldnt have a tear and abrasive toxins, its agreeable that dirt will come despite the filter but the filter itself shouldnt have a tear and some toxins that result in more complications.

So let's use the example of water - if running water through your hands removes 90% of dirt and the filter gets that up to 95% - the filter is worth it despite the fact that occasionally things might fall through that your hands might have caught. If it removes one more toxin than not using it, you have made a net improvement in water quality. That's a good thing.

 

[PokerAce]

If more than half the overturned decisions are correct, there is an increase in the overall amount of correct decisions in the game. I would suggest it is significantly more than half - because if it was anywhere near wrong half the time, then there would be a DRS error every second match - there quite clearly isn't.

Actually your argument for DRS is very stats based. You keep saying that if more than half are correct, then we are still getting more correct decisions. I am saying stats don't matter, and if poor implementation of DRS, leads to the very error it is meant to protect against, even in one case, let alone the several well documented cases, then as a concept the system has still failed.

I'd suggest the solution to that would be to specifically train umpires that are specialist third umpires, not occasionally put field umpires up there for a stint. Professionals specifically qualified to operate the DRS, which is a different skill than being a field umpire.

I would also give them the ability to not make a judgement and return the decision to the field umpire - the third umpire previously had that ability on close run-out calls, they would have a white light in addition to the green and red ones to signal that there was too much doubt. The fact that the umpire can't just say that it is inconclusive, uphold the original decision and return the review to the team who asked for it, is a problem. The umpire currently has the pressure to make a decision, indeed to overturn decisions in close calls, because they would impact the game regardless by the team losing a review.

As for all the potential corrective steps that you write, and indeed the many corrective steps suggested by me in the past, if they help I am all for them being implemented. However the point is you dont finish a product by a trial and error method at the top level. First it should be tried in the lower levels and then brought to the highest level. Imagine a situation, where in a WC, a guy misses out on a fighting 100 because the Umpires don't know something as fundamental as once they have given a batsman out and DRS is invoked, the ball is dead. You cannot then run out the non-striker as an insurance.

That just shows how ridiculously casual the ICC is about fixing DRS issues, and it frankly drives me mad. How can you not bother to teach the Umpires rules even the very basic rule to invoking DRS. Lets not even go into the actual DRS misinterpretation of Akmal.

So let's use the example of water - if running water through your hands removes 90% of dirt and the filter gets that up to 95% - the filter is worth it despite the fact that occasionally things might fall through that your hands might have caught. If it removes one more toxin than not using it, you have made a net improvement in water quality. That's a good thing.

Again you have missed the point about the Filter in the example. Its okay that the Filter cannot remove the remaining 5% of the dirt despite its best efforts, just as it would be okay if DRS couldn't really do anything about the 2-5% umpiring errors that still happen. However if the Filter itself started to leak toxins into the water, the very toxins it was meant to remove, even if in very rare cases, would it be okay then?

Even if say the company produced a million filters and in only 1% of the cases, the filter instead of removing the toxin from the water, was found to actually add more toxin to the water. Would the company then not have to recall the product.

Similarly the DRS is not an innocent filter that cannot do anything about the toxins (errors) that still seep through. Inconsistency with DRS tech and interpretation is actually leading to errors (like the Akmal one, a Batsman n.o., was given out as there is no consistency in how an umpire will interpret DRS). DRS and its interpretation has to be uniform and consistant, and there just cannot be a situation where two umpires can look at the same replay in DRS and arrive at two different conclusions.

Thus as with the Akmal decision, DRS is actually adding the very toxins (errors) to the water, that it was meant to remove. Even if this is in very rare cases, the very idea of having a filter is violated, and it needs to be recalled. Or atleast needs a very very hard look at.

 

[bigred]

Let's put this simply. Cricket is a stats based game. There are very few sports that rely in stats as much as cricket. So if we now statistically have more correct decisions due to the invention of DRS, it's a good thing. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer 95% accuracy to 90%.

We all know why the BCCI initially went against it. It would mean old fashioned finger spinners like Graeme Swann would come over to India and have a far greater chance of getting the great Tendulkar and Dravid out on the front foot.

 

[MattW]

However if the Filter itself started to leak toxins into the water, the very toxins it was meant to remove, even if in very rare cases, would it be okay then?

Yes, because it would have a net reduction. The overall is more important than individual examples. Replace the individual filter - in this case the individual bad umpires, not the system of filtration.

I am saying stats don't matter, and if poor implementation of DRS, leads to the very error it is meant to protect against, even in one case, let alone the several well documented cases, then as a concept the system has still failed.

You get umpiring mistakes regardless of DRS. The concept of DRS is reducing incorrect decisions - ideally to 0, but any progress is important to a game that can turn on the basis of a decision.

Imagine a situation, where in a WC, a guy misses out on a fighting 100 because the Umpires don't know something as fundamental as once they have given a batsman out and DRS is invoked, the ball is dead

And without DRS the other batsman was wrongly out LBW with no recourse.

 

[PokerAce]

Let's put this simply. Cricket is a stats based game. There are very few sports that rely in stats as much as cricket. So if we now statistically have more correct decisions due to the invention of DRS, it's a good thing. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer 95% accuracy to 90%.

We all know why the BCCI initially went against it. It would mean old fashioned finger spinners like Graeme Swann would come over to India and have a far greater chance of getting the great Tendulkar and Dravid out on the front foot.

I have read and heard some serious Bullsh*t conspiracy theories, but this one probably takes the cake.

You make it sound like ("the great") Tendulkar and Dravid had never been out on the frontfoot before in their careers and it suddenly happening against Swann would be some kind of a disaster for the BCCI !!

I mean seriously ... what? You make it sound like DRS could only work to the detriment of Sachin, and that is why BCCI didnt want to use it. Famously Sachin used DRS to get a frontfoot LBW overturned in the '11 WC SF. How does that go with your conspiracy theory.

Also lets look at more facts, about India and DRS, and your frankly weird notion that DRS would work India, which is why BCCI doesn't use it. India has played to global ICC events with the use of DRS, WC 2011 and CT 2013, and ... wait for it ... WON THEM BOTH.

So just how just does that fit into your notion that BCCI doesn't want to use DRS as it works against India and keeps India from winning.? Hahaha.


Yes, and we never went to the moon either I suppose !!

 

[PokerAce]

Yes, because it would have a net reduction. The overall is more important than individual examples. Replace the individual filter - in this case the individual bad umpires, not the system of filtration.

How would a filter adding toxins to the water its supposed to clean lead to a net reduction in that water system?

You get umpiring mistakes regardless of DRS.

Exactly, don't you think it would be better to not get wrong decisions because of DRS too. Just fix the system, we all agree it has issues, and then implement it. How hard is that?

And without DRS the other batsman was wrongly out LBW with no recourse.

And the very next day Akmal was rightly given n.o, till some genius saw the DRS and then wrongly ruled him caught. There are both sides you know.

 

[MattW]

How would a filter adding toxins to the water its supposed to clean lead to a net reduction in that water system?

Because it's still removing more than if there wasn't the filter.

Say 1 in 20 DRS decisions are awful mistakes that cause a right decision to become wrong, that would mean 0.5% of decisions go from right to wrong with DRS, but compared against the overall improvement from ~90% to ~95% correct decisions, that still means there is 95% wrong to right vs 5% right to wrong; instead of 95% staying wrong and 5% staying right.

Exactly, don't you think it would be better to not get wrong decisions because of DRS too. Just fix the system, we all agree it has issues, and then implement it. How hard is that?

Human error isn't a 'system' you can fix.

And the very next day Akmal was rightly given n.o, till some genius saw the DRS and then wrongly ruled him caught. There are both sides you know.

Yes, and there's significantly more of the right decisions being made on review than the opposite.

 

[PokerAce]

Anyway, in the middle of all the DRS talk, I forgot to say, well done Ireland what a win !!

I was going through the squad, and while many are inexperienced as one would expect, however to be fair, they have a lot of players who have played in the English County and that is excellent experience for someone not from the non - test nations to have. Not only have they played, some of them have very decent numbers there.

They are not to be overlooked, especially when they are playing in NZ. They are used to some serious green tops in Ireland.

 

[PokerAce]

Because it's still removing more than if there wasn't the filter.

Say 1 in 20 DRS decisions are awful mistakes that cause a right decision to become wrong, that would mean 0.5% of decisions go from right to wrong with DRS, but compared against the overall improvement from ~90% to ~95% correct decisions, that still means there is 95% wrong to right vs 5% right to wrong; instead of 95% staying wrong and 5% staying right.

Again, DRS adding to the error whether 0.5% or 2% is just against the very concept of having a DRS to begin with, and needs to be looked.

Human error isn't a 'system' you can fix.

Human interpretation is very much a part of the DRS system, and consequently so is human error. Ultimately its the third umpire deciding where to over-rule or not. This interpretation is most definitely something that has to be standardised. There cannot be a situation where different umpires will look at the same replay and data, and arrive at two different conclusions. This definitely needs to be fixed, regardless of how stubbornly you many choose to frame the sentence.

Yes, and there's significantly more of the right decisions being made on review than the opposite.

Again, we are going around in circles. More Correct decisions - based on what !! Evidence of the DRS itself, which is the very system whose accuracy is in question. Don't you see the futlity of this more correct decisions argument.

 

[Snowy]

And the very next day Akmal was rightly given n.o

Who are you to say it was 'rightly' given not out by the on field umpire?

More Correct decisions - based on what !!

Based on conclusive evidence. Unlike last night's decision which was arguably inconclusive either way.

 

[PokerAce]

Who are you to say it was 'rightly' given not out by the on field umpire?

Based on conclusive evidence. Unlike last night's decision which was arguably inconclusive either way.

Did u see the evidence to over-rule. Like a spike on the Sniko, or deviation off the bat?

 

[Snowy]

Did u see the evidence to over-rule. Like a spike on the Sniko, or deviation off the bat?

No, because unfortuantely last night's instance is an example of technology not being perfect (and the exclusion of hot spot didn't help). If it was ruled out by the on field umpire, I would have had a hard time finding conclusive evidence to overturn it. It was that close off a call. A deviation can be so minor that it may be missed by the cameras available. In the past snicko has been known to not pick up faint edges. It is one of the few cases where the available technology was arguably unable to produce conclusive evidence (based on the majority of feedback). That isn't the fault of the technology, it's simply the nature of what happened.

The third umpire thought there was conclusive evidence. The issue here isn't the technology being inaccurate or wrong. It is the ability of that umpire to use the evidence available.

Ignoring that specific instance though, Matt's point is that the system we currently have in place is doing a good job at fixing the majority of mistakes. It isn't reasonable to wait until a 100%, fool proof, completely accurate system is in place. If we have the technology available to overturn the vast majority of mistakes, why not use it?

 

[MattW]

Again, DRS adding to the error whether 0.5% or 2% is just against the very concept of having a DRS to begin with, and needs to be looked.

It still results in a net reduction - so there is no justification to remove a system that in the majority of cases results in a correct decision being made for the benefit of trying to chase after a minority of wrong decisions. Removing it is a negative for the accuracy of umpiring decisions in the game.

Human interpretation is very much a part of the DRS system, and consequently so is human error. Ultimately its the third umpire deciding where to over-rule or not. This interpretation is most definitely something that has to be standardised. There cannot be a situation where different umpires will look at the same replay and data, and arrive at two different conclusions. This definitely needs to be fixed, regardless of how stubbornly you many choose to frame the sentence.

By all means find a way for fix that - until then, the fact remains there are more correct decisions made with the system than without it.

Again, we are going around in circles. More Correct decisions - based on what !! Evidence of the DRS itself, which is the very system whose accuracy is in question. Don't you see the futlity of this more correct decisions argument.

All the cases you have mentioned have been umpiring mistakes, not a failure of the technology aspect. We can tell what are correct decisions the same way we can tell what are wrong decisions - by viewing the same evidence the umpires use on the TV coverage of the games.

Hawkeye is tried and tested - and given the large benefit of the doubt that the umpires call zone gives, there is a strong check against slight errors. Either way, all players on the field would use that same system, so no one gains an advantage or disadvantage from it.

Real Time Snicko might be debatable - but it forms only an element of the decision, along with a replay. An interpretation of a slow motion replay is more accurate than a split second decision from 20 metres away.

 

[PokerAce]

No, because unfortuantely last night's instance is an example of technology not being perfect (and the exclusion of hot spot didn't help). If it was ruled out by the on field umpire, I would have had a hard time finding conclusive evidence to overturn it. It was that close off a call. A deviation can be so minor that it may be missed by the cameras available. In the past snicko has been known to not pick up faint edges. It is one of the few cases where the available technology was arguably unable to produce conclusive evidence (based on the majority of feedback). That isn't the fault of the technology, it's simply the nature of what happened.

The third umpire thought there was conclusive evidence. The issue here isn't the technology being inaccurate or wrong. It is the ability of that umpire to use the evidence available.

Ignoring that specific instance though, Matt's point is that the system we currently have in place is doing a good job at fixing the majority of mistakes. It isn't reasonable to wait until a 100%, fool proof, completely accurate system is in place. If we have the technology available to overturn the vast majority of mistakes, why not use it?

In other words, the onfield umpire gave it n.o., and there was nothing on sniko or a clear deviation, hence the on field Ump was right, and yet it was overturned, when in other cases it would not have been overturned. This is the point I am making. There are inconsistencies in DRS interpretation which don;t help matters. There cannot be a situation where two diff umpires look at the same replay and yet one says out the other says n.o. DRS Interpretation has to be uniformalised.

I get Matt's point, that 95% more correct is better than say 94% more correct. However the point is that if in the 5% errors, there are errors that include those from DRS, be it tech fail or human interpretation, then the system needs to be looked at. I don't see why ppl are so eager to argue with that.