The DRS Thread - Jan 29 = BCCI Could Implement BCCI-ised DRS for IPL
- Thread starter PokerAce
- Start date
This is a DRS error that happened during the first ever D/N test Aus vs NZ. Lyon was adjudged N.O and on review Hot Spot showed a clear mark on the bat, but the TV Umpire still refused to overturn the decision. Steven Smith admitted it was a "pretty big error".
Smith admits Lyon DRS decision was 'pretty big error'
Another DRS incident happened during the Boxing Day Test between Aus and WI. Here is what happened -
Australia’s Steve Smith to seek explanation after DRS malfunction | Sport | The Guardian
While so far issues regarding DRS had arisen due to wrong interpretations of DRS, but DRS not working at all, is something new.
_Sam_
Panel of Selectors
Isnt that the third time the tracking has been unavailable in just over 3 years? All 3 of them have been virtual eye as well, perhaps some conclusions should start being drawn from that?
BCCI mulling scaled down version of DRS for IPL | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
In a major development BCCI to try an implement a BCCI-ised version of DRS in the IPL. This will allow referrals for caught behind decisions only and no LBWs.
One of the key stumbling blocks for BCCI using DRS was BCCI not being convinced that Hot Spot was consistant enough. This was proven correct after Aus Ashes in 2013, post which Hot Spot was removed as part of DRS, only to be brought back to be used in conjunction with Snicko. It seems this has removed BCCI's opposition to atleast using DRS for catches.
BCCI also oppose the use of DRS by players and want it to rest with the Umpires who can voluntarily consult tech when in doubt. So it remains to be seen how that works out.
BCCI doesn't want to go ahead with using DRS for LBW's are its reservations on ball tracking are just too many. They first of all don't trust that it can accurately predict the bounce, for they don't believe Hawk Eye can really ever tell if the ball has hit a crack, or account for variable bounce in different pitches around the world, for instance a ball in India will bounce much lower than one in Perth.
Secondly BCCI and many Indian players are opposed to the idea of Umpire's call. They say that if you want to trust tech, then do so completely. Dhoni earlier said that Umpire's call make the variable's too large. If its given out then just a fraction of the ball touching the stumps is okay, but if not out then more than half the ball needs to hit the stumps, thats a variable too large for the Ind skipper. The same review can be out and not out depending on the original call, which is a no-no for the India players. Dhoni gave the example of tennis line calls, where the calls are clear cut and no ambiguity arises depending on the original call of the chair umpire. In tennis there is no rule that says that if the Umpire called it out then more than half the ball must have bounced inside the line for it to be called in on review.
What Dhoni said makes sense to me. The tennis umpire's even to make calls on balls moving a much greater speeds, and from further away and frankly a ball is either in or our and there needn't be ambiguity on grounds of that. The same approach can be taken in cricket. This half approach makes no sense in cricket. Its like people want umpire's to get decisions right but not too right!!
Even Ashwin has spoken against Umpire's decision call and has said he will be happy to have DRS once Umpire's call is removed. "Personally speaking, I don't agree with the concept of umpire's call. Cricketers are not rocket scientists. Let's keep it that simple. Do you think in 15 seconds the captain standing at mid-off will be able to say it is not umpire's call? If you want to make the game a better place, either trust the technology completely or don't."
At any rate while BCCI is still to resolve its issues with LBW reviews, but it seems BCCI is now okay with Hot Spot being used in conjunction with Sniko, and wants to implement DRS for catches atleast.
In a major development BCCI to try an implement a BCCI-ised version of DRS in the IPL. This will allow referrals for caught behind decisions only and no LBWs.
One of the key stumbling blocks for BCCI using DRS was BCCI not being convinced that Hot Spot was consistant enough. This was proven correct after Aus Ashes in 2013, post which Hot Spot was removed as part of DRS, only to be brought back to be used in conjunction with Snicko. It seems this has removed BCCI's opposition to atleast using DRS for catches.
BCCI also oppose the use of DRS by players and want it to rest with the Umpires who can voluntarily consult tech when in doubt. So it remains to be seen how that works out.
BCCI doesn't want to go ahead with using DRS for LBW's are its reservations on ball tracking are just too many. They first of all don't trust that it can accurately predict the bounce, for they don't believe Hawk Eye can really ever tell if the ball has hit a crack, or account for variable bounce in different pitches around the world, for instance a ball in India will bounce much lower than one in Perth.
Secondly BCCI and many Indian players are opposed to the idea of Umpire's call. They say that if you want to trust tech, then do so completely. Dhoni earlier said that Umpire's call make the variable's too large. If its given out then just a fraction of the ball touching the stumps is okay, but if not out then more than half the ball needs to hit the stumps, thats a variable too large for the Ind skipper. The same review can be out and not out depending on the original call, which is a no-no for the India players. Dhoni gave the example of tennis line calls, where the calls are clear cut and no ambiguity arises depending on the original call of the chair umpire. In tennis there is no rule that says that if the Umpire called it out then more than half the ball must have bounced inside the line for it to be called in on review.
What Dhoni said makes sense to me. The tennis umpire's even to make calls on balls moving a much greater speeds, and from further away and frankly a ball is either in or our and there needn't be ambiguity on grounds of that. The same approach can be taken in cricket. This half approach makes no sense in cricket. Its like people want umpire's to get decisions right but not too right!!
Even Ashwin has spoken against Umpire's decision call and has said he will be happy to have DRS once Umpire's call is removed. "Personally speaking, I don't agree with the concept of umpire's call. Cricketers are not rocket scientists. Let's keep it that simple. Do you think in 15 seconds the captain standing at mid-off will be able to say it is not umpire's call? If you want to make the game a better place, either trust the technology completely or don't."
At any rate while BCCI is still to resolve its issues with LBW reviews, but it seems BCCI is now okay with Hot Spot being used in conjunction with Sniko, and wants to implement DRS for catches atleast.
AliB
ICC President
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Yea, I too see that Umpire's call arguement is absolutely correct. We can have if the ball touches the stump its out and if not then its not. Clear, if BCCI could go with this then it'll be great for us, Indian fans.
_Sam_
Panel of Selectors
Which just goes to show how clueless they are on what they're talking about given hawkeye doesn't predict any bounce at all, it records the data from after the bounce and then that trajectory can be extended to predict the path. The bounce of a pitch or whether the ball hit a crack is irrelevant as it is doesn't make a difference calculating how the trajectory will continue, hawkeye doesn't use any data prior to the balls bounce in ball tracking prediction.
Yeah I am pretty sure BCCI know what you just wrote. Yes even a 5 yr old probably gets the basic idea that the path recorded after the bounce is then extended to 'predict' the path of the ball. However BCCI is talking about specific cases where there is no data after the bounce, to then extend that to predict the path of the ball.
Like, for example deliveries where the ball has hit the boot just at it hits the ground and there is no 'path after bounce' data present. Then how do you tell how much the ball will bounce, has it hit a crack, does DRS know if the match is being played in India or Aus? Can it account for seam movement off the pitch, can it tell the difference between leg spin and off spin, and can it tell if the ball would turned, depending on whether the bowler bowled and off spin and leg spin? How will DRS predict the path of these deliveries. No one has answered this question to their satisfaction.
Like I remember there was one instance when Saed Ajmal upon seeing a review had said that he had bowled a doosra to a RHB, and still the DRS had predicted the ball would turn into the batsman, which it would not have done, as it was a doosra and not the regular off spin.
Plus in instances where there is a little data where the ball has travelled a few cms after bouncing, there are things like slow loopey bounce especially on slow surfaces found in the sub-continent, which start off on the same trajectory as non-loopey bounces, but then loop up and don't quite go the distance as the regular deliveries.
This happens on slow pitches where the ball loses its pace after bounce more than it would on faster pitches. The path after bounce for both starting off upto a few cms would be the same, and thus the potential for Hawk Eye to misinterpret those paths is huge. Can DRS tell apart the former from the latter? BCCI believe it can't.
Which is why BCCI is happy to use Hawk Eye, but without the ball predicting path of the DRS. BCCI wants to stick to only the actual path the ball has travelled, and on review the DRS can present the picture upto that point to the umpire, and then the Umpire can make up his mind on whether he thinks that ball would go on to hit the stumps or not.
Last edited:
_Sam_
Panel of Selectors
Perhaps they should read the laws of the game then given that is not required as if the ball hits the batsman on the full it must be assumed to carry on at regular trajectory in the direction in which it was initially travelling.
This was later disproved to be false by hawkeye (presuming it was the 'controversial' overturn of Tendulkars wicket in the 2011 world cup) who provided numerous pieces of evidence showing the ball tracking was perfectly fine.
Playing on a different pitch doesn't suddenly change the effects of gravity as far as I know. The cameras used in hawkeye have a very high FPS allowing them to track the ball between each very small movement after it bounces in which the speed has already changed by due to the bounce.
Last edited:
Well done, brilliant, lets have this discussion under the assumption that BCCI deosn't know the rules of the game. Yeah this forum is really the home of informed and rational discussions!!
You keep harping on line and keep forgetting that the reservation that BCCI has is regard to bounce, for deliveries just bouncing as they hit the boot, which is also incidentally different from hitting a batsman on the full, i.e., without bouncing. The ball does bounce, but as soon as it bounces it also hits the boot of the batsman.
Even assuming that DRS doesn't account for, or doesn't need to account for lateral deviations off the pitch such as seam and spin, and simply draws a straight line for the path of the ball, how does it account for bounce in such instances. Depending on the pitch, venue, etc. the bounce from there on will vary, which can make the difference between the ball bouncing over the stumps or hitting the stumps. Can it tell the difference between a hard day 1 wicket which will have more bounce than a day 5 wicket which is likely to have lower bounce. Can it tell the difference between a sub-continent wicket, with low bounce and a WACA pitch? Can it tell a top spin which will bounce more, from a flipper which will keep low?
So even if it merely gets the ball to travel down the same path, how is it working out the bounce?
You gravity knowledge is correct, but it is about as relevant to the discussion here as saying that the sun's temperature doesn't change depending on which pitch cricket is being played on. Ultimately this question again comes down to bounce.
Two deliveries, one bowled on slow sub-continent wicket, and another on a fast WACA pitch, at the same speed, bouncing at the same place, can have the initial kick off the ground at the same angle in some cases, and yet the one on slower pitches will from thereon travel on a more loopey lower path, will that on a fast pitch will just shoot through.
So even when dealing with instance where the ball has travelled a few mms after bouncing, the initial angle of the kick can confuse Hawk Eye, as it won't take into account the slow nature of the track, and therefore go on to show the path to be what it would on a faster pitch, where as due to the slow nature of the track the ball won't actually take the path it would on a fast pitch.
IceAgeComing
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Location
- Brussels, Belgium
- Profile Flag
- Scotland
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
I think Hawkeye factors in the bounce of past deliveries when there is doubt - I'm sure I either read or heard somewhere that it averages the last number of deliveries which honestly is the only solution that you can have. If you're at the point of hitting a batsman's foot on the full then its incredibly unlikely to be over the stumps; if it was then the game ought to be abandoned for a dangerous pitch
Your other points are basically saying that the technology should do something that isn't needed in the game: the current rule of assuming no seam/cut/spin if a ball hits the batsman before bouncing is the only way you can do things. For spin the technology probably could calculate roughly what would have happened had the ball hit the pitch if it measures the RPM of the ball, the angle of the spin and past data but it'd always be a guess.
For what its worth I'm fine with changing the Umpires Call thing: either by not taking a review if it comes up that way (my main choice) or by getting rid of it entirely. One solution that could be made instantly without any action by the ICC or MCC would be to have the third umpire and the on-field umpire communicate and have Umpires Call mean something. Look at how the on field referee talks to the video ref in both codes of Rugby for example; there's a constant flow of communication between both officials (generally broadcast on TV so people know what's going on) so . For example if an LBW is given not out because the umpire thought he hit it when he didn't the on field umpire could say something like "All right, my original decision was not out because I think the batsman hit it, although I'm sure the ball would have gone onto hit the stumps" and then Umpires Call would lean towards "Out" in that case. That would allow better decisions to be made: while also allowing TV viewers to understand why decisions have been taken.
@SamP @IceAgeComing
Actually here is a relevant article on the subject from an actual incident which will fully make you understand the reservations BCCI has with Hawk Eye, and better explain the bounce and lateral movement point I have been making.
Technology in cricket: 'Tracking mistake' on Phillip Hughes lbw | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
To quote Steve Carter, MD Hawk Eye Innovations -
"...ball-tracking cannot be deemed conclusive if the distance between pitching and impact is less than 40cm."
This is the point I am making about the impact with the boot or pads, happening just as the ball bounces. To better put it in words (at the point of this incident) DRS could only be accurate, if the ball had travelled atleast 40 cms after bouncing, before it hit the boot/pad.
Steve Carter further said -
""Despite the small distance from pitching to interception, and other mitigating circumstances that have been explained to the ICC, we should have done better. Lessons have been learnt from this instance and the probability of it happening again in the future is greatly reduced."
This is something that BCCI has always complained about Hawk Eye. That if can't realistically take into account all the variables, pace of wicket, 1st day wicket vs 5th day wicket, top spin vs flipper, leg vs off spin etc., if the impact with pads was quickly after bouncing. Hawk Eye MD admits to the point here.
If the ball has already travelled a reasonable distance after bouncing, Hawk Eye can then extend the line to show how the ball would go on from there, but if the ball has not travelled enough, by its own admission, Hawk Eye is not accurate enough. I dont know if any study was done, but just think of how many reviews would fall under this 40 cm rule. Yes the one in the article was a very blatant one and thus was pointed out, but think of how many less blatant reviews falling into this 40 cm window have been done, and forgotten. How many of them were also inaccurate?
Also lets keep in mind here that the MD of Hawk Eye, is not some saint high on a truth potion. He is a guy trying to sell a product, and the less he admits the error the better for him and his product. As far as one can tell they are the only ones who can tell when a mistake has been made. Everyone else seems to take all the graphics at face value. So for a blatant one he accepted it as he had no choice, but how many close ones slip under the radar?
This is just one of the reservations BCCI has. Yes there are other things like whether players should use it or Umpires, and Umpire's call, which just should go anyway. However if the tech itself is in question, and by all accounts it was during this incident, then I can't blame someone for having reservations.
I know the obvious reply is that Hawk Eye has improved since then, but how do we know. Do you have the percentages, numbers, figures, with you to say that it has improved? We are laymen, and BCCI clearly know what they are talking and have much more informed people to inform them of whether it has actually improved or not. If they remain unconvinced, its up to them. However this clearly shows that BCCI has firm rationale for having stayed away from Hawk Eye.
Also the point about communication you made is good. I have said so many times, a review without communication between the umpires is a futile exercise.
Actually here is a relevant article on the subject from an actual incident which will fully make you understand the reservations BCCI has with Hawk Eye, and better explain the bounce and lateral movement point I have been making.
Technology in cricket: 'Tracking mistake' on Phillip Hughes lbw | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
To quote Steve Carter, MD Hawk Eye Innovations -
"...ball-tracking cannot be deemed conclusive if the distance between pitching and impact is less than 40cm."
This is the point I am making about the impact with the boot or pads, happening just as the ball bounces. To better put it in words (at the point of this incident) DRS could only be accurate, if the ball had travelled atleast 40 cms after bouncing, before it hit the boot/pad.
Steve Carter further said -
""Despite the small distance from pitching to interception, and other mitigating circumstances that have been explained to the ICC, we should have done better. Lessons have been learnt from this instance and the probability of it happening again in the future is greatly reduced."
This is something that BCCI has always complained about Hawk Eye. That if can't realistically take into account all the variables, pace of wicket, 1st day wicket vs 5th day wicket, top spin vs flipper, leg vs off spin etc., if the impact with pads was quickly after bouncing. Hawk Eye MD admits to the point here.
If the ball has already travelled a reasonable distance after bouncing, Hawk Eye can then extend the line to show how the ball would go on from there, but if the ball has not travelled enough, by its own admission, Hawk Eye is not accurate enough. I dont know if any study was done, but just think of how many reviews would fall under this 40 cm rule. Yes the one in the article was a very blatant one and thus was pointed out, but think of how many less blatant reviews falling into this 40 cm window have been done, and forgotten. How many of them were also inaccurate?
Also lets keep in mind here that the MD of Hawk Eye, is not some saint high on a truth potion. He is a guy trying to sell a product, and the less he admits the error the better for him and his product. As far as one can tell they are the only ones who can tell when a mistake has been made. Everyone else seems to take all the graphics at face value. So for a blatant one he accepted it as he had no choice, but how many close ones slip under the radar?
This is just one of the reservations BCCI has. Yes there are other things like whether players should use it or Umpires, and Umpire's call, which just should go anyway. However if the tech itself is in question, and by all accounts it was during this incident, then I can't blame someone for having reservations.
I know the obvious reply is that Hawk Eye has improved since then, but how do we know. Do you have the percentages, numbers, figures, with you to say that it has improved? We are laymen, and BCCI clearly know what they are talking and have much more informed people to inform them of whether it has actually improved or not. If they remain unconvinced, its up to them. However this clearly shows that BCCI has firm rationale for having stayed away from Hawk Eye.
Also the point about communication you made is good. I have said so many times, a review without communication between the umpires is a futile exercise.
Last edited:
@SamP @IceAgeComing
To add further, there have been other instances of Hawk Eye getting the reading all wrong.
A more recent case - Hawk-Eye admits technical error in Masood dismissal | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Plus the 40cm bit is not the only error margin Hawk Eye has. For all the more than half the ball hitting the stumps bit, there is a 2.2 mm error rate. So all the close Hawk Eye calls where the ball is hitting or not hitting half the stumps by just a small margin, are basically within this error range. How many of those do we get, quite a few, and all are taken at face value.
Its funny how Hawk Eye graphics with their 40 cm and 2.2 mm error margins, are taken with the same finality as we see someone taking or dropping a catch. Ah that line they draw shows the ball to be missing so its definitely not out, when the truth is that quite a lot of the reviews fall in a range in which, by Hawk Eye's MD's own admission, Hawk Eye is inaccurate.
Why wouldn't BCCI question Hawk Eye and demand improvements before implementing it. Thank goodness someone is doing so.
To add further, there have been other instances of Hawk Eye getting the reading all wrong.
A more recent case - Hawk-Eye admits technical error in Masood dismissal | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Plus the 40cm bit is not the only error margin Hawk Eye has. For all the more than half the ball hitting the stumps bit, there is a 2.2 mm error rate. So all the close Hawk Eye calls where the ball is hitting or not hitting half the stumps by just a small margin, are basically within this error range. How many of those do we get, quite a few, and all are taken at face value.
Its funny how Hawk Eye graphics with their 40 cm and 2.2 mm error margins, are taken with the same finality as we see someone taking or dropping a catch. Ah that line they draw shows the ball to be missing so its definitely not out, when the truth is that quite a lot of the reviews fall in a range in which, by Hawk Eye's MD's own admission, Hawk Eye is inaccurate.
Why wouldn't BCCI question Hawk Eye and demand improvements before implementing it. Thank goodness someone is doing so.
S
Satan666
Guest
This is why India have always been against the UDRS! Now they are moving ahead with undermining the MCC so can they can hav full dominion over the game.
