The DRS Thread - Jan 29 = BCCI Could Implement BCCI-ised DRS for IPL

[War]

Ye totally agree @PokerAce - that umpires call i never agreed with. People are complaining about the DRS now & as i mentioned before that original article suggestion from this thread is the best way I've heard/seen anyway to get the best balance for DRS.

 

[PokerAce]

@War I remember during the 2011 World Cup, it was India vs Ireland, and the Batsman in question Alex Cusack. Back then Umpire's Call also returned, if the batsman was 2.5 meters from the stumps.

Anyway, India appealed for LBW, and the on field Umpire ruled it n.o., India reviewed.

Now the ball was shown to be hitting the stumps, but at the same time since the batsman had stepped out, he was more than 2.5 mtrs from the crease.

Now because the batsman was 2.5 meters from the crease, because of 2.5 mtr rule Umpire's Call was the decision.

Now normally that would mean the original n.o. decision stood. However I think Rob Tucker who was the Umpire who ruled it not out originally, also saw the review on one of the big screens.

Now even though the batsman was 2.5 meters down, and Rob Tucker could have just let it go as N.o, as all Umpires do these days, upon seeing the replay, Rob Tucker himself overturned his own decision and changed it to OUT.

It was just brilliant, and made a lot of sense to me. I can't find the video, but here is cricinfo live commentary on it at the time -

92.1 kph, India have called for a lbw review here. Has Yuvi bagged a five-for? Lands back of a length on off stump and straightens, but the batsman is well down the track, his backfoot is a foot outside the crease and his front foot is well down the track. Will the 2.5 metres come into the picture? According to (a potentially inaccurate) HawkEye, since he is more than 2.5 m forward, it was hitting off and middle at a comfortable height. Right, on replays, umpire Tucker has reversed his decision and Yuvraj has five. Bangalore roars. Yuvraj puts out his hand, with all five fingers spread out. Dhoni just smiles. Good stuff this.

Now of course the 2.5 meter rule is no longer, but the principle behind it remains the same. If the Umpire upon a N.O LBW review sees that the ball he thought would miss the stumps, would partially clip the stump, and DRS says Umpire's Call, then upon seeing the replay, the Umpire over-rules himself, and rules it out. He thought the ball would miss the stumps, but when there is clear evidence that the ball would not miss the stumps, but hit the stumps, then he voluntarily overturns the decision.

If this type of pro-active umpiring becomes the norm, it would solve a lot of DRS ambiguities on its own.

Which brings me back to the main issue I have always had with DRS, and that is why not let the on field umpires voluntarily consult DRS, or atleast talk to the Third Umpire during review, to explain their basis for making whatever decision they did.

 

[War]

Another DRS/Umpires call fault from the just concluded WI vs AUS test -

DRS ruling stumps players, pundits | cricket.com.au @PokerAce

 

[_Sam_]

Another DRS/Umpires call fault from the just concluded WI vs AUS test -

DRS ruling stumps players, pundits | cricket.com.au @PokerAce

Not really a fault is it? Just a very tight calling on how close it was to umpires call.

 

[War]

Not really a fault is it? Just a very tight calling on how close it was to umpires call.

As been argued before in original article or this thread Fixing DRS - World in Sport & Martin Crowe's articl from last year Martin Crowe: Why the BCCI won't be swayed by Richardson's DRS claims | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo when these decisions tend to happen ever so often, the predicted path/hawkeye is not 100% accurate and should be scrapped

 

[_Sam_]

As been argued before in original article or this thread Fixing DRS - World in Sport when these decisions tend to happen ever so often, the predicted path/hawkeye is not 100% and should be scrapped

I can understand some peoples opinion of not wanting umpires call, but I'm not sure I can understand people claiming a technology used across multiple sports internationally for well over a decade now is not 100% (or extremely close to) accurate when there's no conclusive evdidence (no irony intended) to suggest otherwise.

 

[PokerAce]

Another DRS/Umpires call fault from the just concluded WI vs AUS test -

DRS ruling stumps players, pundits | cricket.com.au @PokerAce

Even if its a very tight call as someone says it was, how on earth can that possibly be Not Out.

That ball is crashing into the leg stump, not even someone with a blindfold on, would say that the ball there not going to hit the stumps. How can DRS be called successful where by through some wild sequence of events, that LBW decision can remain Not Out even after review !!

Thats why I have repeatedly called for Communication between the On Field Umpire and Third Umpire.

TV Ump - That says Umpire's Call, but dude its not funny, that ball would break the leg stump in two pieces.
On Field Ump - If its hitting the stumps, and its my call (Umpire's Call), then I revise the decision on my own to Out.

No Confusion.

How can there possibly be a Review system, where balls crashing into leg stump, through some weird sequence of events or stipulation (Umpire's Call I am looking at you), can remain not out, even after review. Whats the point of the review system then.

 

[War]

I can understand some peoples opinion of not wanting umpires call, but I'm not sure I can understand people claiming a technology used across multiple sports internationally for well over a decade now is not 100% (or extremely close to) accurate when there's no conclusive evdidence (no irony intended) to suggest otherwise.

Yea that the thing, hawkeye founder Dr Paul Hawkins clearly has a good system here.

These two articles are interesting

Russell Jackson: Why ball-tracking still cannot be trusted | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

How Hawk-Eye won me over and why India should accept the use of DRS | Mike Selvey | Sport | The Guardian


This quote from Hawkings from the cricinfo article also @PokerAce @IceAgeComing @StinkyBoHoon @Chewie @MattW @grkrama

"Russell, thanks for your kind words personally. I invite you to "become educated" as we did for Mike Selby: (How Hawk-Eye won me over and why India should accept the use of DRS | Mike Selvey | Sport | The Guardian If your opinion is unchanged I will give 1000 pounds to a cricket charity of your choice. If it is changed, I expect you to write accordingly. The things you will learn: 1) The specific LBW you refer to was correct and we can show it to you 2) We take our contribution to the game very seriously, and the system is accurate and reliable 3) On the very occasional instance when we have made a mistake we have immediately held our hands up. This should build a trust that if we say it is right, it is. 4) The 2 main reasons for the mis-trust in Hawk-Eye are because broadcast cameras can be deceptive, particularly for height, and poorly informed journalists spreading mis-information

Cricinfo - I also offer to do a webinar to answer any of your readers questions live DR PAUL HAWKINS - HAWKEYE FOUNDER"

 

[PokerAce]

Jayasundera dismissal causes another DRS stir | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Scrap the DRS? No - but it needs a massive overhaul to restore credibility | Stuff.co.nz

DRS again comes under question during Black Caps' second test with Sri Lanka | Stuff.co.nz

 

[abhi_jacko]

Sounds like a disastrous decision by DRS. It actually overturned a correct decision ??

 

[_Sam_]

I'm not sure it was quite that bad, I personally thought there was a fairly clear deflection away from the gloves as it passed them? Cricinfo reporting it as 'later shown to be an optical illusion', who by?

 

[PokerAce]

Sounds like a disastrous decision by DRS. It actually overturned a correct decision ??

Lol, when you put it like that ... yes, that is kinda what happened.

 

[PokerAce]

Here is the decision.

To be fair to the Umpire from the back angle there does seem to be a deviation, after the all passes the glove. However there are plenty of other angles that clearly show that there was no edge, and both Hot Spot and Snicko confirmed it. So lets just say not DRS' most brilliant day out.

Even Paul Rieffel knew there has been a mess up there. The look on his face when asked to overturn the decision is just genius.

 

[abhi_jacko]

Even Paul Rieffel knew there has been a mess up there. The look on his face when asked to overturn the decision is just genius.

I wonder if with the new DRS thing, they have a clause where they dock match fees if an "umpire shows dissent to the TV umpire overturning his decision" :P What if Paul Rieffel had "slow clapped" and shook his head to the decision ?

 

[PokerAce]

Rieffel's reaction is just brilliant.