Should umpire's call be removed from DRS?

mominsaigol

Senior ODI Player
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Runs
22,200
Post of the Week
2
I don't get it? Why can't their technology just predict if it's hitting wickets or not? Why is umpire call a thing? If it's clipping then it should be given out plain and simple.

It's very frustrating when an umpire gives a not out to a delivery that almost certainly looks out, but the players review and we find out it's umpire's call because hypothetically the technology isn't sure whether it's clipping or not.
 
It is frustrating as a viewer.

I think it's the predictive nature of the path. It was in the 1st Test where the predicted path for one of the LBW calls was horrifically incorrect showing it would have randomly bounced a foot over.

They're just trying to avoid those mistakes because the tech isn't 100% accurate down to the last millimeter.
 
It is frustrating as a viewer.

I think it's the predictive nature of the path. It was in the 1st Test where the predicted path for one of the LBW calls was horrifically incorrect showing it would have randomly bounced a foot over.

They're just trying to avoid those mistakes because the tech isn't 100% accurate down to the last millimeter.
Ik but their should be a % system instead.

If the technology believes their a 52% chance that it's clipping and 48% chance that it's not, it should be declared out.
 
The initial intent of the technology is to weed out the umpiring howlers. The narrow calls are explained in the video @jeeteshssaxena posted.

So it is fulfilling it's function to weed out the howlers and the rest is up to the on field umpires. It can hurt when you are on the losing side of a close call but it makes sense.
 
No, it should not be removed, the logic is pretty simple. Nasser Explained it here.

Factors like bounce on different part of the pitch, air resistance againt the spinning ball, the angular acceleration/deceleration , revs on the ball make this technology probabilistic.
I don't give a crap about Naz, probs the most clueless and annoying and repetitive analysts when it comes to cricket.

Eye roll anytime he repeats the following phrases

1) Pakistan is a side that can lose to Nedtherlands but win the world cup, They are that unpredictable.

2) Australia is a side that can dominate and humilate every opposite and bring them to their knees.

3) never count Bangladesh out as they are always cornered tigers.

He's been wrong 90% of the time. Since

A) Pakistan isn't unpredictable. Minus 2009, they have fluked every tournament and it takes them atleast 10 to 15 years to find that fluke. Even 1992 was a fluke due to rain and early group stage botches.

B) Aus while dominant, in recent times they are just a good side that manages to win cups, but they haven't outright dominated tournaments since 2007.

C) Bangladesh is a serial loser side in odi and ain't winning anything. It's a tragedy that their playing ct over sri lanka who while medicore are still a better side then Bangladesh and would make the tournament more interesting.

Surprisingly he hasn't made a comment on India as of yet but it'll be something stupid.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Another umpires call

ltV5WV9.png
 
Has there been any empirical evidence that Hawkeye is any thing more than fancy graphics?
 
View attachment 150153

No, it should not be removed, the logic is pretty simple. Nasser Explained it here.

Factors like bounce on different part of the pitch, air resistance againt the spinning ball, the angular acceleration/deceleration , revs on the ball make this technology probabilistic.

Hawkeye doesn't have to account for any factors such as variation in bounce off the pitch, air resistance and revs on the ball. It just had to extend a straight line after the ball hits the pad, simple as that.
 
Hawkeye doesn't have to account for any factors such as variation in bounce off the pitch, air resistance and revs on the ball. It just had to extend a straight line after the ball hits the pad, simple as that.
But the thing is, it's not always a straight line. From the moment the ball strikes the pad, a prediction is made as to how it's going to follow through after that.

Just look at post #71, two posts above yours. When the line turns blue, it curves.

Especially if it spins, you never know truly how straight the ball continues to travel. We're talking nearly 2.5-3.5 metres to the stumps if the batsmen strides forward with the front foot.
 
Hawkeye got a thumbs up from Anil Kumble, after he was invited to MIT by the inventors to test its accuracy.
While I have tremendous amount of respect for Kumble, his endorsement is simply an opinion. Not data, not evidence and in a field, technology of path prediction, I which he has no expertise
 
What’s the point of using technology if the umpire's decision will overturn it? Better to stick with the umpires then
 
I don't get it? Why can't their technology just predict if it's hitting wickets or not? Why is umpire call a thing? If it's clipping then it should be given out plain and simple.

It's very frustrating when an umpire gives a not out to a delivery that almost certainly looks out, but the players review and we find out it's umpire's call because hypothetically the technology isn't sure whether it's clipping or not.
It's to account for the margin of error in technology.
 
Umpires call exist for a reasoj.

Technology cannot be 100 percent accurate, even though its better than humans.
When the ball is going in to hit the wickets by less than 50 percent, you dont know whether it will hit fully or not, because their is a chance that it might miss in actual.

Remember lbw is a guessing game.

So umpires call exist so that Umpires are not only relevant but they can make judgement call aswell based on what they see.
 
so, has anybody established what the margin of error in the technology is? if yes, and how did they establish it?
when the ball hits the pad, prediction is made based on data where the ball will hit on the wicket. Now when the ball is clipping the stumps that could be accurate or inaccurate espeically since when 60% of the ball is outside and 40% of the ball is hitting the stumps. In actual, if the leg wasnt there, maybe the ball would had gone on to miss the stump due to late swing.

When we are adopting prediction, margin of error will always be there.

So no, DRS is not some fancy graphic, its a proper tool that gathers data and anaylzes it and gives its output
 
when the ball hits the pad, prediction is made based on data where the ball will hit on the wicket. Now when the ball is clipping the stumps that could be accurate or inaccurate espeically since when 60% of the ball is outside and 40% of the ball is hitting the stumps. In actual, if the leg wasnt there, maybe the ball would had gone on to miss the stump due to late swing.

When we are adopting prediction, margin of error will always be there.

So no, DRS is not some fancy graphic, its a proper tool that gathers data and anaylzes it and gives its output
In other words, you havbe no F'n clue.
 
@Major @ExpressPacer

Bro I agree with you, it's not that I don't. It's just I wish their was a % system instead.

The tech should be capable of making % predictions like if the tech thinks theirs a 40% chance of it clipping it'll declare it to be not out but if it thinks it's a 60% chance of it clipping it'll declare it as out.

I mentioned a year back that I saw the tech first hand at scg and it was a guessing game, as it takes factors like air resistance, wind speed, the theoretical turn of the ball if the batter wasn't obstructing it, pitch conditions etc etc,

However if the tech is unsure, why not adopt a % system instead?
 
@Major @ExpressPacer

Bro I agree with you, it's not that I don't. It's just I wish their was a % system instead.

The tech should be capable of making % predictions like if the tech thinks theirs a 40% chance of it clipping it'll declare it to be not out but if it thinks it's a 60% chance of it clipping it'll declare it as out.

I mentioned a year back that I saw the tech first hand at scg and it was a guessing game, as it takes factors like air resistance, wind speed, the theoretical turn of the ball if the batter wasn't obstructing it, pitch conditions etc etc,

However if the tech is unsure, why not adopt a % system instead?
na it cant. Because before DRS shows us on screen what happened, they still run a couple of projections. I think i read some where that 100 projections are ran and which ever projection has the most duplicates that decision is considered.

I dont really mind the onfiled umpires call as it makes the umpires relevant and still quality of Umpiring matters. Even if most of the umpires call decisions go against us.
 
Learn to read. I asked for data that it is any thing more than fancy graphics.

Has any one seen that data?
if you think hawk eye works without data that there is no point even talking to you here. Carryon with your naive posting.
 
@Major @ExpressPacer

Bro I agree with you, it's not that I don't. It's just I wish their was a % system instead.

The tech should be capable of making % predictions like if the tech thinks theirs a 40% chance of it clipping it'll declare it to be not out but if it thinks it's a 60% chance of it clipping it'll declare it as out.

I mentioned a year back that I saw the tech first hand at scg and it was a guessing game, as it takes factors like air resistance, wind speed, the theoretical turn of the ball if the batter wasn't obstructing it, pitch conditions etc etc,

However if the tech is unsure, why not adopt a % system instead?
You can just change the current system to a percentage one. Where it is always not out when ball hits less than 50 percent (or whatever the margin of error is) and vice versa.
 
As of now ig the rule is based on the fact that when ball hits more than 50 percent then even with error it would still hit the stumps hence decisions are overturned or withheld on that basis
 
But there shouldn't be umpires call for impact. There shouldnt be margin of error for impacts
 
But there shouldn't be umpires call for impact. There shouldnt be margin of error for impacts
impact regarding bounce?

Issue is ball is round not flat, so which amount is hitting in line is also bit of prediction. When it comes to prediction margin of error can never be ignored.

Wonder if Tennis has similar concepts because it also uses Hawk Eye. @mominsaigol do you watch tennis? If the ball hits the line or the same 60-40 percent issue, whats the verdict there?
 
impact regarding bounce?

Issue is ball is round not flat, so which amount is hitting in line is also bit of prediction. When it comes to prediction margin of error can never be ignored.

Wonder if Tennis has similar concepts because it also uses Hawk Eye. @mominsaigol do you watch tennis? If the ball hits the line or the same 60-40 percent issue, whats the verdict there?
My dad watches it and I've seen Wimbledon a few times.

The verdict always depends on the official. It's never been consistent however it usually depends on the angle of the ball.

If the ball hits the line but 60% of the ball is in the court it's fine and counted as a point, if 60% of the ball is outside the court then it's deemed as out and 15 points awarded to the opposition.
 
I don't get it? Why can't their technology just predict if it's hitting wickets or not? Why is umpire call a thing? If it's clipping then it should be given out plain and simple.

It's very frustrating when an umpire gives a not out to a delivery that almost certainly looks out, but the players review and we find out it's umpire's call because hypothetically the technology isn't sure whether it's clipping or not.
Because it is not 100% accurate and they leave that small margin upto umpires because ultimately umpires are the final authority.

You also don't lose a review.
 
AI is the way forward. In future we may end up having two robots umpiring. There will be no reviews as the decisions taken will be with greater precision than the human eye.
We've already got robots like Bumrah playing.
 
My dad watches it and I've seen Wimbledon a few times.

The verdict always depends on the official. It's never been consistent however it usually depends on the angle of the ball.

If the ball hits the line but 60% of the ball is in the court it's fine and counted as a point, if 60% of the ball is outside the court then it's deemed as out and 15 points awarded to the opposition.
@Major

In tennis it used to project what happened.

In cricket it s being to predict what might have happened

hope you can appreciate the difference
 
Umpire's call is needed. It sucks to be on the receiving end of an Umpire's call but I think it evens out overall. If an Umpire gave NOT OUT but ball tracking shows hitting stumps but with Umpires call it means there are also many other deltas where ball is actually missing stumps. However, they cant/dont show all those possibilities.
 
I don't give a crap about Naz, probs the most clueless and annoying and repetitive analysts when it comes to cricket.

Eye roll anytime he repeats the following phrases

1) Pakistan is a side that can lose to Nedtherlands but win the world cup, They are that unpredictable.

2) Australia is a side that can dominate and humilate every opposite and bring them to their knees.

3) never count Bangladesh out as they are always cornered tigers.

He's been wrong 90% of the time. Since

A) Pakistan isn't unpredictable. Minus 2009, they have fluked every tournament and it takes them atleast 10 to 15 years to find that fluke. Even 1992 was a fluke due to rain and early group stage botches.

B) Aus while dominant, in recent times they are just a good side that manages to win cups, but they haven't outright dominated tournaments since 2007.

C) Bangladesh is a serial loser side in odi and ain't winning anything. It's a tragedy that their playing ct over sri lanka who while medicore are still a better side then Bangladesh and would make the tournament more interesting.

Surprisingly he hasn't made a comment on India as of yet but it'll be something stupid.
Right ...
We just talking umpires calls mate
 
View attachment 150153

No, it should not be removed, the logic is pretty simple. Nasser Explained it here.

Factors like bounce on different part of the pitch, air resistance againt the spinning ball, the angular acceleration/deceleration , revs on the ball make this technology probabilistic.
Umpire call should be removed, I mean it should be not out, otherwise there'll be two decisions on same thing.. and a biased umpires always use this umpires call if they think it might clips the wicket..
 
But the thing is, it's not always a straight line. From the moment the ball strikes the pad, a prediction is made as to how it's going to follow through after that.

Just look at post #71, two posts above yours. When the line turns blue, it curves.

Especially if it spins, you never know truly how straight the ball continues to travel. We're talking nearly 2.5-3.5 metres to the stumps if the batsmen strides forward with the front foot.

It is always a straight line, anything different would not follow the laws of the game. The blue part of the line is straight, it just looks curved because of it dipping with gravity.
 
Hawkeye doesn't have to account for any factors such as variation in bounce off the pitch, air resistance and revs on the ball. It just had to extend a straight line after the ball hits the pad, simple as that.
You are kidding right?
You are saying a ball which swung by 3 degrees hits the pitches bounces awkwardly and we just got to draw a straight line?

You need to understand the effect of gravity in projectile motion, also collision is itself a rigorous subject, there is a coefficient of collision involved when the cherry hits the ground.
 
It is always a straight line, anything different would not follow the laws of the game. The blue part of the line is straight, it just looks curved because of it dipping with gravity.
You are assuming a very ideal state, do read hawkeyes technical doc, it has a +-3.6 mm error at its best.
 
You are kidding right?
You are saying a ball which swung by 3 degrees hits the pitches bounces awkwardly and we just got to draw a straight line?

You'd draw a straight line from the point of impact. The swing and any deviation off the pitch would all happen pre-impact therefore be accounted for in the tracking rather than the projection.

You need to understand the effect of gravity in projectile motion, also collision is itself a rigorous subject, there is a coefficient of collision involved when the cherry hits the ground.

Gravity results in a constant acceleration (on Earth). The collision with the ground itself is therefore irrelevant as it either happens pre-impact or Hawkeye's height prediction gets disregarded (although that's never to my knowledge been relevant because the chances of someone being hit on the full and the ball potentially going over the stumps is so slim).
 
You are assuming a very ideal state, do read hawkeyes technical doc, it has a +-3.6 mm error at its best.

The error margin originates from the cameras detecting the position of the ball, if the cameras could track the position of the ball until impact perfectly there would be no error margin.
 
Any percentage an inaccurate system assigns to its prediction confidence will also be inaccurate. Hence, the ICC decided to have the umpires call. When the technical solution improves, we may see a day when there is no umpires call.
 
Back
Top