Cricket

[TheGayTent]

I actually agree with the 'Umpire's call' element for LBW though. It's predictive technology, and DRS is there to stop the howler. Umpire's call decisions are never howlers, whichever way they were made. Hawkeye is accurate, but the movement post-pad is extrapolated from the initial seam/spin after hitting the deck, and it couldn't ever be perfect. I think with LBW decisions it generally changes for the better.

I'm sorry but this bit is absolute rubbish. Hawkeye is accurate up to the point of impact of the ball hitting the batsmen? Well that tells you little more than a video replay does. The important bit is what the ball would have done had the batsmen not got in the way. I.e. would the ball have gone on to hit the stumps. If this part of hawk eye isn't accurate, which you state is true, and also state never will be accurate, then it's completely worthless.

I repeat. Currently the same ball can be given out or not out on umpires call depending on the umpire's original decision. This is because hawkeye is only accurate to +/- 'X' mm. Which is roughly the radius of a cricket stump, which is 15mm.

In short, even with DRS being used, by hawkeye's own definition, decisions are going to be given wrong because the technology isn't accurate.

In conclusion, why the fuck is it used...?

[kaosmark2]

In conclusion, why the fuck is it used...?

It's used to stop decisions which are phenomenally wrong. Not swing marginal calls. If it were 100% accurate umpires wouldn't want to be making their own calls and would want to refer everything upstairs. The nature of lbw is based on guesswork, and now we have technology that has increased the quality of said guesswork. That's very different from catching/nicking where there is a definite fact of "he hit it" "he caught it" and hotspot's inaccuracy can change a good decision to a bad one.

Do Hawkeye's predictions, over time, create a significantly greater proportion of correct decisions?

[TheGayTent]

The nature of lbw is based on guesswork

Yes, very true.

With DRS it's still based on guesswork with the added disadvantage it now undermines the umpire.

The other issue here is that hotspot and hawkeye do not work independently of each other necessarily. Hawkeye can give a player out lbw because hotspot hasn't picked up the fact the batsmen has actually inside edged it onto his pads...

Do Hawkeye's predictions, over time, create a significantly greater proportion of correct decisions?

I think DRS has and does improved the proportion of correct decisions. But not significantly and more importantly, not without undermining the umpires.

IMO the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

[TheGayTent]

Hawkeye is accurate to around 3.6 mm...

That simply isn't true. It's much less accurate than that.

[TheGayTent]

Wiki ?!

Hawkeye themselves state:

Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)

Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)

Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:

In all normal LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm

In extreme LBW instances under 25mm

An extreme LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel between pitching point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from the stumps.

The current protocol has a 45mm umpire call margin.

Slightly different than your perceived 3.6mm...

[TheGayTent]

I will take you at your word above... Don't know why your being an arse about it....

I'm sorry, I didn't realise highlighting a system's ineptness was tantamount to being an arse. I would have thought defending a piece of technology's accuracy without actually knowing its accuracy, made you a bit of an arse?

Even with the information you post above it all seems quite reasonable. Where Hawk eye is getting into the extreme rages the decision stays with the on field umpire does it not ?

You can't see an issue with using a system that doesn't really work?

What is the point is taking 5 minutes out of a game only to come back with:

"Er yeah, the technology isn't accurate enough to tell so we might as well go with your original decision you made 5 minutes back - you know the decision you made that no one trusts hence the review. You might be right, you might be wrong, we don't know."

Edited August 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[kaosmark2]

The other issue here is that hotspot and hawkeye do not work independently of each other necessarily. Hawkeye can give a player out lbw because hotspot hasn't picked up the fact the batsmen has actually inside edged it onto his pads...

Good point.

I wouldn't have a huge issue with scrapping drs for a while, but I think the bigger problem has been poor umpiring. The series in India had a fair whack of bad decisions,while I felt the 2 vs NZ were a lot better. This is the worst in a while, but that won't be helped by the unavailability of most top umpires as we've discussed. DRS isn't the bigger cause of problems.

[TheGayTent]

Good point.

I wouldn't have a huge issue with scrapping drs for a while, but I think the bigger problem has been poor umpiring. The series in India had a fair whack of bad decisions,while I felt the 2 vs NZ were a lot better. This is the worst in a while, but that won't be helped by the unavailability of most top umpires as we've discussed. DRS isn't the bigger cause of problems.

Massively agree. The current lot aren't as good as their predecessors and we have lost some very good umpires recently following retirements - most notably Simon Taufel.

[TheGayTent]

Nah pointing out when someone is working off inaccurate information posted by others is fine. But you clearly wanted to try and make me look an arse that was the issue As its clear I was basing my point on some information and not just making it up.. But your a c**t so no problem. Carry on:)

I didn't try to make you look an arse. You made yourself look an arse, then got personal.

I stated my case using hawkeye's own findings.

Knowing the information and drawing different conclusions and thus opinions is fine. I accept that not everyone will agree. Calling someone a c**t because they've based their opinion on the facts rather than wiki is a bit daft I'd have said.

[TheGayTent]

Very much your opinion. Any system is going to have margins of errors. If you can't get past that fine but the margin of error from an umpire is always going to be there.

For me the system works and has tolerances I am comfortable with. Its not like decisions are made on the edges of those tolerances. Its kept with the on field umpire in those cases.

See that's fine - have no issue with that. Though do find it strange your opinion was based on you thinking it was more accurate than it is. Now you know it's less accurate than you thought, you still believe it's accurate enough?

Fair enough. I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[TheGayTent]

Yes...

3.6mm... 5mm... You do realise how small we are talking don't you?

Once we start hitting the bigger numbers we stick with the onfield decision do we not ?

Seems you don't learn from your mistakes either. We aren't talking 3.6mm, we aren't even talking about 5mm. Hawkeye themselves admit that the margin for error on "normal" LBWs is +/- 15mm and for "extreme" LBWs 25mm (or 5 times as big as the error you have just stated [despite being spoon fed the data])...

[TheGayTent]

No mistake I simply stated the average....

At worse its 15mm... Still incredibly small... but why clipping is refereed back the umpire...

You are drawing conclusions off the worse cases... I would say that is slightly silly...

You are making a mistake, because clearly you're misunderstanding the figures.

Regardless of that fundamentally, you believe if the system isn't accurate enough it's fine to go with the umpire. My point of view is that if it's not accurate enough there is little point in using it (given umpires records at getting obvious ones correct is very very good, I think the disadvantages including delaying the game, undermining umpires, and the constant spotlight given to the decisions rather than the cricket is not worth the hassle).

That's before we even get into hotspot not working often to fast bowlers...

[TheGayTent]

I think Simon Hughes summarises hotspot quite well:

"The four infra-red cameras around the ground are there to detect the friction between leather and willow when a ball has been edged.

They are effective when the edge is quite substantial, but slow-motion cameras usually pick up these anyway. Problems arise when the edge is thin and the bat speed is considerable. The wind created by a flashing blade dissipates the thermal particles that form a hot spot and the infra-red cameras suggest no contact. This also tends to be true on a hot day when the air around the bat is already warm and the friction-generated heat of an edge is undetectable.

Hot Spot just tends to confuse the issue, regularly giving batsmen an alibi. Until its sensitivity is improved it should be withdrawn, leaving umpires to use those old-fashioned assets their eyes and ears to make the judgment."

[pink_triangle]

Monty fined for urinating on bouncers. I would have personally expected better from him, he really was taking the piss!

[kaosmark2]

Monty fined for urinating on a bouncer

[TheGayTent]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23598798

interesting....

Nothing that hasn't been said before. The only new thing is the material used.

[kaosmark2]

Is Bresnan one of our 3 best quicks, particularly on such a pitch? I think not.

The Aussies are rotating their bowlers well between tests, we really should be letting conditions dictate our attack beyond idiotically leading Swann out once last summer.

[TheGayTent]

Is Bresnan one of our 3 best quicks, particularly on such a pitch? I think not.

The Aussies are rotating their bowlers well between tests, we really should be letting conditions dictate our attack beyond idiotically leading Swann out once last summer.

Cobblers. The convicts are rotating their bowling attack because of a combination of injury and desperation. They need to find a formula that works.

Conversely, England's weakness this series has been the reliability of the top order batsmen. Resting bowlers once you've already won a series (and we haven't even done that yet) is for lesser series against inferior opposition.

In my opinion, all matches against the convicts we should be picking our strongest line up. Particularly with a return series in Oz just around the corner. Momentum is key, as is the confidence levels of both sides.

Bresnan, despite your obvious thoughts on his ability (which I share to some degree I might add) was our best quick bowler in the last test.

The wicket should come into the equation mind, so I have sympathy with that part of your argument - I would have played Monty in the last test for example.

Edited August 9, 2013 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

1 down

[TheGayTent]

Root really isn't proving himself is he...

[kaosmark2]

Cobblers. The convicts are rotating their bowling attack because of a combination of injury and desperation. They need to find a formula that works.

Conversely, England's weakness this series has been the reliability of the top order batsmen. Resting bowlers once you've already won a series (and we haven't even done that yet) is for lesser series against inferior opposition.

In my opinion, all matches against the convicts we should be picking our strongest line up. Particularly with a return series in Oz just around the corner. Momentum is key, as is the confidence levels of both sides.

Bresnan, despite your obvious thoughts on his ability (which I share to some degree I might add) was our best quick bowler in the last test.

The wicket should come into the equation mind, so I have sympathy with that part of your argument - I would have played Monty in the last test for example.

Pattinson only injured one really?

They haven't had many struggling quicks, spinners both unremarkable but the quicks have done a job. For both sides the faille has been in batting.

I think Bresnan is only just about good enough for tests, if we had a 5 man attack I think he'd be a key part of that, but in a 4 man attack you have to have your best bowlers and we have better options in better form, who'd be better suited to the pitches in this test and the last.

Outfield here is very slow. I think the Aussies will find it easier to score boundaries than us, but hopefully get out earlier trying. Need one of these 2 to find form today though.

[kaosmark2]

Root really isn't proving himself is he...

One score, where he was dropped on 8 before making it. Can't help him that cook is out of touch but no, he'snot.

[TheGayTent]

Pattinson only injured one really?

They haven't had many struggling quicks, spinners both unremarkable but the quicks have done a job. For both sides the faille has been in batting.

I think Bresnan is only just about good enough for tests, if we had a 5 man attack I think he'd be a key part of that, but in a 4 man attack you have to have your best bowlers and we have better options in better form, who'd be better suited to the pitches in this test and the last.

Outfield here is very slow. I think the Aussies will find it easier to score boundaries than us, but hopefully get out earlier trying. Need one of these 2 to find form today though.

Pattinson was poor before his injury, averaging over 40 and not being economical too. Watson has done a job in terms of not giving away runs but has picked up just 2 wickets in 4 matches. Harris has been very good, but then we all know how good he is - shame (for the convicts anyway) he's always injured. I think this series is only the 2nd time he's played in 3 consecutive tests. Agar was dreadul (with the ball). Agree that Starc and Siddle have not been poor. But they have rotated through necessity (Pattinson) and desperation (Agar) - and Bird is another one of those. Whilst Starc is steady, they feel steady won't win them the Ashes in the winter - hence the giving a go of Bird (who has played just 2 tests) in the hope he does well and they can pick him again.

I think Tremlett is a better bowler than Bresnan. Finn a better wicket taker but too loose much of the time. Onions? No better than Bresnan IMO - just a different type of bowler.

[TheGayTent]

One score, where he was dropped on 8 before making it. Can't help him that cook is out of touch but no, he'snot.

Exactly - he really needs to make the most of the riverside and oval tests - else they'll be a lot of pressure on him and his place come the winter.

[kaosmark2]

Pattinson was poor before his injury, averaging over 40 and not being economical too. Watson has done a job in terms of not giving away runs but has picked up just 2 wickets in 4 matches. Harris has been very good, but then we all know how good he is - shame (for the convicts anyway) he's always injured. I think this series is only the 2nd time he's played in 3 consecutive tests. Agar was dreadul (with the ball). Agree that Starc and Siddle have not been poor. But they have rotated through necessity (Pattinson) and desperation (Agar) - and Bird is another one of those. Whilst Starc is steady, they feel steady won't win them the Ashes in the winter - hence the giving a go of Bird (who has played just 2 tests) in the hope he does well and they can pick him again.

I think Tremlett is a better bowler than Bresnan. Finn a better wicket taker but too loose much of the time. Onions? No better than Bresnan IMO - just a different type of bowler.

Watson's job is economy though. Pattinson's stats aren't impressive but I thought he bowled some excellent spells.

Finn is young and should improve on his looseness, but he wasn't getting the wickets when he got dropped and I agree with that decision. My frequent calling for onions is more based on his county form and that I feel he'll balance the attack better than Bresnan. I think he's earned a chance and Bresnan isn't asserting his place.