England (Internationals)

The sort of job he has done for Surrey on many occasions.

Over to the third Umpire...............

You could get a double decker bus through the gap but let's call for ultra edge just to make sure.

TV is killing Cricket (and football of course)

Have you heard they are experimenting with putting a computer chip in the ball?

Badges wrote:Over to the third Umpire...............

You could get a double decker bus through the gap but let's call for ultra edge just to make sure.

TV is killing Cricket (and football of course)

In fairness the hawkeye wasn't ready so I think he was just trying to fill time.

It's happening all the time.They always call for ultra edge,why bother when we can all see it's clearly missing the bat.

13 days now between end of 4th Test and start of 5th Test, they really are extending this tour way beyond it needs to be. I'm sure there is some logic involved.

Considering money rules most decisions, it can't be a money saving excercise extending the tour, considering we travel back and forth between Abu Dhabi, our training base camp... and India arent benefiting our teams tour if we seem to be spending as little time possible as we can in India outside of the Test matches.

If you can take a photo of Brendon McCullum not leaning back with his feet up do you win a prize?

Badges wrote:If you can take a photo of Brendon McCullum not leaning back with his feet up do you win a prize?

He looks a right slouch doesn't he. But I do wish England players would at least try and exercise their tiny brains - we squandered a 50 run lead in an awful collapse. I know it's not easy to win in India but these are not flat tracks where you can slog/ bazeball your way out of it. This relatively inexperienced Indian side showed perfectly how you adapt according to the circumstances. Perhaps with Mr
Bazeball himself (YJB) on the verge of being dropped, that's the end of it, but I doubt it.

At least Root,Foakes and Robinson played properly in the first innings but i'm afraid i'm losing all interest in England.If DRS ever comes into County Cricket that will be my lot.

DRS is a decent idea but like with VAR they’ve expanded it too much, as was always going to happen.

It started at 2 reviews each. Now it’s 3 and you keep your review if it’s umpires call. Which basically means any batsmen who is out LBW gets a review.

The umpires call has to be dispensed with. It’s ludicrous that the umps initial call can be the difference between being out or not, it’s bonkers. It’s so simple if it’s out it’s out, sod what the original thought was, it’s irrelevant.

I suppose the logic behind umpire's call is that the DRS call on whether or not the ball is going to hit the stumps is a prediction based on very little data as it is usually based on the trajectory of the ball after it has pitched, which is often not far in advance of the pad (or bat). There isn't the same uncertainty in DRS about where the ball pitched or whether bat was involved because that actually happened, hence no umpire's call on those elements. Similarly for other forms of dismissal you are looking at video evidence of what actually happened, though admittedly even the video evidence can be hard to interpret in a few cases.

Now for the next bit remember I'm a statistician and quite used to the idea that estimates, predictions, forecasts and so on should have margins of error quoted (as in 35% say they will vote Labour, plus or minus 2%). So to me it makes sense to say "this is DRS's prediction but the umpire's original call was within the accepted margins of error for such a prediction, so umpire's call should stand". The same argument can be applied for not losing a review if it is umpire's call; the player's belief that the original call was wrong is also within the accepted margins of error.

It is arguable whether that extra complexity is worth the candle or whether we should keep it simple and abolish umpire's call, but that's the logic as I see it.

To pick up one other point, a team will not retain its review for a rejected lbw referral unless it is umpire's call. So it is not worth a batsman who is plumb lbw referring. You do see it happening at the tail end of an innings when there are unused reviews but it is unusual up the order.

Badges wrote:At least Root,Foakes and Robinson played properly in the first innings but i'm afraid i'm losing all interest in England.If DRS ever comes into County Cricket that will be my lot.

There was rumoured to be a phone app coming for use in club cricket. Can you imagine that?

Wow. It's complicated. I think you either embrace the technology or you don't use it at all. If you use it, do you actually need an umpire? If you don't use it at all you'll probably get more umpiring errors than you do with the technology. But, and it's an opinion, if you accept human error I think the game has 1) lost some of its character, 2) the use of technology has created probably just as much controversy over certain "decisions" as a bad umpires call, and 3) they fluff about sometimes for 5 minutes with the DRS which wasting more time and you don't get overs bowled in the day. I've always thought that technology is great if it makes life easier, but it often doesn't I'm afraid. In which case don't use it?

An LBW decision is a prediction however much technology you use.

VicNorth wrote:An LBW decision is a prediction however much technology you use.

I agree the tech is not perfect, and I've never been convinced it can totally predict if a ball is going to hit the stumps, because some things like wind speed, bounce and turn especially if it's a bunsen, are probably better assessed by human decision i.e. the umpire. The thing is I don't think you can use both tech and umpire at the same time.

I don't think they are better assessed by umpires. DRS has access to data on actual position and motion of the ball prior to impact.
Umpires have to make an assessment by eye from very just one impression (or sometimes none if, being human, their brain is in doze mode). One of the things that has resulted from DRS is that umpires are much less reluctant to give batsmen out on the front foot against spinners because they have seen from DRS evidence how often they were getting it wrong. Titmus and Pocock would have been salivating!

Whether or not DRS does it better, as Vic says it will always be a prediction and umpire's call therefore allows wiggle room on whether the ball is hitting the stumps - and on nothing else.

What I am less keen on is the so-called soft signal for other forms of dismissal (ignoring clean bowled, unless the batsman is Kohli). Is that still in place? It's a bit like in rugby union where the question the referee asks the TMO to look at is crucial, as we saw when Scotland were not awarded a match-winning try against France.

At least nobody has said that DRS or umpire's call is woke. Yet...

Chinaman wrote:Wow. It's complicated. I think you either embrace the technology or you don't use it at all. If you use it, do you actually need an umpire? If you don't use it at all you'll probably get more umpiring errors than you do with the technology. But, and it's an opinion, if you accept human error I think the game has 1) lost some of its character, 2) the use of technology has created probably just as much controversy over certain "decisions" as a bad umpires call, and 3) they fluff about sometimes for 5 minutes with the DRS which wasting more time and you don't get overs bowled in the day. I've always thought that technology is great if it makes life easier, but it often doesn't I'm afraid. In which case don't use it?

sounds very similar to VAR in football. Goal line technology works, as its a 'yes or no' answer. VAR is subjective, so doesnt work and ruins the excitement of goals etc

In football much more is subjective, with or without VAR. Is a player's hand in a "natural" position? Offside position should be objective with VAR but were they interfering when in an offside position? Is a tackle a foul? If so - yellow or red, or no card at all? Rugby union is also highly subjective - different refs take a different approach to offside, the breakdown and the random penalty generator known as the scrum. If anything I would think that VAR reduced the subjective element to a degree; I can't see how it can increase it.

I suppose cricket differs from both those sports in that there is a clearly identifiable "play" (like in NFL) - the individual ball. In football you sometimes get two or three minutes' play without any break at all. That lack of compartmentalisation makes it harder to referee, I think, though they do try and break it down into phases when considering how far to go back for anything but violent conduct.

Nottingham Forest FC now employ a 'Referee Analyst'!

VicNorth wrote:Nottingham Forest FC now employ a 'Referee Analyst'!

The next step will be an analyst analyst.

They are already talking of a DRS 'observer'.

* Not a third umpire; someone to observe the process.

This is complicated mess that few spectators understand, plus umpires, referees, the players and Uncle Tom Cobly and all. I repeat technology is great if it works and makes life easier, but if it doesn't like it seems here, dump it. It's spoiling the unpredictabilty of the game by virtually removing the human element.