The review system.

I must admit when I viewed the lbw shout live, I thought the ball was missing leg.  Stokes confirms this and said the ball hit both pads, and was going down the leg side before hitting the front pad.  The ball then deflected on to the back pad, thus rendering the technology in error.  I will have another look!

Just watched it now.  The ball deflects off his front pad to change its line.  The technology has a tell-tale bend in it, and is inaccurate.  Whether the ball would have hit the stumps on the original line (not umpire's call) is hard to determine.

if let umpires check everything they will check everything to the point of idiocy. already send run outs upstairs when the batsman is yards out. enough time and overs lost in a day already through reviews and general messing about

a lesson to teams to use the reviews for what they were intended to eradicate howlers from hopeless umpires like wilson and not take a desperate punt when you know it's not out

I remember all of the noise after the World Cup play off in 2009 when Ireland lost out to France following a handball by Thierry Henry.
A very interesting opinion on the rights and wrongs of the controversial incident was given by none other than Roy Keane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMHwCbbG6WY

Harsh, brutal, but ultimately a realistic assessment.

Similar to New Zealand in the World Cup final, you will not hear the Australians crying about the umpires decision.

They dropped a difficult catch, they blew their final review on a highly speculative LBW that the bowler must have known pitched outside leg, Lyon fumbled a run out opportunity.

All of this happened before the ball from Lyon struck Stokes on the pads.

Their players succumbed to the pressure of operating in the cauldron like atmosphere, possibly the umpire also made an error.
That is sport.

Possibly the review system does require to be reassessed, but let's not allow that debate to take anything away from the drama that we were treated to yesterday.

For what it's worth, Lyon's ball did appear to be heading down legside, DRS had it hitting.
Hopefully the boffins are reviewing it this morning to assess whether the system was correct or not.

Look at the angle Lyon bowled it at and then work out how much it would have needed to turn.
It's almost right angles

Umpires call rule is plainly wrong.  It you are out you are out and if you are did you are not.  At least you don’t lose a review anymore if you lose a decision through it

Sorry if you are not you are not I mean

There was an interesting piece presented by Simon Hughes on Sky a few years back regarding how DRS makes the stumps higher and wider.
Just found an article that he wrote way back in 2012 on the subject, it is a bit out of date, but still an interesting read.

The wicket in the umpire’s interpretation – backed up by Hawk-Eye – has become higher and wider. In other words 30.5 inches high (instead of 28) and 14 inches wide instead of nine (an extra cricket ball’s width on either side). It has increased the bowler’s potential target area by a remarkable 70 per cent (much to the chagrin of many a retired bowler: 30 per cent of Swann’s test wickets are lbw; the corresponding figure for Derek Underwood, a phenomenally accurate spinner who took 297 Test wickets in the 1970s, is eight per cent). This ‘expansion’ of the wicket is the biggest change in any of the game’s fundamental properties since the third stump was introduced in 1775.

Before Hawk-Eye, the time-honoured method was to assess where a batsman’s foot was when struck – and if it was a fair way down the pitch (as Broad’s was) or on the line of leg stump (as with Pietersen), the umpire would generally give him the benefit of the doubt (though there is no such advice in the laws of the game).

We bowlers often thought more lbws were out than were given and Hawk-Eye backed us up when we first introduced it on Channel 4 in 2001. We were amazed at how many deliveries were projected to be hitting the stumps line-wise.

On the low-bouncing pitches of the subcontinent this scientific evidence is hugely influential. Because the Hawk-Eye projection has only got to show the ball clipping the stumps to support an lbw decision, umpires think “out” more often than not. Batsmen who think it is their divine right to be spared lbw unless they are struck on the ankle plumb in front are now being summarily dismissed at the merest whiff of an lbw shout. It is quite a wake-up call.

It has also had a knock-on effect. Bowlers are getting closer to the stumps and trying to bowl more wicket to wicket and to get the ball past the inside, rather than outside, edge of the bat. Batsmen, brought up to play with bat and pad close together, are now anxious to keep their pad out of the way. Several England batsmen were bowled playing too far inside the line – trying to avoid being hit on the pad.

A thorough scientific analysis of Hawk-Eye is in progress to assess its accuracy (the MCC conducted an assessment in 2009 and declared Hawk-Eye accurate to 2.5mm). It may be decided that, in future, at least half the ball should be predicted to hit the stumps to guarantee an lbw decision. In the meantime, expect to see batsmen playing straighter than before, keeping their legs out of the way or skipping down the pitch.

There's a flaw in logic in the opening argument here. It's a form of recency bias whereby decisions near the end of a contest appear to assume more significance than all preceding decisions. It might seem more emotionally satisfying to argue that Australia were robbed of the ashes by that decision,  but it's certainly not provable as you can't properly evaluate what course the match might have taken at the point of all preceding decisions, whether they were reviewed or not. A player could be out on 0 on the first morning of a game but not given and not reviewed, then go on to make a match winning 200. By the end of the match you can bet this wouldn't be such a controversial talking point as the Lyon lbw was.

Nobody has addressed the core point in the argument , viz the "rugby" system where every out or not out decision can be subject to review by match officials sitting in the stands with all the available technology .

In rugby the decisions which affect the result are not driven by the opposing teams , but by officialdom without any subjective input by the teams .

So if Joe Root "catches " a ball and puts his finger up ( as he did) the decision is taken in the cold light of day by the match officials in the stands , who are not subject to any emotional input emanating from the field of play .

There is still the possibility that technology can get it wrong , but the blame then departs from any individual involved , and it is better to be able to blame the "machine" rather than a person who may have to live with an incorrect decision for the rest of their lives ( The Ashes are important to a huge number of people ).

the technology was spot on...it clearly registers the first impact on the front pad(ball mark)...tbh it was a very slight deflection and i was very impressed that it picked this up. Still reckon the numpty gave it not out because of the two noises pad/pad indicating possible bottom edge onto back pad(which it wasn't)

I hate the way ICC works. As I have already mentioned before, there is no one in the game checking for no balls. I don't understand why teams don't object to that.

Some of the criticism the review system gets is because people don't understand it. It is intended to give the teams a lifeline if an umpire gets it horribly wrong. This being competitive sport teams try to squeeze all the juice out of it and hence review hairline cases, for which it wasn't originally intended. The debate about if its hitting its out and if not then not out is of no use because the system isn't built for that. The system is built to protect the on field umpire and to make sure that the decision he took in real time gets the most weightage. You will need to bring in a completely new system, like the rugby one, to change the umpires call and similar stuff. For now the system will err in the favor of the umpire. If you are going to use the system by reviewing a call that the umpire clearly had correct, and even an idiot could see was correct, you have no right to complain about the howler that the ump gets wrong. It was for the howler that the review was intended, not for a ball pitching miles outside leg. Aus paid the price for questioning the umpire when he was clearly correct. Right or wrong, that is what the system is supposed to do.

I don't see anything wrong with the Stokes Hawkeye though. The impact on the front pad is clearly registered by the Hawkeye and the path of the ball is extrapolated from that point on.

There does seem to be a bend in the extrapolated path but I think that comes from Lyon being an off spinner? I don't see any problem with Hawkeyes detection of where the ball landed and hit the front pad. The extrapolation is basically down to the operator sitting in the tech van. This has been clarified by many before. The operator has made many mistakes in the last but this doesn't seem to be a mistake from him and his part is completely correct. The extrapolation Is a bit dodgy.

The umpiring in this series has been abysmal. However, the Aussies can only blame themselves.

Langer was not happy (Sky showed the replay several times of his reaction) when they didn't review a previous decision that would have been given out on review.It's seems like their review policy changed from that point and they appear to have been encouraged to take a more positive approach. With this approach comes the risk of losing the chance to review a proper howler-the whole reason reviews were introduced.

The decision to review the Leech LBW appeal was an absolute shocker and smacked of desperation.

The Aussies rolled the dice and lost.....

Joel Wilson could easily have given it out knowing England would of course review.

I'm pleased he chose not to.

Kelly, the game still has to flow. In Rugby, try decisions can take an age and still be wrong. Interpretation is still subjective (see VAR) and prone to error.

Wilson's was not a howler. There was doubt because it hit both pads which I believe he saw. If it just hit the back pad he would have given it. By hitting the front pad he felt the ball was not straightening.

Warner and Harris dropped Stokes, Oz burnt a review and Lyon's botched run out attempt was quite simply staggering.

Umpires do a difficult job. Get rid of them apart from holding sweaters and cutting bits of the ball. Technology has been shown to be far superior so just go with that.

Injera-I really hope umpires don't start (or are influenced by) making decisions based on teams having reviews left-

especially where umpires call is still an option for the LBW decisions as this obviously has implications for the final

decision

Totally agree. The umpire's call aspect is the loophole I'd like to see closed.

There's something that all you "if it hits it's out" proponents don't seem to appreciate about "umpire's call".
When the animation shows the ball hitting the stumps it is simply a graphical representation of a cone of probable paths that might have been taken by a ball bouncing many times off the estimated point on the pitch with the roughly measured speed and direction,
condensed into a single easy to visualise "ball" - when half of this "ball" appears to hit the stumps what it's really saying is that statistically the accuracy of the prediction is at the exact point where half the time it hits and half the time it misses. When less than half of the "ball" graphic is shown to hit then the odds are slightly in favour of it not having hit, so the evidence is not strong enough to reverse the umpire's judgement if he judged it not out but is also not strong enough to reverse the judgement if he judged it out as there was still a good chance it hit. When the ball is instead shown to narrowly miss this includes the chances that it sometimes hits, but the evidence is now strong enough in favour of it missing that an "out" decision could be overturned.

And that is my theowy wot it is (that it is).

I've known that for a while VV. But what is the point of umpires?

Well surely the idea is that human judgement backed up by technology ought to be better than either alone.

Maybe but when the technology is outperforming the humans then surely there should be a switch in emphasis.

sewter lives again 26 Aug 19 17:07 Joined: 04 Oct 01 | Topic/replies: 5,013 | Blogger: sewter lives again's blog
Injera-I really hope umpires don't start (or are influenced by) making decisions based on teams having reviews left-

especially where umpires call is still an option for the LBW decisions as this obviously has implications for the final

decision



Why not, especially if late in the game like that?

It would have ensured the correct decision. After all that is the whole point of having a decision review system to ensure correct decisions are made.

The point of drs is not to ensure correct decisions are made. It is to ensure there are no clearly incorrect decisions that change the course of the game.

Even in that regard DRS failed. But it failed because Australia did not use the system for what it was intended.

ICC accepts that Hawkeye is inaccurate and we see that often. That's why India objected to it for a long time and that's why the umpires call needs to be there, because the tech is simply not enough to conclusively declare umpires thinking, made in real time, as incorrect.

The whole system needs changing. Take it out of players hand. Make the third umpire do something instead of sitting on his arse all day

ICC has a very non serious attitude to umpiring though. I don't see anything changing.

Does anyone know what the third ump and match referee do all day?

Every ball should be looked at by technology. There aren't that many in a game that are controversial.

Aug 26, 2019 -- 1:21PM, detraveller wrote:

Does anyone know what the third ump and match referee do all day?

They make many cups of tea, testing to see if the teabag sinks or floats

I have no idea when technology is looking at things if they do so in the order given on screen. I.e. was it a fair ball, was the bat involved, was it pitching outside leg, or whatever order they do it. Technology can surely do all these things in parallel and there would be virtually no delay. No need to report back to the umpire unless it was out/not out or whatever.

Angoose
Well I wish they would tell us the answer!

I suppose I am forgetting the results of the technology are interpreted by humans. Or at least I think I am.

if you start giving everything out that just clips the outside the stumps you'll have some very short test matches and start changing the whole history and statistics of the game -batting averages will drop dramatically for a kick off

know it's not in the laws of the game but the presumption the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt is a good one. they only get one chance after all and at least half the ball hitting the stumps is a reasonable compromise on backing the umpire's decision and not making it impossible for bowlers to overturn a decision

much better than VAR in the prem at the moment where it seems virtually impossible to overturn a non penalty decision on the field cos the fella watching the screen is backing his mate even if it's GBH so far

Get a still pic of the delivery and look at the angle it as bowled from.
Follow the natural line and it's going miles down leg.
It would have needed to turn a lot to reach Hawkeye's destination.
I'd like to see the Hawkeye raw data and put a protractor on it re degrees of angle of spin.

The Injuns have been very suspicious of Hawkeye for years

As far as I'm concerned if it just hits the outside of the stumps, and would remove the bails, then it's out. There's been a few recently when the bails haven't been removed for some reason.

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt.

Juce you can argue all you want on that one and even of you were correct it wouldn't detract from what I'm saying. How many decisions have been overturned in this series?

Good article here

https://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/22/why-does-test-cricket-need-the-drs/

As well as humans interpreting the results of the technology, don't forget that it is humans who are responsible for developing the technology in the first place. It is not infallible in design, application, or interpretation.

To quote from the football VAR debate, you need to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion.
Whether the ball hit the bat or pad is a matter of fact, as is whether the ball carried to a fielder for a catch.

However, whether, for example, a ball would have gone on to hit the stumps is a matter of opinion, albeit that technology can provide a great degree of certainty.

Even whether a catch carried to a fielder (a matter of fact, it either did or it didn't) can, and regularly does, become a matter of opinion.

You see it on here, we all watch the same tv replays, yet different opinions are expressed as to whether it did or didn't carry and it's not always the money talking.

Yes, we need to make the most of technology, but we also require to be wary of becoming over reliant for all sorts of societal reasons.

Would be an interesting debate to consider whether the use of DRS has resulted in a drop in the standard of umpiring.
Do umpires, consciously or unconsciously, make decisions that they would have made differently had DRS never been introduced.

I recall Mike Atherton putting forward an argument against the introduction of DRS during his playing days when he participated in groups to discuss such matters.

Over time, his opinion has changed, would be interesting to have a debate with him as to how he now views the arguments he put forward at the time.

The umpire's call gives the standing umpires undeserved influence.

If Hawkeye shows it clipping and has been given out, it stays out. If given not out and reviewed it stays not out. That's plain daft.

Perhaps all 'clippage' should be not out.

Paine's misuse of the review plus Lyon's howler ensured the miraculous outcome was confirmed.


Long live fallibility.

https://twitter.com/cricketingview/status/1166091115935744000?s=20

Here we go slowed right down, looks like it did turn a lot after pitching

frame 3 looks to be going well down leg yet in frame 5 it's turned a lot and hit the back pad.
Interesting

Definitely wasn't a bad decision from the ump..........for once

just freeze framing it on tv pitches on about leg and is definitely going down further. at best clipping leg. hawkeye having it hitting middle and leg defies logic

Juce, it didn't hit the back pad due to the turn. It deflected off the front pad and then hit the back pad.

Apparently it missed the front pad. I'd like to see more frames to he honest .

No it clearly hit the front pad. I remember that clearly watching the game live.

How many effective frames per second does Hawkeye run off. Does it run from TV broadcast so 24 fps or can it effectively access a higher frequency.

DRS relies on cameras placed at defined positions around the ground as detailed with the ICC protocol.

The capability of these cameras will determine the input to Hawkeye and it is unlikely that the cameras are supplied by anyone other than the host broadcaster as a condition of them being granted broadcaster rights.

juce

Not sure but I think it was more Tendulkar who didn't like DRS

Australia denied the Ashes because of a ridiculous umpiring decision


er...No!

Exactly WD

imo the most ridiculous decision in the Test Match was the review of the (correct) Leech LBW decision

Aug 27, 2019 -- 1:46AM, detraveller wrote:

No it clearly hit the front pad. I remember that clearly watching the game live.

Did you look at the twitter post I posted here

https://twitter.com/cricketingview/status/1166091115935744000?s=20

It slows it right down and also talks about how our eyes can deceive us as they can only see at so many frames per second.
The framerate is 24 fps -  10 frames make 0.416 seconds of action. Note that humans can see 10-12 FPS as separate images.

It definitely misses the front pad completely and smacks into the back

I still think Joel was justified in giving it not out, our eyes don't have that sort of ability in real time.
No way he could see the amount of turn as the ball was so full and happened in a blink of a second

Aug 27, 2019 -- 1:18PM, sewter lives again wrote:

Exactly WDimo the most ridiculous decision in the Test Match was the review of the (correct) Leech LBW decision

Yeh it was a horror, by then though the Aussie heads were completely scrambled

That review from aus showed their mentality. They thought with just 8 more runs to get they won't get another chance at leach. Stokes deserves credit for making aus feel so desperate.

Juce, I saw that Twitter link.
But I watched the ultra slow mo live and the ball hit the front pad, which the Hawkeye also caught accurately.

Even your link shows impact on front leg in the Pic 4/7

Aug 28, 2019 -- 2:26AM, detraveller wrote:

Even your link shows impact on front leg in the Pic 4/7

It's hard to tell on that pic, I haven't seen a super slow mo of it I'll try and find it

My problem with Hawkeye in LBW instances is how can it possibly predict how much a ball is going to spin or bounce from overspin from a delivery by a spin bowler whereupon it strikes the batsman's pads very shortly after it pitches for example hitting the pads on the half volley and from different parts of the pitch like the rough on the wicket made from the bowlers follow through against the normal part of the pitch, in my opinion its just educated guess work programmed in to the system .

I haven't got a problem with Hawkeye. I am sure it is not 100% but fairly good. It was brought in to prevent howlers. If you have been watching Test Cricket for a long time you will know that many home umpires cheated all over the world. Many mistakes or howlers were made when simple technology could show this. Hawk Eye upped this ability but really the review system is to help stop howlers.

So many people criticising the Umpires even on close calls. Stokes may have been lbw I don't know for sure but neither did the Umpire. It was a good decision by him even if Hawkeye showed it hitting the wicket.

I haven't got a problem with the technology.

All the teams have accepted the parameters that exist with the current system and imo it seems to work well.
As has been said many times it is there to prevent howlers. However, where teams choose to take a punt they cannot then have issues if they have used their reviews.

Increasing the number of reviews available just will not work. Not least because the over rate is already slow enough as it is and this would result in it getting even worse. Just think how many appeals there are and Captains taking a punt on those appeals. Just imagine Jonny B and Broady with a handful of reviews they would telling Root that everything is out-after all we've still got 7 reviews left. And the other teams that feckin appeal for everything discussing it virtually every other ball. No thanks

Talking of umpires when they used the officials of the country in which a series is played - I seem to remember when England played in Australia 1970-71 (it was a 7 test series but I think one was washed out) - England did not get 1 lbw decision ... is that reasonable

Hawkeye is not infallible but providing the teams use their reviews wisely it works pretty well

jucel69
27 Aug 19 23:14
Joined: 03 Aug 12
| Topic/replies: 49,081 | Blogger: jucel69's blog

    Aug 27, 2019 -- 7:46AM, detraveller wrote:


    No it clearly hit the front pad. I remember that clearly watching the game live.


Did you look at the twitter post I posted here

https://twitter.com/cricketingview/status/1166091115935744000?s=20

It slows it right down and also talks about how our eyes can deceive us as they can only see at so many frames per second.
The framerate is 24 fps -  10 frames make 0.416 seconds of action. Note that humans can see 10-12 FPS as separate images.

It definitely misses the front pad completely and smacks into the back

I still think Joel was justified in giving it not out, our eyes don't have that sort of ability in real time.
No way he could see the amount of turn as the ball was so full and happened in a blink of a second


Agree with detraveller...defo hit front pad

watched again..100% hit front pad