England V India ***Clash of the Heavyweights*** Test, T20 and ODI Series

Lot of people (England fans mainly) have been complaining that Duckworth Lewis favours the chasing team, as England have lost a few matches while defending when this rule has been used.

India looked set to get their first win of the series. That's life though, today the weather decided to deal India a crap hand.

Also Nasser and co really need to stfu about DRS, especially after the technology that has been lauded by them was once again contradicted in decision making.

Having 8 players out (6 of them key players) hasn't helped either.

I feel sorry for Egon as well - he missed out what would surely have been a riveting contest.
 
Last edited:
Duckworth-Lewis is just lame in general, chasing or not.
And regarding DRS , the system works fine.

The problem highlighted now (i guess you refer to the aussie incident ?) is that the software triggered IMPACT before the ball actually did impact, so the productive element correctly said it would go straight on because the software didn't get a chance to see the ball spin after it bounced. Had it seen this then the prediction would have been a lot more accurate.
Im guessing its a problem with the alignment or calibration of the tracking nodes/lasers/cameras.
There was a similar incident a few years back at Wimbledon if i recall, where Andy challenged a decision because..well, he could basically. He had his back to where the ball landed so had no idea of if it was in or out or not.. anyway, the Hawk Eye said the ball was out but replay shown it actually landed a good 20CM inside the line.. shocking decision.

IIRC this is the first time its been used in SL? teething bugs are hardly surprising, i doubt there was as much time, care and effort put into making sure the system was installed and working properly like you would find in Eng or Australia.

Its hilarious that all the incidents highlighting flaw's with Hawk Eye only occur in nations opposed to its implementation, or technologically inferior nations (and i mean no insult with this).
 
Last edited:
I sort of agree about Duckworth Lewis, but it's still the best [or ONLY] system we have of determining reasonably fair par scores.

I was referring to the incident today, where they appealed a catch against Dravid, given not out, referred and overturned. Hotspot showed no edge, and yet it was given out. I don't think we should be in a position saying "this shows not out, that shows out, this shows not out, let's go with not out". We should be in a position where all technologies are concordant, and therefore the correct decision is made without any doubt. The BCCI's stance on ball tracking has meant that the tech will be improved to more acceptable standards. In today's decision, there was no apparent evidence for giving Dravid out.

It's not the first time to be used in SL, it was used a year or two ago in India v SL test matches, it didn't go down too badly, but most of the referred decision were upheld :p

EDIT: apparently snicko suggested there was an edge. Why is hotspot lauded as the most accurate technology, and yet they go with snicko?
EDIT2: apparently snicko isn't being used in the DRS, so again, how the umpire gave that out is beyond me.
EDIT3: The 3rd umpire was apparently Erasmus. That guy's been trouble all summer with bad decisions :(
 
Last edited:
ffs typed out a massive reply and it didn't post :( LAME

In a nutshell, Snicko takes too long to create due to audio and video being recorded by different sources, so the timestamps have to be aligned properly manually.

Hotspot can be exploited (heat the bat before coming out, seal it with various substances), not saying India have, just pointing out a major flaw.

Secondly - the camera's are too slow FPS wise, so slight edges occurring between frames are unable to show up so has to be given not out.

Finally - the umpire only has an 11" screen to see the evidence on, loads of times i have seen an edge on my 50" screen but its given not out .. give em better tools ffs!
 
Would be much easier if they threaded an audio cable from stump mic under the soil and into a connection point near the placement of the snicko camera so an output could be made in seconds.
 
I damn well hope India win this series. 8 players out at the moment, with reinforcements arriving :p

Alpherah said:
ffs typed out a massive reply and it didn't post :( LAME

In a nutshell, Snicko takes too long to create due to audio and video being recorded by different sources, so the timestamps have to be aligned properly manually.

Hotspot can be exploited (heat the bat before coming out, seal it with various substances), not saying India have, just pointing out a major flaw.

Secondly - the camera's are too slow FPS wise, so slight edges occurring between frames are unable to show up so has to be given not out.

Finally - the umpire only has an 11" screen to see the evidence on, loads of times i have seen an edge on my 50" screen but its given not out .. give em better tools ffs!
Click to expand...

Yes! The tech isn't good enough, they need hi speed cams for hotspot and for runouts, because it's ALWAYs in between frames

Mad old tory said:
From what I read Erasmus told the infield umpire he heard a clear noise and that's why he gave it out which seems fair enough to me if true.
Click to expand...

If it was a clear noise, then I think that it should have shown up on hotspot. The fact that it didn't, suggests to me that either the noise was something else, or that hotspot doesn't actually register faint edges.
 
Alpherah said:
ffs typed out a massive reply and it didn't post :( LAME

In a nutshell, Snicko takes too long to create due to audio and video being recorded by different sources, so the timestamps have to be aligned properly manually.

Hotspot can be exploited (heat the bat before coming out, seal it with various substances), not saying India have, just pointing out a major flaw.

Secondly - the camera's are too slow FPS wise, so slight edges occurring between frames are unable to show up so has to be given not out.

Finally - the umpire only has an 11" screen to see the evidence on, loads of times i have seen an edge on my 50" screen but its given not out .. give em better tools ffs!
Click to expand...
It's daft isn't it how can you have the umpire using worse tech than the punters sat at home!

No idea how much one of those high speed cameras cost but the amount of times on a run out or stumping the key breaking of the bails moment is inbetween frames is ridiculous, there must be a high fps camera out there they could use?
 
I don't think the hotspot tech is good enough to be used at the moment as faint edges clearly don't show up. In fact, the technology available as a whole seems to be completely inadequate:
-Slow-mo for run-outs/stumping is rubbish
-Hawk-eye throws up some bizarre predictions sometimes
-Hotspot is crap

I don't think any of it helps.
 
One More Solo said:
I don't think the hotspot tech is good enough to be used at the moment as faint edges clearly don't show up. In fact, the technology available as a whole seems to be completely inadequate:
-Slow-mo for run-outs/stumping is rubbish
-Hawk-eye throws up some bizarre predictions sometimes
-Hotspot is crap

I don't think any of it helps.
Click to expand...

Which is why I think that Nasser should go and dab some kleenex in his eyes. He really needs to see that "more correct decisions" isn't a compelling argument for a system that's throwing up so many controversies.
 
TheCenturion said:
Which is why I think that Nasser should go and dab some kleenex in his eyes. He really needs to see that "more correct decisions" isn't a compelling argument for a system that's throwing up so many controversies.
Click to expand...

I think it is as its more useful to take a view after considering all the information at hand, which can only be better than just having the umpire. Descisions go for and against everyone and in the end it probably evens out, I just wish people just stop wetting themselves all the time and just accept it.
 
Easy answer - Make sure the umpire makes a decision before any review (player initiated or called for by the umpire) and if there's any doubt at all give it to the batsman.

Problem solved.

-edit-

Also, get a high FPS camera. There only needs to be a few and the ICC should pay for it (like they did the hotspot cameras, iirc there's only 6 hotspot cameras and 2 required for each game) which would fix run outs, stampings etc.

Hotspot is okay, i can see why its not possible to potentially make a high FPS hotspot camera, but with better screen tech more edges could be detected anyway .. the ones we at home see but they don't :p
 
Last edited:
Alpherah said:
Easy answer - Make sure the umpire makes a decision before any review (player initiated or called for by the umpire) and if there's any doubt at all give it to the batsman.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

I thought under the rules if there is any doubt it is given to the batsman anyway :confused: That aside it still doesnt stop the wrong descisions being given, its just something you have to live with as mistakes are made and just accept it all evens out in the end generally.
 
Rules say considerable doubt.
Should be rephrased to any doubt, imo.

If hotspot shows nothing, if there's no apparent deflection but theres a noise.. then out shouldn't be given.
Noise could have been from anything.
 
Bear said:
I think it is as its more useful to take a view after considering all the information at hand, which can only be better than just having the umpire. Descisions go for and against everyone and in the end it probably evens out, I just wish people just stop wetting themselves all the time and just accept it.
Click to expand...

I wish people would accept that there are good valid reasons for not accepting DRS in its current state.

Someone suggested to me that statistically, using all the technologies together gets the most accurate result. But for me that doesn't necessarily hold true. Unless all the techs are completely concordant then you'll have a situation where to make a decision, you will be agreeing with some techs and contradicting others.
 
Because you'll hear the umpires talking nonsense ?

Can you imagine what the umpire was saying on that Dravid decision?

No there wasnt anything on hotspot
No there wasn't any deflection
You gave it not out

Okay, I'm going to say out because I heard a noise....
 
TheCenturion said:
I wish people would accept that there are good valid reasons for not accepting DRS in its current state.

Someone suggested to me that statistically, using all the technologies together gets the most accurate result. But for me that doesn't necessarily hold true. Unless all the techs are completely concordant then you'll have a situation where to make a decision, you will be agreeing with some techs and contradicting others.
Click to expand...

People can choose to accept it or not, but IMO it is better than not having the technology. Either way, mistakes will be made and people on what ever side will be whining when there is a bad descision.

So what if technology doesnt agree with each other anyway as the rules say reasonable doubt. If you had two umpires that gave different decisions as they certainly would in reality, then would you suggest we get rid of them aswell?

What you suggest is not accepting a technology that yes that has flaws, for a system that is definately inherently flawed which is that humans make mistakes. The technology is supposed to enhance the descision making, it doesnt make the descision therefore it is still the third umpire that makes the mistake with the given evidence.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to the Rose Bowl on Tues. :D

Does anyone have any tips about the place? Is it best just to get the park and ride? Is it normally pretty long to get out of there? It's a day nighter so it could end up being a pretty late one if rain doesn't ruin it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom