I have been arguing since 2010/2011 that DRS ball tracking is IMPERFECT
and that it NEEDS to be IMPROVED.

=====================================================================

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ind-vs-eng-2nd-test-ben-stokes-questions-drs-zak-crawley-lbw-dismissal-1419938

Stokes questions DRS over Crawley's lbw dismissal

"I don't think it's unfair for someone to say 'I think the technology
has got it wrong on this occasion.'"

Ben Stokes has questioned the DRS for giving Zak Crawley out lbw but
does not believe it was the reason England lost the second Test in
Visakhapatnam.

India levelled the series 1-1 with victory by 106 runs on day four,
bowling the tourists out for 292 in pursuit of 399. Just as in the first
innings, Crawley was the leading scorer, this time with 73, while no one
else passed 36.

Crawley was holding firm as wickets fell around him in the morning
session. At the end of the 42nd over, he was struck on the pad by a
length delivery from Kuldeep Yadav, which was given not out on the field
by standing umpire Marais Erasmus.

India captain Rohit Sharma took his time before asking for a review and
was rewarded when Erasmus had to subsequently overturn his original
decision. The contentious element seemed to be the impact of the ball
into leg stump, which, to the England captain, looked far less certain
than DRS' projected path.

"Technology in the game is obviously there," said Stokes at stumps.
"Everyone has an understanding of the reasons it can never be 100% which
is why we have the umpire's call. That's why it's in place.

"When it's not 100% as everyone says, I don't think it's unfair for
someone to say 'I think the technology has got it wrong on this
occasion'. And that is my personal opinion. I will say that.

"But in a game full of ifs, buts and maybes, I am not going to say
that's the reason why we haven't got the result we wanted. I'm just
saying my personal opinion is that the technology has gone wrong on this
occasion, and I think that's fair to say."

Crawley walked off with 205 still to get, closely followed by Jonny
Bairstow five balls later, leaving England 194 for 6 going into the
afternoon session. India needed just 26.4 overs to take the remaining
four wickets to square matters ahead of a 10-day break in the series.
The teams will meet again for the third Test in Rajkot, which begins on
February 15.

Asked if he was looking to escalate his complaints, Stokes added: "You
can't really do much with things that have been and gone. A decision has
been made, and you can't really overturn a decision that has been made.
That is where I stand on that."

Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".

This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 1:55:03 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> I have been arguing since 2010/2011 that DRS ball tracking is IMPERFECT
> and that it NEEDS to be IMPROVED.

Improved? Yes.
Perfect? It never will be, and anyone who thinks it should be doesn't understand technology. Never mind the human parts of DRS that remain.

It just has to be;
1. better than on-field umps. It is.
2. justified, cost-wise. It is.
3. publicly and thoroughly tested so that fans are confident in its effectiveness. This has never happened.
4. backed by regulations that make sense. I don't think today's rules are anywhere near as good as they could be, but they are much better than the early days.

Re 3;
there's been two lots of testing that I recall. The laughable MCC early days testing that MH used to tout. This is the testing where the MCC wrapped the stumps in alfoil to make them (the tests) look proper. lol @ them.
MIT did a bunch of testing, and at the end gave us a cheesy grin and a double thumbs up and that was it. All is good. Testing methodology and results remain trade secrets.
*If* someone is manually selecting the point of impact, it should be widely known how this process happens. Who does it? What training do they have? Does a match official get to approve the selection?

Re 4;
the number 1 change I'd make today is what I mentioned above. Doubt for LBWs and Caught should be Not Out.
This would immediately inject more consistency into the final results, which would lead to more trust in the system.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:53:08 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".

This decision wasn't an umpire's call.
If it had been an umpire's call Crawley would have stayed as the
original decision was not out.

and the idea behind umpire's call is "unless there's a reason to
overrule them we stay with the umpire's decision"

>
>This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:46:54 PM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> and the idea behind umpire's call is "unless there's a reason to
> overrule them we stay with the umpire's decision"

Yeah, we know. And I'm saying I think that should change to give more consistent results.

In message <4bc54fe0-d49d-45c5-8378-249d9559f93fn@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as
>it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".

There's certainly a case to be made for that. One effect it might have
is that, with many Tests now over in four days, more of them would go
into the fifth day. Of course such a change wouldn't have helped
Crawley, given "not out" on the field but with DRS showing the ball
hitting enough of the leg stump for it not to be umpire's call.
>
>This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared
>to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

As an aside, I think the feedback from DRS has led to a big improvement
in the standard of umpiring when it comes to lbw decisions, having given
umpires a much better understanding of which balls are likely to be
hitting the stumps.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:41:01 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> As an aside, I think the feedback from DRS has led to a big improvement
> in the standard of umpiring when it comes to lbw decisions, having given
> umpires a much better understanding of which balls are likely to be
> hitting the stumps.

It's also shown to the fans just how difficult umpiring is.

On Tuesday 6 February 2024 at 19:42:56 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:41:01 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > As an aside, I think the feedback from DRS has led to a big improvement
> > in the standard of umpiring when it comes to lbw decisions, having given
> > umpires a much better understanding of which balls are likely to be
> > hitting the stumps.
> It's also shown to the fans just how difficult umpiring is.

Tennis has the same issue - "Hawkeye" is generally regarded amongst the elite players as being crap.

Even if you're just a good tennis player, you *know* when you hit a return if it's long.

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:22:17 AM UTC+10, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> Even if you're just a good tennis player, you *know* when you hit a return if it's long.

I'd LOVE to see some public, thorough testing on that hare-brained belief.

jack fredricks wrote:

> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:22:17 AM UTC+10, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>> Even if you're just a good tennis player, you *know* when you hit a return if it's long.

> I'd LOVE to see some public, thorough testing on that hare-brained belief.

Just because someone "knows" something, it doesn't follow that they are right!

jack fredricks wrote:

> Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".

> This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

The ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out is a red herring, as it would require the decision not to be referred, and has nothing to do with the "Umpire's Call" result from ball-tracking.

John Hall wrote:

> In message <4bc54fe0-d49d-45c5-8378-249d9559f93fn@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>>Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as
>>it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".

> There's certainly a case to be made for that. One effect it might have
> is that, with many Tests now over in four days, more of them would go
> into the fifth day.

It would probably result in batters being more likely to refer decisions than they are already, as they would have more chance of the decisions being overturned. However, by referring more decisions, a greater proportion of reviews would probably turn out to be "hitting", in which case they would be more likely to run out of reviews.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:49:36 +0000, usenet@lanefarm.plus.com (dnorth)
wrote:

>jack fredricks wrote:
>
>> Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".
>
>> This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.
>
>The ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out is a red herring, as it would require the decision not to be referred, and has nothing to do with the "Umpire's Call" result from ball-tracking.

Well it might if the contact is umpire's call or the pitching outside
leg is umpire's call.
But it's not really relevant that the ball's hitting middle if the
point of concern is the pitching or point of contact

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:41:18 +0000, usenet@lanefarm.plus.com (dnorth)
wrote:

>jack fredricks wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:22:17?AM UTC+10, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>>> Even if you're just a good tennis player, you *know* when you hit a return if it's long.
>
>> I'd LOVE to see some public, thorough testing on that hare-brained belief.
>
>Just because someone "knows" something, it doesn't follow that they are right!
>
>
Is it like that 'oh shit' moment when you've over pitched a delivery?
You know you've over pitched from the moment it leaves your hand.

If muscle memory, repetition and experience is what it takes to carry
out an action, then there is a case to support knowing immediately
when you have done something wrong, when something feels different.
I have no idea how you could test this without depending on honesty.

max.it

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:50:20 PM UTC+10, dnorth wrote:
> The ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out is a red herring, as it would require the decision not to be referred, and has nothing to do with the "Umpire's Call" result from ball-tracking.

The red herring is thinking the non-referral matters. The casual fan will see the referred decision, with 1mm hitting, resulting in Out. Then later, after an appeal is not referred (and remaining Not Out), they'll still get to see the ball tracking showing the ball clearly hitting.

The fact that one has DRS in the corner and the other doesn't doesn't really matter. The inconsistency and frustration and the system grows.

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 2:26:55 AM UTC+10, Mad Hamish wrote:
> Well it might if the contact is umpire's call or the pitching outside
> leg is umpire's call.
> But it's not really relevant that the ball's hitting middle if the
> point of concern is the pitching or point of contact

Which points to another cause for doubt/untrust in DRS.

Take 2 identical deliveries in all ways, including actions by the batsman.
In one of these, the ump gives it Out LBW, and in the other the ump gives it Not Out.
DRS both of them. Point of impact is Umpire's Call (for both, as they're identical).

Even though the deliveries are identical, DRS will give us 2 different results. One Out, the other Not Out.

Under my proposed way (benefit of doubt to batsman, not to original call), the result would be identical - Not Out.

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 2:28:02 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> I'd LOVE to see some public, thorough testing on that hare-brained belief.
> >Just because someone "knows" something, it doesn't follow that they are right!

> Is it like that 'oh shit' moment when you've over pitched a delivery?
> You know you've over pitched from the moment it leaves your hand.
> If muscle memory, repetition and experience is what it takes to carry
> out an action, then there is a case to support knowing immediately
> when you have done something wrong, when something feels different.
> I have no idea how you could test this without depending on honesty.

If you're delicately pressing pianos keys, sure.
But in tennis you're sprinting to a ball travelling at great speeds, then swinging a tool with built in shock absorption at the ball. Tennis isn't delicate.

I dare say Hawkeye is 100x better than any human tennis player at judging what hits are in.
By that I mean for every 1 mistake Hawkeye makes, the best human would make 100.

On 08/02/2024 16:26, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:49:36 +0000, usenet@lanefarm.plus.com (dnorth)
> wrote:
>
>> jack fredricks wrote:
>>
>>> Umpire's Call results should be given Not Out. And obviously renamed as it's no longer Ump's Call. Just change it to "Uncertain/Doubt".
>>
>>> This stops us seeing 1mm of ball hitting ending in given Out, compared to a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.
>>
>> The ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out is a red herring, as it would require the decision not to be referred, and has nothing to do with the "Umpire's Call" result from ball-tracking.
>
> Well it might if the contact is umpire's call

Yes

> or the pitching outside
> leg is umpire's call.

There is no umpire's call for that any more. Ball-tracking is taken as
definitive.

-
David North

On 08/02/2024 20:58, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:50:20 PM UTC+10, dnorth wrote:
>> The ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out is a red herring, as it would require the decision not to be referred, and has nothing to do with the "Umpire's Call" result from ball-tracking.
>
> The red herring is thinking the non-referral matters.

It does if we are discussing what effect replacing Umpire's Call with
Not Out would have. It would only stop a small part (~35mm) of the
difference (min 149mm) between seeing 1mm of ball hitting being given
Out and a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

--
David North

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> It does if we are discussing what effect replacing Umpire's Call with
> Not Out would have. It would only stop a small part (~35mm) of the
> difference (min 149mm) between seeing 1mm of ball hitting being given
> Out and a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.

I need a diagram, or a coffee :)

my example is one where today's DRS returns Umps Call (on the Hitting Stumps reading), and another delivery that isn't referred by fielding team, but later we're shown a ball tracking result showing it was clearly Out.

If the ball in the first one is in a different spot, ie by more than the ~35mm you've mentioned, would it even remain "Ump's call"? It sounds to me like it would be a "yep, that's clearly hitting, good appeal and decision. Out" result.
Zero doubt and frustration on the part of the fans.

Lots of problems would remain, especially around non-referrals;
1. a batsman being given Out, not referring, and later DRS (nb; I know it's not DRS itself, but same tech) showing it was Not Out
2. a fielding captain not referring an appeal that would've been Out under DRS

My change does fix what I see as the most glaring design flaw with DRS regs today - 2 identical deliveries returning 2 different results.

On 09/02/2024 22:22, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 7:49:04 AM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> It does if we are discussing what effect replacing Umpire's Call with
>> Not Out would have. It would only stop a small part (~35mm) of the
>> difference (min 149mm) between seeing 1mm of ball hitting being given
>> Out and a ball hitting middle of middle stump being given Not Out.
>
> I need a diagram, or a coffee :)

~35mm is the radius of the ball (middle of the range allowed in "men's"
cricket) minus 1mm.

149mm is half the width of the wicket plus 35mm - the difference if the
1mm of ball hitting is halfway up the off or leg stump. Obviously the
top of off or leg stump is much further than 149mm from the middle of
middle - by my calculation the difference would be about 409mm in those
cases.

> my example is one where today's DRS returns Umps Call (on the Hitting Stumps reading), and another delivery that isn't referred by fielding team, but later we're shown a ball tracking result showing it was clearly Out.
>
> If the ball in the first one is in a different spot, ie by more than the ~35mm you've mentioned, would it even remain "Ump's call"? It sounds to me like it would be a "yep, that's clearly hitting, good appeal and decision. Out" result.

Yes (assuming that the 35mm is in the right direction, of course)

--
David North

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:22:15 -0800 (PST), Tony The Welsh Twat
<tonythewelshtwat@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday 6 February 2024 at 19:42:56 UTC, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:41:01?PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> > As an aside, I think the feedback from DRS has led to a big improvement
>> > in the standard of umpiring when it comes to lbw decisions, having given
>> > umpires a much better understanding of which balls are likely to be
>> > hitting the stumps.
>> It's also shown to the fans just how difficult umpiring is.
>
>Tennis has the same issue - "Hawkeye" is generally regarded amongst the elite players as being crap.
>
>Even if you're just a good tennis player, you *know* when you hit a return if it's long.

Which explains why tennis players often appeal balls where a simple
video replay shows they're wrong