I said this many years ago that "Umpires Call" should be SCRAPPED.

I also argued back in 2010/2011 that the "ball trajectory projection" is
IMPERFECT and NEEDS to be IMPROVED.

If the ball hits the stumps it must be out regardless of how much it hits.

Stokes called for DRS to scrap umpires call AFTER LOSING the match and
getting the RAW end of the stick.

I wish he advocated for it long time back.

I sympathize with Crawley's DRS lbw dismissal. It shouldn't have been
given by the on field umpire.

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

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ben-stokes-wants-drs-to-scrap-umpire-s-call-1421714

Stokes calls for DRS to scrap umpire's call

England captain questions Zak Crawley's second-innings lbw dismissal

Ben Stokes has called for the Decision Review System (DRS) to scrap
umpire's call after England were left bemused by Zak Crawley's
second-innings dismissal in their defeat in the third Test against India
in Rajkot.

Crawley reviewed Kumar Dharamasena's decision to give him out lbw to
Jasprit Bumrah in the ninth over but left the field incensed, believing
the predicted path showed the ball would be missing the top of leg
stump. It was the second time Crawley has been on the receiving end of a
marginal DRS call, after being adjudged leg before against Kuldeep Yadav
in Visakhapatnam following a review from Rohit Sharma. Stokes called the
decision "wrong" at the time.

The England captain was seen alongside head coach Brendon McCullum
seeking clarification from match referee Jeff Crowe after England's
434-run loss. Speaking at stumps, Stokes said he was told the error was
with the image produced, which showed the projected path of the ball
just missing the top of leg stump. Hawk-Eye confirmed to Stokes the
calculations themselves were correct, which predicted enough contact
with leg stump to stay with the on-field decision.

"We just wanted some clarity around Zak's DRS when the images came
back," revealed Stokes. "The ball is quite clearly missing the stump on
the replay. So when it gets given umpire's call and the ball's not
actually hitting the stumps, we were a bit bemused. So we just wanted
some clarity from the Hawk-Eye guys.

"It came back saying the numbers, or whatever it is that is, it was
saying that it was hitting the stumps but it was the projection that was
wrong. I don't know what that means. Something's gone wrong, so, yeah.

"It's not me blaming that on what's happened here, like I didn't last
week. It's just… what's going on?

England were also riled by Ollie Pope's dismissal in the first innings.
Originally given "not out" against Mohammed Siraj, the decision was
overturned because the impact on leg stump was deemed conclusive.
Watching live, the tourists assumed the on-field decision would stand.

Stokes reiterated he did not think such calls were the reason England
are now 2-1 down in the five-match series. But he stated his preference
that the system needs to be changed, starting with umpire's call.

"We've been on the wrong end of three umpire's calls this game and that
is part of DRS. You're either on the right side or the wrong side.
Unfortunately, we've been on the wrong side. I'm not saying and never
will say that's the reason why we've lost this game, because 500 is a
lot of runs.

"It is not something you pin down to result of the game. Sometimes when
you are on the wrong end of those decisions it hurts but that is part of
the game. You want them to go your way, sometimes they do, sometimes
they don't

"You just want a level playing field. The umpires have an incredibly
hard job as it is, especially in India when the ball is spinning. My
personal opinion is if the ball is hitting the stumps, it is hitting the
stumps. They should take away 'umpire's call' if I'm being perfectly
honest. I don't want to get too much into it because it sounds like we
are moaning and saying that is why we lost the Test match."

Stokes' original comments about the accuracy of the DRS during the
second Test prompted Paul Hawkins, the creator of Hawk-Eye's
ball-tracking technology, to defend the system and the processes in place.

"There isn't [even] a one percent chance of it being wrong," Hawkins
told the Sunday Times. "For every DRS [incident], we do screen-grabs
which show everything the [Hawk-Eye] operator shows. This is automatic,
we can't manipulate it, and that immediately goes to the ICC [the game's
governing body] as part of the quality control process.

"There are also two independent tracking systems. The cameras are the
same, but the operators do their calibrations and the manual bit
independently. This provides back-up in the unlikely event that one
crashes. Even if there is an lbw shout, let alone a review, the person
that plays the review to TV [must check] before anything goes to air
that both trajectories give the same result, and are hitting the stumps
in the same place.

"It's not a fully automated system, but a lot is done to eliminate human
error by having checks, training and this process of two people doing
things independently, [which] has pretty much always been there."

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 2:51:21 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If the ball hits the stumps it must be out regardless of how much it hits..

That demonstrates a big misunderstanding on the accuracy of ball tracking.

I agree with Stokes on the "get rid of Umpire's call" part only, but his logic seems a bit strange.
"My personal opinion is if the ball is hitting the stumps, it is hitting the stumps."... so "get rid of Umpire's call".

His change will result in Not Out calls being overturned into Out calls when only 1mm of the (projected) ball is hitting the stumps.
Does anyone think for a second he's going to accept that? I don't.

We know ball tracking isn't completely accurate. We know human umpires make mistakes. If ball tracking has doubt (what we call Ump's call today), it should be Not Out.

On 2/18/2024 10:10 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 2:51:21 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If the ball hits the stumps it must be out regardless of how much it hits.
>
> That demonstrates a big misunderstanding on the accuracy of ball tracking.
>

What misunderstanding.

DRS umpire calls WON'T matter anymore because the SAME IMPERFECT BALL
TRACKING TECHNOLOGY will be applicable to BOTH the teams.

> I agree with Stokes on the "get rid of Umpire's call" part only, but his logic seems a bit strange.
> "My personal opinion is if the ball is hitting the stumps, it is hitting the stumps."... so "get rid of Umpire's call".
>
> His change will result in Not Out calls being overturned into Out calls when only 1mm of the (projected) ball is hitting the stumps.
> Does anyone think for a second he's going to accept that? I don't.
>

That's exactly what Stokes is saying.

If the ball hits the stumps, it hit the stumps regardless of whether it
is one mm and hence the batsman should be out.

That is the CORRECT WAY to adjudge batsmen.

Ball tracking is IMPERFECT like I argued since 2010/2011 BUT once we get
RID of DRS Umpire calls shit, the ball tracking IMPERFECTION WON'T
MATTER ANYMORE.

> We know ball tracking isn't completely accurate. We know human umpires make mistakes. If ball tracking has doubt (what we call Ump's call today), it should be Not Out.

WHY do you REMOVE comments and content from my post?

It makes understanding the context difficult for other posters here.

Just IGNORE what miked requested you to do.

See what DRS software maker Paul Hawkins said below.

He is WRONG, DELUSIONAL and ARROGANT to say that there ISN'T even 1%
chance of ball tracking being wrong.

DRS ball tracking is still IMPERFECT and he made NO EFFORTS to IMPROVE
the technology AT LEAST since 2010/2011.

It's NOT the question of humans manipulating it. It's the QUESTION of
ball trajectory tracking being "INACCURATE.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ben-stokes-wants-drs-to-scrap-umpire-s-call-1421714

Paul Kawkins - DRS and Ball Tracking Software OWNER

Stokes' original comments about the accuracy of the DRS during the
second Test prompted Paul Hawkins, the creator of Hawk-Eye's
ball-tracking technology, to defend the system and the processes in place.

"There isn't [even] a one percent chance of it being wrong," Hawkins
told the Sunday Times. "For every DRS [incident], we do screen-grabs
which show everything the [Hawk-Eye] operator shows. This is automatic,
we can't manipulate it, and that immediately goes to the ICC [the game's
governing body] as part of the quality control process.

"There are also two independent tracking systems. The cameras are the
same, but the operators do their calibrations and the manual bit
independently. This provides back-up in the unlikely event that one
crashes. Even if there is an lbw shout, let alone a review, the person
that plays the review to TV [must check] before anything goes to air
that both trajectories give the same result, and are hitting the stumps
in the same place.

"It's not a fully automated system, but a lot is done to eliminate human
error by having checks, training and this process of two people doing
things independently, [which] has pretty much always been there."

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 6:53:38 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If the ball hits the stumps, it hit the stumps regardless of whether it
> is one mm and hence the batsman should be out.

Sure, if you're willing to ignore the KNOWN inaccuracy of ball tracking.

On 2/19/2024 2:10 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 6:53:38 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If the ball hits the stumps, it hit the stumps regardless of whether it
>> is one mm and hence the batsman should be out.
>
> Sure, if you're willing to ignore the KNOWN inaccuracy of ball tracking.

But umpires can't make it accurate.

So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.

Well, there we agree.

But this raises a few issues;

1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking "getting better"?
2. how do we know ball tracking has been improved? I mean, really know? Paul Hawkins is obviously full of shit and can't be trusted (based off his recent comments).
3. how do we "force" him to improve ball tracking?

On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>
> Well, there we agree.
>
> But this raises a few issues;
>
> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking "getting better"?

Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.

Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball tracking.
We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over turning MANY
decisions which are NOT umpire calls.

> 2. how do we know ball tracking has been improved? I mean, really know? Paul Hawkins is obviously full of shit and can't be trusted (based off his recent comments).
> 3. how do we "force" him to improve ball tracking?

ICC putting some common sense into Paul Hawkins and CONVINCING him to
WORK on IMPROVING his DRS software and also ENCOURAGING other companies
in that field to DEVELOP competing DRS Software may be even subsidizing
as an INCENTIVE.

ICC can EASILY AFFORD it.

On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34 PM UTC+10,
>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>
>> Well, there we agree.
>>
>> But this raises a few issues;
>>
>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>> "getting better"?
>
>
> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>
> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball tracking.
> We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over turning MANY
> decisions which are NOT umpire calls.

That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
would have hit.

--
David North

On 2/19/2024 11:01 PM, David North wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34 PM UTC+10,
>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>>
>>> Well, there we agree.
>>>
>>> But this raises a few issues;
>>>
>>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>>> "getting better"?
>>
>>
>> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>>
>> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball
>> tracking. We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over
>> turning MANY decisions which are NOT umpire calls.
>
> That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
> ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
> ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
> would have hit.
>

You are talking about EXTREME cases though.

But even if the ball would have hit 1mm of the stump "IF" ball tracking
is perfect, the decision of OUT or NOT OUT of On-field umpires would
have been REVERSED based on CURRENT RULES.

The BEST COURSE of action for ICC is to get rid of umpires calls
altogether AND simultaneously get the current DRS system IMPROVED in
terms of technology which they should have done MORE THAN 12 years ago
because these ball tracking IMPERFECTIONS were KNOWN then itself.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 02:08:37 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>On 2/19/2024 11:01 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34?PM UTC+10,
>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there we agree.
>>>>
>>>> But this raises a few issues;
>>>>
>>>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>>>> "getting better"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>>>
>>> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball
>>> tracking. We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over
>>> turning MANY decisions which are NOT umpire calls.
>>
>> That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
>> ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
>> ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
>> would have hit.
>>
>
>
>You are talking about EXTREME cases though.
>
>But even if the ball would have hit 1mm of the stump "IF" ball tracking
>is perfect, the decision of OUT or NOT OUT of On-field umpires would
>have been REVERSED based on CURRENT RULES.
>
>The BEST COURSE of action for ICC is to get rid of umpires calls
>altogether AND simultaneously get the current DRS system IMPROVED in
>terms of technology which they should have done MORE THAN 12 years ago
>because these ball tracking IMPERFECTIONS were KNOWN then itself.
>
>
Think of it another way.
Would you prefer a procedure performed by an experienced surgeon?
Would you prefer the same procedure carried out by a prostate surgery
robot?
I reckon more people would be more comfortable with the human surgeon
despite the accuracy of the robot.

max.it

On 2/20/2024 2:57 AM, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 02:08:37 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2024 11:01 PM, David North wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34?PM UTC+10,
>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>>>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there we agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this raises a few issues;
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>>>>> "getting better"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>>>>
>>>> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball
>>>> tracking. We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over
>>>> turning MANY decisions which are NOT umpire calls.
>>>
>>> That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
>>> ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
>>> ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
>>> would have hit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are talking about EXTREME cases though.
>>
>> But even if the ball would have hit 1mm of the stump "IF" ball tracking
>> is perfect, the decision of OUT or NOT OUT of On-field umpires would
>> have been REVERSED based on CURRENT RULES.
>>
>> The BEST COURSE of action for ICC is to get rid of umpires calls
>> altogether AND simultaneously get the current DRS system IMPROVED in
>> terms of technology which they should have done MORE THAN 12 years ago
>> because these ball tracking IMPERFECTIONS were KNOWN then itself.
>>
>>
> Think of it another way.
> Would you prefer a procedure performed by an experienced surgeon?
> Would you prefer the same procedure carried out by a prostate surgery
> robot?
> I reckon more people would be more comfortable with the human surgeon
> despite the accuracy of the robot.
>
>
> max.it

I think the analogy is NOT correct because in the second case, human
life or health is AT RISK while cricket is just a sport.

Trust me, in the NEAR FUTURE most humans will PREFER to have their
surgery performed by robots since technology is really that advanced.

In fact surgeons are themselves using ROBOTS to do the surgery on patients.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:16:11 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>On 2/20/2024 2:57 AM, max.it wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 02:08:37 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2024 11:01 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34?PM UTC+10,
>>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>>>>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, there we agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this raises a few issues;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>>>>>> "getting better"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>>>>>
>>>>> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball
>>>>> tracking. We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over
>>>>> turning MANY decisions which are NOT umpire calls.
>>>>
>>>> That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
>>>> ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
>>>> ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
>>>> would have hit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are talking about EXTREME cases though.
>>>
>>> But even if the ball would have hit 1mm of the stump "IF" ball tracking
>>> is perfect, the decision of OUT or NOT OUT of On-field umpires would
>>> have been REVERSED based on CURRENT RULES.
>>>
>>> The BEST COURSE of action for ICC is to get rid of umpires calls
>>> altogether AND simultaneously get the current DRS system IMPROVED in
>>> terms of technology which they should have done MORE THAN 12 years ago
>>> because these ball tracking IMPERFECTIONS were KNOWN then itself.
>>>
>>>
>> Think of it another way.
>> Would you prefer a procedure performed by an experienced surgeon?
>> Would you prefer the same procedure carried out by a prostate surgery
>> robot?
>> I reckon more people would be more comfortable with the human surgeon
>> despite the accuracy of the robot.
>>
>>
>> max.it
>
>
>
>I think the analogy is NOT correct because in the second case, human
>life or health is AT RISK while cricket is just a sport.
>
>Trust me, in the NEAR FUTURE most humans will PREFER to have their
>surgery performed by robots since technology is really that advanced.
>
>In fact surgeons are themselves using ROBOTS to do the surgery on patients.
>
>
You have to bye pass human nature first.
Think about Therac 25 and how the manual interface part of the
operation hid the failures in the technology. It was whenever the
human element of the operation was replaced by an entirely software
controlled operation that the humans began to burn. I think about 5
people died, but how many refused treatment because of the accidents
and then died as a result of that decision?

The failsafe in the Therac incident was the human operation part
though that wasn't discovered until after it had been removed.
In DRS the failsafe is the umpire's call. Of course it isn't 'real
safety' but it looks like it's all we are getting for now.

max.it

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

> On 2/19/2024 11:01 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 06:22, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2024 12:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:50:34 PM UTC+10,
>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> So, the SOLUTION is to FORCE Paul Hawkins the DRS tracking system
>>>>> manufacturer to IMPROVE the algorithm and make it better.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there we agree.
>>>>
>>>> But this raises a few issues;
>>>>
>>>> 1. what do we do in the mean time? Between now and ball tracking
>>>> "getting better"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Live with it because it applies to BOTH teams.
>>>
>>> Umpires CANNOT make decisions better than DRS in terms of ball
>>> tracking. We already have PLENTY of evidence of DRS reviews over
>>> turning MANY decisions which are NOT umpire calls.
>>
>> That does not necessarily mean that the umpire was wrong, especially if
>> ball-tracking shows the ball just missing. If ball-tracking shows the
>> ball missing by 1mm, there is a probability of just under 50% that it
>> would have hit.
>>

> You are talking about EXTREME cases though.

It's a very borderline case, if that's what you mean.

The point is this: you seem to be arguing that because some umpires' decisions are wrong according to ball-tracking, it shows that umpires can't make better decisions than ball-tracking. That argument does not hold water; it's biased because it uses ball-tracking to decide which is better.

You could equally say that some ball-tracking decisions are wrong according to umpires, and therefore ball-tracking can't make better decisions than ball-tracking - same faulty logic, but with the opposite bias.

I'm not suggesting that umpires' decisions are, on the whole, better than ball-tracking.

> But even if the ball would have hit 1mm of the stump "IF" ball tracking
> is perfect, the decision of OUT or NOT OUT of On-field umpires would
> have been REVERSED based on CURRENT RULES.

It's not clear to me what you meant by that.

If ball-tracking showed the ball hitting 1mm of the stump, current rules say it would be Umpire's Call and the on-field decision would not be overturned.

If you meant that the outcome would be the opposite of the case where ball-tracking shows the ball missing by 1mm, then yes it would (given the Out decision on-field in my scenario). Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case, if ball-tracking says that the ball would _probably_ have missed the wicket (e.g. 49% chance of hitting), then the result is Not out whatever the on-field decision, whereas if ball-tracking says the ball would _probably_ have hit the wicket (e.g. 51% chance of hitting) AND the on-field decision was Out, then the result will be Out.

> The BEST COURSE of action for ICC is to get rid of umpires calls
> altogether AND simultaneously get the current DRS system IMPROVED in
> terms of technology which they should have done MORE THAN 12 years ago
> because these ball tracking IMPERFECTIONS were KNOWN then itself.

Well, if the ICC call Paul Hawkins and say "we want you to improve HawkEye", he's not likely to be able to say "OK, I'll do it tomorrow", so if you want the two things to happen simultaneously, you have to wait for the improvement and _then_ (when it's ready) get rid of Umpire's Call.