https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241

TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”

They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".

On 13/03/2022 06:13, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241
>
> TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”
>
> They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".

Did he or Katich say that they would be happy if the on-field umpire
gave the batsman out and the decision was overturned despite DRS showing
(less than half of) the ball hitting the wicket?

--
David North

On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 7:40:42 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 06:13, jack fredricks wrote:
> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241
> >
> > TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”
> >
> > They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".
> Did he or Katich say that they would be happy if the on-field umpire
> gave the batsman out and the decision was overturned despite DRS showing
> (less than half of) the ball hitting the wicket?

I inferred from this single line quote what I said - they (like me), don't like 2 identical deliveries resulting in 2 different DRS results (based purely on the on-field call).

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 09:40:39 +0000, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 13/03/2022 06:13, jack fredricks wrote:
> >> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241
> >>
> >> TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”
> >>
> >> They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".
> The doubt does not exist in the umpire's mind: the doubt is held by
> the player(s). I see no reason to interpret *players'* doubt one way
> or the other as "not out".

That's the biggest bit of bullshit I've read. And RH posts daily.

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
> conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong.

Yes, and that should change. There is no need to give bias to the original decision.

DRS should be about getting correct decisions.

On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:40:48 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
> > conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong.
> Yes, and that should change. There is no need to give bias to the original decision.
>
> DRS should be about getting correct decisions.

'umpires call' basically admits that the technology ATM isnt accurate enough to determine
close LBW decisions [its usually those] any better than the umpire.

mike

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:37:16 AM UTC+10, mike wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:40:48 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
> > > conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong.
> > Yes, and that should change. There is no need to give bias to the original decision.
> >
> > DRS should be about getting correct decisions.
> 'umpires call' basically admits that the technology ATM isnt accurate enough to determine
> close LBW decisions [its usually those] any better than the umpire.

I have no idea where you get the "any better than the umpire" part from.
The definition of "ump's call" is arbitrary, and not based on testing of the average elite umpire nor the umpire making the original call.

But all of that doesn't matter.

Fans and commentators see two seemingly identical deliveries, and there are two different DRS results (one Out, one Not Out).
They see their favourite batsman get out when only a sliver of the ball is projected to be hitting the stumps, and he's Out.
Then they see the best batman on the opposite team get given Not Out when half the ball is hitting the stumps.

All of this leads to distrust in the DRS.

What for? So that we can continue to make the on-field umpires feel special?

It would be far better to have CONSISTENT DRS results.

On 13/03/2022 15:21, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 09:40:39 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2022 06:13, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241
>>>
>>> TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”
>>>
>>> They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".
>
> The doubt does not exist in the umpire's mind: the doubt is held by
> the player(s). I see no reason to interpret *players'* doubt one way
> or the other as "not out".

The "doubt" in this case is in the ball-tracking result.

>> Did he or Katich say that they would be happy if the on-field umpire
>> gave the batsman out and the decision was overturned despite DRS showing
>> (less than half of) the ball hitting the wicket?
>
> The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
> conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong. If there
> isn't conclusive evidence, then the original call stands.

Agreed

> Umpire's
> call is the technology saying that although it's possible the umpire
> was wrong, it is more likely than not that he was right.

I think I only agree with that in the case of an "out" decision by the
on-field umpire. In the case of a "not out", DRS suggests that he was
more likely than not wrong, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

--
David North

In message <7488b2ab-68f7-4c1a-a452-e70b8989a242n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:40:48 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:21:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
>> > conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong.
>> Yes, and that should change. There is no need to give bias to the
>>original decision.
>>
>> DRS should be about getting correct decisions.
>
>'umpires call' basically admits that the technology ATM isnt accurate
>enough to determine
>close LBW decisions [its usually those] any better than the umpire.
>
>mike

I'm not sure that there's any way to determine just how accurate it is.
I suspect that the current position owes more to a wish not to undermine
the authority of the umpires too much than to anything else. Even if the
technology is less than perfect, I feel that it's still more accurate
than almost all - possibly all - umpires.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:29:44 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> Even if the
> technology is less than perfect, I feel that it's still more accurate
> than almost all - possibly all - umpires.

I believe everyone, even the luddites, think this.
My beef is the *inconsistent* results.
2 identical deliveries, 2 different final DRS results.
Sliver of ball hitting == Out
Half of ball hitting == Not Out

On 14/03/2022 09:44, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:16:35 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2022 15:21, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> The technological review is to find out if there is enough evidence to
>>> conclusively prove that the original decision was wrong. If there
>>> isn't conclusive evidence, then the original call stands.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>>> Umpire's
>>> call is the technology saying that although it's possible the umpire
>>> was wrong, it is more likely than not that he was right.
>>
>> I think I only agree with that in the case of an "out" decision by the
>> on-field umpire. In the case of a "not out", DRS suggests that he was
>> more likely than not wrong, but not beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out). To take a
> near-limit case, if the cone of possible positions for the ball
> overlaps the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, it's umpire's call.

No, because DRS doesn't show the cone of possible positions; it shows
one possible position, which is in the centre of the cone. For the cone
to overlap the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, DRS must show the ball missing the
wicket, assuming that the radius of the cone is more than 0.5mm greater
than that of the ball.

If DRS shows the ball overlapping, say, the leg stump by 0.5mm halfway
up (so we can be sure that it wasn't too high), then the probability
that the ball would have hit the wicket is slightly more than 50%,
because the actual trajectory could have been any distance (within
reason) in the direction of middle stump and still hit the wicket, and
it could also have been up to 0.5mm further away from middle stump and
still hit the wicket.

--
David North

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> To take a
> near-limit case, if the cone of possible positions for the ball
> overlaps the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, it's umpire's call.

That's not a "near limit case".

A near limit case is a combination of margin of error readings , with a small distance between both (pitching, impact).
As the distance approaches zero, the mathematical margin of error at the stumps approaches infinity.
This is why the DRS reg do, or did, mention "extreme" deliveries - defined as less than 40cm between pitching and impact. IIRC.

On Sunday, 13 March 2022 at 21:39:08 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 7:40:42 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co..uk wrote:
> > On 13/03/2022 06:13, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-vs-pakistan-second-test-day-2-live-pakistan-hits-back-at-claims-of-negativity/news-story/a5af5c0a54ee2f6d29ad24c16e62e241
> > >
> > > TV commentator Mike Haysman said: “It doesn’t seem right to me that the same ball can be either out or not out based on the original call at the speed of light.”
> > >
> > > They should just hurry up and change the regs to "doubt" (currently named umpire's call) == "not out".
> > Did he or Katich say that they would be happy if the on-field umpire
> > gave the batsman out and the decision was overturned despite DRS showing
> > (less than half of) the ball hitting the wicket?
> I inferred from this single line quote what I said - they (like me), don't like 2 identical deliveries resulting in 2 different DRS results (based purely on the on-field call).

Yes, I got that. What I was wondering was whether they would agree with your solution.

If the system is to be changed to one where (at least in the case of LBW), the on-field umpire's decision is completely disregarded once it is reviewed (and personally, I don't mind either way about that), then I suspect that the solution that would result in the fewest complaints would be the one where it's out if DRS shows any part of the ball hitting the wicket (if impact is in line, etc), and it's not out if it doesn't.
--
David North

On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 09:22:50 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > To take a
> > near-limit case, if the cone of possible positions for the ball
> > overlaps the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, it's umpire's call.
> That's not a "near limit case".

It is; it's just that the limit that Mike was referring to (i.e. the minimum non-zero intersection between the cone of possible positions of the ball and the wicket) was not the same one that you were thinking of. There are numerous limits of different kinds involved in a DRS decision.

> A near limit case is a combination of margin of error readings , with a small distance between both (pitching, impact).
> As the distance approaches zero, the mathematical margin of error at the stumps approaches infinity.
> This is why the DRS reg do, or did, mention "extreme" deliveries - defined as less than 40cm between pitching and impact. IIRC.

--
David North

On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 21:55:37 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:29:44 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > Even if the
> > technology is less than perfect, I feel that it's still more accurate
> > than almost all - possibly all - umpires.
> I believe everyone, even the luddites, think this.
> My beef is the *inconsistent* results.
> 2 identical deliveries, 2 different final DRS results.

Who says that the 2 deliveries were identical - ball-tracking? There's a margin of error, so maybe they weren't actually identical, and that's why the umpire gave one out and the other not out.
--
David North

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 11:23:22 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co..uk wrote:
> > I inferred from this single line quote what I said - they (like me), don't like 2 identical deliveries resulting in 2 different DRS results (based purely on the on-field call).
> Yes, I got that. What I was wondering was whether they would agree with your solution.
>
> If the system is to be changed to one where (at least in the case of LBW), the on-field umpire's decision is completely disregarded once it is reviewed (and personally, I don't mind either way about that), then I suspect that the solution that would result in the fewest complaints would be the one where it's out if DRS shows any part of the ball hitting the wicket (if impact is in line, etc), and it's not out if it doesn't.

I think this would result in too many dismissals, and would quickly change.

I like the "50% of the ball" threshold. It "feels" fairest.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 11:57:22 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 21:55:37 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:29:44 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> > > Even if the
> > > technology is less than perfect, I feel that it's still more accurate
> > > than almost all - possibly all - umpires.
> > I believe everyone, even the luddites, think this.
> > My beef is the *inconsistent* results.
> > 2 identical deliveries, 2 different final DRS results.
> Who says that the 2 deliveries were identical - ball-tracking? There's a margin of error, so maybe they weren't actually identical, and that's why the umpire gave one out and the other not out.

Does it matter?
We KNOW in theory this is possible.
I don't think it should be possible in theory.

We know in reality that DRS *does* result in this;
sliver of ball hitting == Out
half of ball hitting == Not Out
(in some circumstances).

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out).

This drivel again.

For how long now has cricket had an umpiring foundation of "if there's doubt, not out"? 100 years? More?

An umpire can give it not out if there's doubt. This doesn't mean he thinks it would have missed.

On 15/03/2022 15:18, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 07:12:48 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/2022 09:44, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
>>> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out). To take a
>>> near-limit case, if the cone of possible positions for the ball
>>> overlaps the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, it's umpire's call.
>>
>> No, because DRS doesn't show the cone of possible positions; it shows
>> one possible position, which is in the centre of the cone. For the cone
>> to overlap the stumps/bails by 0.5mm, DRS must show the ball missing the
>> wicket, assuming that the radius of the cone is more than 0.5mm greater
>> than that of the ball.
>
> Thanks for the correction - my understanding had been slightly
> different.
>
> We know that the limits of the technology mean, for instance, that it
> cannot always be resolved whether or not a batter was in his ground
> when the bails were broken because of the interval between frames. I'd
> suggest that whichever bit of audio/video recording/AI prediction
> you're talking about, there will be cases which cannot be definitively
> resolved one way or the other because the precise event isn't captured
> but has to be inferred from discrete measurements either side.
>
> To take a fairly obvious example, consider a Test being played at the
> Basin Reserve with crosswinds gusting to 60mph. In such conditions, it
> is entirely likely that DRS will make identical predictions which
> would have had different results in reality because of the swirling
> wind. All right, most Tests aren't played in violently windy
> conditions. But how do you codify what counts as conditions too
> difficult for the technology to resolve and how do you decide on
> whether it was 0.1mph above or below the wind speed limit?
>
> And we now have the further complication that the zinger bails in use
> are heavier than the old ones, with the consequence that there are
> more instances of the ball clipping a stump without the bails falling,
> so there's a question of whether *any* predicted contact between ball
> and wicket should be given out by default, because that doesn't match
> the known physical world.

Well, it's not as if that's the only difference between the LBW law
(which, of course, only requires that the ball would have hit the
wicket) and what might have happened but for the interception, e.g. a
batsman can be bowled off an inside edge or by a ball pitching outside
leg stump.

> If in such cases we are not going to defer to the onfield umpire's
> decision, then what? Wouldn't equity require a different default
> (out/not out) depending on the alleged mode of dismissal and in which
> direction the relevant object was moving in relation to the line of
> decision? And how often do we have to revisit the regulations each
> time one of the measuring devices achieves an increase in resolution?

I think that question arises with the current system as well. The limits
of "umpire's call" have changed since it was introduced, and in the case
of where the ball pitched, "umpire's call" was eliminated (although
whether those changes were because of improvements in the technology was
not clear).

> I don't see a way of being 100% sure 100% of the time. It follows that
> there will be the occasional injustice *whatever* ultimate authority
> you decide to adopt.
>
> My conclusion is that deferring to the onfield umpire is as equitable
> as any other practical scheme one can devise, and comes without the
> disadvantage of reducing the onfield umpiress status as arbiters.

I can't say that I find arguments about the umpires' status/authority
very persuasive. As I think I have said before, they are there for the
benefit of the game, not the other way round (and, btw, DRS has
increased the number of umpires required).

One obvious advantage of not deferring to the on-field umpire is that
the technology is far less open to accusations of bias (although the
human inputs to it and interpretation of it are not immune), and cannot
possibly be influenced by such things as how loudly or how often the
fielding side appeal.

--
David North

On 15/03/2022 21:43, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
>> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out).
>
> This drivel again.
>
> For how long now has cricket had an umpiring foundation of "if there's doubt, not out"? 100 years? More?
>
> An umpire can give it not out if there's doubt. This doesn't mean he thinks it would have missed.

Fair point, which I must admit I forgot (maybe because I was in a hurry
when I posted).

I'll revise my statement to 'In the case of a "not out", DRS [showing
"umpire's call"] suggests that he was more likely than not either wrong
or uncertain, but not beyond reasonable doubt.'

--
David North

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 7:43:35 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 21:43, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
> >> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out).
> >
> > This drivel again.
> >
> > For how long now has cricket had an umpiring foundation of "if there's doubt, not out"? 100 years? More?
> >
> > An umpire can give it not out if there's doubt. This doesn't mean he thinks it would have missed.
> Fair point, which I must admit I forgot (maybe because I was in a hurry
> when I posted).

My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
For a decade or more now MH has refused to concede that umpires can be in a state of doubt w.r.t parts of the LBW decision.
He insists only 2 states of mind exists; umpire is "certain it was hitting" (or pitched inline etc), or "certain it was missing".

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:39:59 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 7:43:35 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > On 15/03/2022 21:43, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > >> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
> > >> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out).
> > >
> > > This drivel again.
> > >
> > > For how long now has cricket had an umpiring foundation of "if there's doubt, not out"? 100 years? More?
> > >
> > > An umpire can give it not out if there's doubt. This doesn't mean he thinks it would have missed.
> > Fair point, which I must admit I forgot (maybe because I was in a hurry
> > when I posted).
> My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
> For a decade or more now MH has refused to concede that umpires can be in a state of doubt w.r.t parts of the LBW decision.
> He insists only 2 states of mind exists; umpire is "certain it was hitting" (or pitched inline etc), or "certain it was missing".

How about you stop trying to guess other people's thoughts?
Because you're shit at it

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:17:45 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For a decade or more now MH has refused to concede that umpires can be in a state of doubt w.r.t parts of the LBW decision.
> > He insists only 2 states of mind exists; umpire is "certain it was hitting" (or pitched inline etc), or "certain it was missing".
> How about you stop trying to guess other people's thoughts?
No guess needed. We've been discussing this for a decade, as mentioned.

On 15/03/2022 21:37, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 11:23:22 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> I inferred from this single line quote what I said - they (like me), don't like 2 identical deliveries resulting in 2 different DRS results (based purely on the on-field call).
>> Yes, I got that. What I was wondering was whether they would agree with your solution.
>>
>> If the system is to be changed to one where (at least in the case of LBW), the on-field umpire's decision is completely disregarded once it is reviewed (and personally, I don't mind either way about that), then I suspect that the solution that would result in the fewest complaints would be the one where it's out if DRS shows any part of the ball hitting the wicket (if impact is in line, etc), and it's not out if it doesn't.
>
> I think this would result in too many dismissals, and would quickly change.
>
> I like the "50% of the ball" threshold. It "feels" fairest.

Do you think there are too many dismissals already? Your proposal would
obviously reduce the number. It could also encourage more pad play, as
it would effectively make the wicket about 6.2 inches wide, rather than
9, and 1.4 inches shorter, for LBW.

--
David North

On 16/03/2022 23:39, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 7:43:35 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 15/03/2022 21:43, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> If the umpire gives "not out", he thinks it would have missed (or it
>>>> pitched or impacted in the appropriate place for a not out).
>>>
>>> This drivel again.
>>>
>>> For how long now has cricket had an umpiring foundation of "if there's doubt, not out"? 100 years? More?
>>>
>>> An umpire can give it not out if there's doubt. This doesn't mean he thinks it would have missed.
>> Fair point, which I must admit I forgot (maybe because I was in a hurry
>> when I posted).
>
> My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
> For a decade or more now MH has refused to concede that umpires can be in a state of doubt w.r.t parts of the LBW decision.
> He insists only 2 states of mind exists; umpire is "certain it was hitting" (or pitched inline etc), or "certain it was missing".

I can't say that I recall that.

--
David North