The Ashes 2019

[planetgeli]

Ben Stokes’s rampage should not be sullied with a judgmental asterisk | Rob Smyth

Rob Smyth, one of the best cricket writers there is, questions veracity of Hawk-Eye.

Stokes did not think it was out anyway. “DRS has got that completely wrong,” he said after the game. “It flicked my front pad first and didn’t spin. I thought as soon as it hit me it was sliding down. I still can’t believe it was three reds.”

Stokes’s argument becomes more persuasive with each look at the replay. It seems, at least to this untrained eye, that the ball-tracking technology missed the deflection off Stokes’s front pad and thus followed an incorrect trajectory from when the ball hit his back pad. The correct trajectory may have been hitting the stumps anyway, although it looks more likely that it would at most have been umpire’s call or even missing leg stump, in which case Stokes would have survived. The sense of confusion was compounded by the fact the graphic wrongly said “Original decision: out”. So much for there being no grey areas with technology.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ben Stokes’s rampage should not be sullied with a judgmental asterisk | Rob Smyth

Rob Smyth, one of the best cricket writers there is, questions veracity of Hawk-Eye.

Yeah, it did seem to show the ball curving inwards, which would suggest to me that it's picked up extra unintended information, such as from a flick on the pad. From what I could tell, just looking at the tv replays, it straightened at best, and I think Stokes may have a point here. If so, the real-time impression that it was leg-side-ish was right.

It's not the first time Hawkeye has come up with something that looks radically different from the naked-eye impression. Doesn't mean it's wrong necessarily, but for that to be hitting middle and leg is a surprise after first viewing. It wasn't an obvious one you'd refer even, in the normal course of a game. Definitely not an obvious howler.

While I've head lots of Aussies being very gracious about this, the Aus press has been wading in against Wilson over his decision. I think Wilson is a terrible umpire, but the stick over this is wrong.

 

[ignatious]

There does seem to be a discrepancy between the ball’s actual and expected lines of travel.

In real time there was very little distance between the ball hitting the wicket and the ball hitting the batsman. Certainly room for doubt, particularly with a spinner, so you’d have to say it was the correct decision.

In any case it shouldn’t detract from an epic innings and match. There really is nothing like Test cricket for producing that sort of drama.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Comment from the owner of HotSpot under that Guardian article sheds more light on this, explaining how mistakes can happen. It also explains why the visual appears to have the ball pitching further in front of the point of impact than it appeared in real time.

As owner of the Hot Spot system for Cricket I can tell you I have seen this happen many times before with the ball tracking where the ball-on-pad projection point is miscalculated. For example, Stokes may have gotten a very faint touch on the front pad and then a much more definitive touch on the back pad as well. If the ball tracking operator fails to see the front pad contact and uses the back pad as contact point then the physics of making the correct decision can be severely affected. The reason I know this is that our side on Hot Spot cameras pick up these ball-on-pad contacts extremely well (PLEASE NOTE...I have said many times before online and in the media that Hot Spot is not perfect particularly outside edges on fast bowlers when the batsmen is swinging the bat very quickly) but in this case the Hot Spot is the best reference tool to pickup ball-on-pad contact.

We go through a process with the ball tracking operator to advise them of where the first ball-on-pad contact is made so he can plot this correctly. I know that this sort of potential incident does not happen in Australia and New Zealand international Cricket because we provide Hot Spot in those two countries. Unfortunately, we weren't at Headingley for the 3rd test the other day as the host broadcaster for the series hasn't used Hot Spot on their Cricket broadcasts for the past 3 seasons.

Some people will chastise me and say it's just sour grapes that I am making these comments in a public forum and in these cases they most likely won't even entertain the comments I have made. For others hopefully this has given them some valuable information.

Regards
Warren Brennan
BBG Sports

So the Hawkeye people have to be told exactly what point the ball hit the pad, and then make their calculations from there. This point has to be identified manually, and it was done in this case visually by a human being first, and this is clearly a point at which errors can occur. And an error did occur here, it seems. This doesn't matter much except going forwards and trusting future reviews that look at odds with the naked-eye impression. Hawkeye probably need to do a bit of analysis for themselves and own up if they got it wrong.

 

[Idaho]

I don't really care about the odd wonky decision - adds to the drama.

Don't really see the point in trying to justify this one now. It wasn't as if any test win is possible without a few favourable decisions.

 

[Pink Panther]

So the Hawkeye people have to be told exactly what point the ball hit the pad, and then make their calculations from there. This point has to be identified manually, and it was done in this case visually by a human being first, and this is clearly a point at which errors can occur. And an error did occur here, it seems. This doesn't matter much except going forwards and trusting future reviews that look at odds with the naked-eye impression. Hawkeye probably need to do a bit of analysis for themselves and own up if they got it wrong.

I had no idea there was this level of human input into each Hawkeye decision. This makes some decisions potentially less reliable than an umpire's decision. I thought it was obvious the ball hit Stokes's front pad. It never even occurred to me the path of the ball was predicated on the ball having hit his back pad.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't really care about the odd wonky decision - adds to the drama.

Don't really see the point in trying to justify this one now. It wasn't as if any test win is possible without a few favourable decisions.

For me it's not about justfying the decision. In real time, I didn't think it was a howler, whatever Hawkeye said afterwards, and Aus had burned their review very foolishly so that was that.

But I didn't know there was this amount of scope for error in ball tracking. It's instructive for the future, imo. It's not the first time Hawkeye has shown something that doesn't look right. Where technology is involved we all have a tendency to doubt ourselves rather than the tech. But there may be reasons to doubt the tech here.

 

[a_chap]

And still, not even a squeak from Fez909 OTP

Shockingly bad form.

 

[strung out]

I don't really care about the odd wonky decision - adds to the drama.

Don't really see the point in trying to justify this one now. It wasn't as if any test win is possible without a few favourable decisions.

I think I care about it because if Australia hadn't burned their review, then it's possible that technology would have been used to make an incorrect decision, that was originally correct.

I agree about the drama aspect, but if you're going to have the technology, it needs to get the decisions right, especially when it's reversing an on-field decision.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think I care about it because if Australia hadn't burned their review, then it's possible that technology would have been used to make an incorrect decision, that was originally correct.

I agree about the drama aspect, but if you're going to have the technology, it needs to get the decisions right, especially when it's reversing an on-field decision.

And to be fair to Joel Wilson, while he had a shocker at Edgbaston, he actually did well in this match. 7-1 in his favour in DRS decisions - that's pretty good.

 

[planetgeli]

This was a good few years ago now but I'll never forget one ball tracking that was shown (It wasn't a review) where an off break was turned into a leg break. The commentator passed it off with "well that must have been the wrong ball" but the 'right' ball was never shown or found.

I've always been a bit dubious of it since then. Anyone who watches regular TV cricket must have noticed quite high incidences where experts, those who've played the game, express surprise at the tracking of some balls. They are particularly noticeable on height.

I think the system is far from fallible and hope, without much expectation, this incident might lead to, erm, a review of the technology.

 

[Teaboy]

I think it's probably under constant review anyway.

I agree that it does sometimes give slightly odd results but the principle still remains that it is there for the obvious umpiring mistake not for every decision. Hopefully they'll learn from this but I do think ultimately we get more correct decisions with it rather than the days before it.

I know its a classic dismissal for right armed an off spinner go around the wicket to a left handed batsman but when its pitching on middle and leg or even leg it really has to spin a long way back from that angle. It seems fairly understandable why the umpire didn't give it. In fairness Paine and the Oz players haven't really made much of a scene. This is why we have reviews and why they should never be thrown away just because you're desperate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it's probably under constant review anyway.

I agree that it does sometimes give slightly odd results but the principle still remains that it is there for the obvious umpiring mistake not for every decision. Hopefully they'll learn from this but I do think ultimately we get more correct decisions with it rather than the days before it.

I know its a classic dismissal for right armed an off spinner go around the wicket to a left handed batsman but when its pitching on middle and leg or even leg it really has to spin a long way back from that angle. It seems fairly understandable why the umpire didn't give it. In fairness Paine and the Oz players haven't really made much of a scene. This is why we have reviews and why they should never be thrown away just because you're desperate.

The Aus players and coaches and the Aus pundits working over here have all been very good about it. That's in marked contrast to much of the Aus press, which has been acting as if this decision invalided the result. Really really poor. They should be embarrassed for coming out with such drivel.

 

[Teaboy]

Anyway, fantastic performance by Stokes, out of this world really. You hear a lot about executing a plan whilst under pressure and that's exactly what Stokes did and in fairness I though Leach kept his nerve well (with the exception of the near run out. The routine (theatre?) of cleaning his glasses showed that he wasn't leaving anything to chance and he was really focused on the task in hand.

Generally it was good to see a bit more backbone from the batters but there is still some serious worries across the board. Anyway I think I'l enjoy this for the time being.

 

[Teaboy]

I'm really gutted for Nathan Lyon that it was off his bowling that the LBW was turned down and they didn't have a review left. Plus it was his mistake at the run out as well. He's always seemed like such a nice chap it'd be a shame if they just played re-runs of that missed run out on the big screens at the next match.

 

[Idaho]

Really really poor. They should be embarrassed for coming out with such drivel.

Quite happy for them to scrape the bottom of the excuses barrel

 

[Casual Observer]

In theory, Hawkeye will either dramatically improve or be replaced in the next few years (for cricket anyway). Kookaburra are developing a ball with a microchip inside it that will be able to send all sorts of new information to DRS (and to our pals at Cricviz and elsewhere). Maybe they can also develop a ball that stays harder and keeps a prouder seem for longer.

Interesting what the bloke from Hot Spot said about Sky not using them for the past 3 seasons. I'm pretty sure the Sky commentators still refer to it as Hot Spot. They definitely don't call it Snicko.

 

[planetgeli]

Interesting what the bloke from Hot Spot said about Sky not using them for the past 3 seasons. I'm pretty sure the Sky commentators still refer to it as Hot Spot. They definitely don't call it Snicko.

Fairly sure they call it Ultra Edge. That being what it's called.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fairly sure they call it Ultra Edge. That being what it's called.

That's the snicko equivalent. Works on sound. Hotspot works on heat.

Eta: and sorry I think you know that reading back.

 

[Teaboy]

Hotspot was used a fair bit in England when it used to take too long to set up snicko / ultra edge. We had that Ashes series over here where it was shown to be fallible (as the guy acknowledges) to a very fine swishing edge. Now they can tee up snicko / ultra edge quicker Sky must have decided there is no need for hot spot. The guy's argument seems a fair one that under certain circumstances hotspot can be useful.

One thing we can probably all agree on is that Cricket technology is light years ahead of the never ending mess that is VAR.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

One thing we can probably all agree on is that Cricket technology is light years ahead of the never ending mess that is VAR.

Yes definitely. I think a big part of the reason is that cricket has managed to accept a degree of subjectivity even around supposedly objective decisions, while football is busily tying itself in knots and working up a rage trying to produce correct decisions where there are inevitably grey areas. Can you imagine the fuss round the football equivalent of the LBW?

 

[Idaho]

I think we are starting to see diminishing returns with the technology. Teams are already having to develop strategies to work with it. Umpires are doubting themselves.

I do think we should move the no ball line to a computer umpire though. Meat umpire can keep his/her eyes forward.

 

[Teaboy]

I do think we should move the no ball line to a computer umpire though. Meat umpire can keep his/her eyes forward.

Assuming the technology is there then I would agree.

 

[Casual Observer]

Assuming the technology is there then I would agree.

I would assume the technology is already available. Hawkeye, themselves, use something similar for tennis.

 

[Part-timah]

I'm really gutted for Nathan Lyon that it was off his bowling that the LBW was turned down and they didn't have a review left. Plus it was his mistake at the run out as well. He's always seemed like such a nice chap it'd be a shame if they just played re-runs of that missed run out on the big screens at the next match.

Yea, that’d be awful.

 

[Teaboy]

oneharoldbishop rides again!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think we are starting to see diminishing returns with the technology. Teams are already having to develop strategies to work with it. Umpires are doubting themselves.

I do think we should move the no ball line to a computer umpire though. Meat umpire can keep his/her eyes forward.

Or just the third ump, who basically does fuck all at the moment for most of the day. Can sit there with an eye on the relevant screen, has a thing to buzz the on-field ump when they see a no-ball. I wouldn't want an age taken over close calls where nothing else happened, though, so the third ump just calls clear ones, and intervenes over close ones only when there's a wicket.

With the drs tech, I actually think they have things pretty much right. Two reviews but keeping your umpire's call is a decent balance. Too many batsmen call for lbw reviews still when they know they're probably out, but that damages their team more than anything. My only problem with drs is my suspicion of the fallibility of hawkeye, tbh, although it's still probably right enough of the time to make it worthwhile. We got the right decision by accident in this match. Thank fuck Wilson gave it not out. Also, good umpiring gets reinforced by drs. It's only bad umpires that end up being undermined. And they have finally worked out how to use cameras for catches - there was a period there when a bunch of perfectly great catches were given not out.

 

[a_chap]

There's no download option, so I've spent today listening to and recording the whole of the fourth day of the third Ashes match.

The ebb and flow of that day makes the result even more satisfying. Much, much better than simply listening to the highlights or the last half-hour...

 

[Teaboy]

The aussies play a 3 day tour match against Derbyshire today. Looks like they are opening with Harris and Khawaja in what they oz press are billing as a shoot out for who opens with Warner in the next test. Would seem a bit harsh on Harris if they only give him one test.

Labuschagne bats at 3 for Queensland so they are keen for him to bat there to reinforce the top 3. I dunno, Khawaja has had a poor series but I think he should have more credit in the bank than the likes of Head and Wade plus he is batting at 3 and coming in early against the new ball in tough conditions. For my mind they should drop Wade, well actually they should drop Paine but that's not going to happen.

 

[Mogden]

I wanted to go and watch it as I'm local but I'm already busy with something I can't get out of. Gutted cos I suspect it'll be an interesting game.