General Cricket (not the chirpy kind) Discussion Thread

[Cyborg Holland]

COME ON!

[Chelta]

Now Australia just need to get an unassailable lead by posting 600. Clarke is due for another 200, and Watson, Warner, Rogers and Smith all 100's.

If only...

I knew it, I jinxed Australia with this post.

[Apox]

If they're going to keep DRS, they need to do away with this "umpire's call" rubbish.

DRS is meant to be an aid for umpires, not the final arbitrator.

I think they should just get rid of the DRS...

[Nimzonia]

If they're going to keep DRS, they need to do away with this "umpire's call" rubbish.

DRS is meant to be an aid for umpires, not the final arbitrator.

That's the problem with it. It's totally ridiculous that a given delivery could be out or not out depending on which side is reviewing.

[Liventia]

DRS is meant to be an aid for umpires, not the final arbitrator.

I think they should just get rid of the DRS...

I don't think the majority would agree. The problem is with the people using the DRS, not the DRS itself (HotSpot aside).

[Nimzonia]

For fuck's sake England, can we have just one over without a boundary?

[AiliailiA]

BTW, Rogers has tape on one edge of his bat: the outside edge. As Pietersen pointed out, why put tape where it could save you from an LBW decision?

Bat-then-pad is usually the inside edge. Caught-behind is usually the outside edge.

If they're going to keep DRS, they need to do away with this "umpire's call" rubbish.

I don't think so. That assumes that the hawkeye projection of the ball trajectory is infallible, which it isn't.

If hawkeye showes the ball pitching outside the line of the leg stump, then hawkeye is right. That corresponds directly with cameras sighted along the pitch, and is an actual observation of where the ball was when it first hit the pitch.

Everything after the ball hits pad (or bat, or body) is a projection: a computer estimate of where the ball should have gone. Requiring a margin of certainly of half the ball's width, for that estimate to over-rule the on-field umpire, seems to me like reasonable caution regarding the technology.

[Liventia]

Everything after the ball hits pad (or bat, or body) is a projection: a computer estimate of where the ball should have gone. Requiring a margin of certainly of half the ball's width, for that estimate to over-rule the on-field umpire, seems to me like reasonable caution regarding the technology.

I agree, though I also think that teams should not lose reviews if it's an umpire's call.

[AiliailiA]

Everything after the ball hits pad (or bat, or body) is a projection: a computer estimate of where the ball should have gone. Requiring a margin of certainly of half the ball's width, for that estimate to over-rule the on-field umpire, seems to me like reasonable caution regarding the technology.

I agree, though I also think that teams should not lose reviews if it's an umpire's call.

But would have been out if the initial decision was out and the review was from the other team?

Yes, I agree with that.

[Nimzonia]

I don't think so. That assumes that the hawkeye projection of the ball trajectory is infallible, which it isn't.

I think it's slightly less fallible than the on field umpire.

[I V Stalin]

If they're going to keep DRS, they need to do away with this "umpire's call" rubbish.

I don't think so. That assumes that the hawkeye projection of the ball trajectory is infallible, which it isn't.

There's also something like a 3mm margin of error with Hawkeye in tennis, where they're showing the "actual" spot where the ball landed. So, yeah, in the 1-2 metres that Hawkeye would be projecting the position of the ball to be, half a ball's width (that's what? 8cm?) as a margin of error makes sense.

Anyway.

Could be an England first innings lead here. Maybe.

[Nimzonia]

Could be an England first innings lead here. Maybe.

It will depend if England can tighten up their bowling a bit. There has been one bad ball an over for the Aussies to put away, so they haven't been under any pressure.

[AiliailiA]

I don't think so. That assumes that the hawkeye projection of the ball trajectory is infallible, which it isn't.

I think it's slightly less fallible than the on field umpire.

Well you want figures on that before proposing to have projections of "just nicking the stumps" like that Rogers one, to over-rule the on-field umpire.

An important concept in "margin of error" is deciding first how much certainty one wants. Since DRS, onfield dismissal decisions have been 90% accurate ... is that good enough for reviews? Or 95%? 98% or 99%? The more certain we want to be that the overrule decision is right, the wider the margin of error -- in millimetres -- for hawkeye will be.

I don't think so. That assumes that the hawkeye projection of the ball trajectory is infallible, which it isn't.

There's also something like a 3mm margin of error with Hawkeye in tennis, where they're showing the "actual" spot where the ball landed. So, yeah, in the 1-2 metres that Hawkeye would be projecting the position of the ball to be, half a ball's width (that's what? 8cm?) as a margin of error makes sense.

Interesting. I'd forgotten about tennis; I think Hawkeye started there.

Anyway.

Could be an England first innings lead here. Maybe.

Quite possible. 75-3 isn't terrible but the card looks bad!

[Nimzonia]

Since DRS, onfield dismissal decisions have been 90% accurate ... is that good enough for reviews?

Is that 90% of reviewed decisions, or 90% of all decisions? Because most dismissals are fairly straightforward and don't need to be reviewed (e.g. pretty much all bowled dismissals).

I read somewhere that 25-30% of reviews resulted in an on field decision being overturned.

[Nimzonia]

Trott is on, so England's fightback is well and truly over. Australia to get a decent first innings lead, I'd wager.

[Liventia]

Top knock, Bucky!

[Nimzonia]

Rogers should have been playing for Australia for years. Even if he only plays another year or so, he'll probably end up with more test hundreds than Shane Watson.

[AiliailiA]

Bollocks. I mean, bad light stops play.

[Nimzonia]

I guess all three results are still possible, but I'd put money on England failing to reach 200 in their second innings.

[Liventia]

Chris Rogers' 50s and 100s in first-class cricket this season:
Notts — Trent Bridge — 50
Notts — Trent Bridge — 51*
Surrey — Lord's — 214
Somerset — Taunton — 57
Durham — Emirates Durham ICG — 54
Sussex — Lord's — 184
England — Trent Bridge — 52
England — Old Trafford — 84
England — Emirates Durham ICG — 101*

There's a pattern here… another Rogers 50 or 100 at the Oval in the last Test?

[Liventia]

Women's Ashes, only Test at Wormsley: Australia Women won the toss and have elected to bat.

Early strike for England, Rachael Haynes bowled by Anya Shrubsole for 10. Aus 17/1.

[Nimzonia]

Aussies are 7 down, so now the real batting begins.

[Liventia]

Root fails again.

[Nimzonia]

Root fails again.

To be fair, it was a good ball, but I still think he needs to go back to 6.

[Liventia]

This is becoming a familiar script – England top order collapse.