Cricket things that annoy you

[Gethelred]

It has improved the game.

When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.

Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.

But that's the problem: it only gets rid of the howler if there are reviews left.

Joel Wilson goes down in history because of a howler of a decision he made with no reviews left turning the result of an Ashes test and thus that specific Ashes series. All because the broadcasters don't need the decisions to be correct; what they need/want is the drama, the tension of waiting for a decision to be handed down, the awfulness of it being now the captain's fault for misusing their reviews earlier, the tragedy that turned a match on its head.

DRS - specifically on LBW's - is a time wasting piece of shit that is built in such a way as to allow the illusion of 'getting it right' when in fact creating heightened drama to sell the sport.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It has improved the game.

When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.

Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.

Cannot agree. It has brought in more controversy we could do without.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I actually like the "retains review" when 1%-50% of the ball is hitting/missing (opposite to umpires decision).

My only issue with DRS (apart from when the 3rd ump gets it wrong!) is the 51% of the ball to overturn a decision. I know this is due to the 'dot' the software uses (then a ball is extrapolated around the dot), but feel at least in Australia we have enough cameras/graphics/data points to narrow the margin considerably, with perhaps 25% or even 10% of the ball hitting being sufficient.

How often do we see someone bowled by hitting the bail or outside edge of the stump? How often are the stumps hit, yet the bails stay on? At the moment, DRS is saying it's 50/50, when it's probably 99% of the time it is out.

 

[PhatBoy]

I actually like the "retains review" when 1%-50% of the ball is hitting/missing (opposite to umpires decision).

My only issue with DRS (apart from when the 3rd ump gets it wrong!) is the 51% of the ball to overturn a decision. I know this is due to the 'dot' the software uses (then a ball is extrapolated around the dot), but feel at least in Australia we have enough cameras/graphics/data points to narrow the margin considerably, with perhaps 25% or even 10% of the ball hitting being sufficient.

How often do we see someone bowled by hitting the bail or outside edge of the stump? How often are the stumps hit, yet the bails stay on? At the moment, DRS is saying it's 50/50, when it's probably 99% of the time it is out.

I understand what you’re trying to say, the relevance to an ACTUAL ball clipping the stumps doesn’t matter though because the Hawkeye projections are all about what Hawkeye says MIGHT happen but acknowledges isn’t certain; so when it says ‘look we think it would probably clip the bails which we know would be out, we also know that the projection is imperfect, THATS why there’s a margin of error.’ But to avoid ONLY batsmen benefitting from that margin of error they have ensured that if the bowler has already had the decision go their way, the decision doesn’t get overturned when the ball is clipping during the batsman’s review.

I think that’s fair enough.

 

[Run n Spread]

Run n spread

I was thinking of having a break but now it's essential I keep posting

 

[Run n Spread]

The umpires call on DRS.
Example a. Jaiswal for one example is hit plumb in front = not out. Australia review. 49% of ball hit. Umpires call due to hawke eye margin for error. Decision remains
B. Boland hit in front. Out . Boland as batsman reviews Hawkeye says ball missing by 1mm Decesion over turned.

Why is umpires call applied for example a but not example b. Shouldn't a of margin of error exist for both scenarios with umpires call? Otherwise ditch it all together.
Another example of obvious bias to batsmen

 

[kickazz]

I understand what you’re trying to say, the relevance to an ACTUAL ball clipping the stumps doesn’t matter though because the Hawkeye projections are all about what Hawkeye says MIGHT happen but acknowledges isn’t certain; so when it says ‘look we think it would probably clip the bails which we know would be out, we also know that the projection is imperfect, THATS why there’s a margin of error.’ But to avoid ONLY batsmen benefitting from that margin of error they have ensured that if the bowler has already had the decision go their way, the decision doesn’t get overturned when the ball is clipping during the batsman’s review.

I think that’s fair enough.

This

 

[big_e]

Cannot agree. It has brought in more controversy we could do without.

Yes, having more incorrect decisions would surely reduce the amount of controversy in the game...

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes, having more incorrect decisions would surely reduce the amount of controversy in the game...

As it is fans get pissed off with what happens. It would at least double

Though for all that, following the nrl there is a case to be made with all the vagaries of the bunker that the old ‘just let the ref make his decision and live with it’ had its place. Rarely did those decisions carry the significant ramifications of cricket decisions though

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, having more incorrect decisions would surely reduce the amount of controversy in the game...

It'd direct that controversy at the quality of international umpiring, as opposed to directing it at and requiring the players to be better umpires than the umpires are.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The umpires call on DRS.
Example a. Jaiswal for one example is hit plumb in front = not out. Australia review. 49% of ball hit. Umpires call due to hawke eye margin for error. Decision remains
B. Boland hit in front. Out . Boland as batsman reviews Hawkeye says ball missing by 1mm Decesion over turned.

Why is umpires call applied for example a but not example b. Shouldn't a of margin of error exist for both scenarios with umpires call? Otherwise ditch it all together.
Another example of obvious bias to batsmen

Boland's ball was "missing" though, so the umpire giving him out on field was a BAD decision. The very "Howler" DRS was brought in for. DRS isn't being relied upon enough.

Outcome of Delivery:
1% of ball Hits = Out.
0% of ball Hits = Not Out.

Outcome of DRS:
51% of ball predicted to Hit = Out, regardless of umpire decision.
1-50% of ball predicted to Hit = Decision reverts to on field Umpire = "Umpires Call"
0% of ball predicted to Hit = Not Out, regardless of umpire decision.

My issue is IMO the 1-50% margin is WAY too large. Personally, I'd prefer to go 100% DRS for all LBWs (no "umpire's call" - it hits or it doesn't), but understand some countries don't want DRS at all (not all countries have the systems in place we do here in Australia) and the 50% rule was a compromise on introduction.

Under test conditions (no batter in place) - DRS trajectory using paused footage at the point of "impact" could be compared to the actual outcome of delivery), the DRS system predicted outcomes with >90% accuracy, ie the "0-50% of ball predicted to hit" category actually hit 90% of the time. Over all decisions (including >51% and <0%) DRS was >99% accurate.

Reduce the DRS margin to 10% - reduces the influence of on-field errors - and I think most people would be happier with the outcome.

 

[western royboy]

The umpires call on DRS.
Example a. Jaiswal for one example is hit plumb in front = not out. Australia review. 49% of ball hit. Umpires call due to hawke eye margin for error. Decision remains
B. Boland hit in front. Out . Boland as batsman reviews Hawkeye says ball missing by 1mm Decesion over turned.

Why is umpires call applied for example a but not example b. Shouldn't a of margin of error exist for both scenarios with umpires call? Otherwise ditch it all together.
Another example of obvious bias to batsmen

Just a minor clarification - if he is hit “plumb” in front, it’s not 49% of the ball it’s all of it.

The Umpire has already adjudicated a benefit of doubt, he is required to run through the laws of the game to arrive at his decision ie. did it pitch outside leg stump? , was the batsman hit in line? Was the batsman playing a shot? Was the ball going on to hit the stumps? Was there any bat involved? If he has doubt he says “Not Out”

 

[sabso]

Joel Wilson goes down in history because of a howler of a decision he made with no reviews left turning the result of an Ashes test and thus that specific Ashes series.

Just accept the moral defeat and move on mate

 

[Dubai Quacker]

The BCCI.

Proof that absolute power corrupts.

And a bunch of egomaniac campaigners to boot.

A stain on the game.

 

[31550]

Boland's ball was "missing" though, so the umpire giving him out on field was a BAD decision. The very "Howler" DRS was brought in for. DRS isn't being relied upon enough.

Outcome of Delivery:
1% of ball Hits = Out.
0% of ball Hits = Not Out.

Outcome of DRS:
51% of ball predicted to Hit = Out, regardless of umpire decision.
1-50% of ball predicted to Hit = Decision reverts to on field Umpire = "Umpires Call"
0% of ball predicted to Hit = Not Out, regardless of umpire decision.

My issue is IMO the 1-50% margin is WAY too large. Personally, I'd prefer to go 100% DRS for all LBWs (no "umpire's call" - it hits or it doesn't), but understand some countries don't want DRS at all (not all countries have the systems in place we do here in Australia) and the 50% rule was a compromise on introduction.

Under test conditions (no batter in place) - DRS trajectory using paused footage at the point of "impact" could be compared to the actual outcome of delivery), the DRS system predicted outcomes with >90% accuracy, ie the "0-50% of ball predicted to hit" category actually hit 90% of the time. Over all decisions (including >51% and <0%) DRS was >99% accurate.

Reduce the DRS margin to 10% - reduces the influence of on-field errors - and I think most people would be happier with the outcome.

Is there an accepted 'accuracy' of DRS ball tracking in terms of the width of a cricket ball at the crease? It seems the administration are assuming it's roughly half a ball width or about 1.4 inches. Is this correct? Not sure why it's the 50% rule.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Is there an accepted 'accuracy' of DRS ball tracking in terms of the width of a cricket ball at the crease? It seems the administration are assuming it's roughly half a ball width or about 1.4 inches. Is this correct? Not sure why it's the 50% rule.

A ball is about 7.2cm diameter (36mm radius)

In the tests they did before it's implementation, they had >90% accuracy (ie ~3mm).

The 50% (35mm) margin was to appease some countries who wanted to rely on umpires instead of (at the time) new technology.

 

[31550]

A ball is about 7.2cm diameter (36mm radius)

In the tests they did before it's implementation, they had >90% accuracy (ie ~3mm).

The 50% (35mm) margin was to appease some countries who wanted to rely on umpires instead of (at the time) new technology.

What is then annoying is that the rule should be at least say 15 or 20% of the ball hitting the stumps. Not 50%.

Another annoying DRS quirk - umpire must make an out/not out 'soft call' in the case of an lbw, but not in the case of a catch - example Kohli 'caught' first ball today. Why insist on a soft call for lbw if the umpire is not sure about the line of the ball?

 

[big_e]

What is then annoying is that the rule should be at least say 15 or 20% of the ball hitting the stumps. Not 50%.

Another annoying DRS quirk - umpire must make an out/not out 'soft call' in the case of an lbw, but not in the case of a catch - example Kohli 'caught' first ball today. Why insist on a soft call for lbw if the umpire is not sure about the line of the ball?

Player review for LBW and an umpire review for a catch are different things, though. The umpire isn't giving a soft signal for LBW, they are making a firm decision.

The soft signal for a catch made the third umpire look for enough evidence to overturn the decision. It's better, IMO, for them to just say "I don't know", as they do with umpire reviews for run outs.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

When people call Steve Smith an amazing slipper when he takes a screamer

No, the guy drops dollies all the time.

Mark Waugh was an amazing slipper (to be fair was brilliant wherever he fielded)
Shane Warne was an amazing slipper
Tubby Taylor was an amazing slipper

I think Steve Smith has been wasted in the slips because he was an excellent ring fielder

Bump

 

[Rabish Binney]

Calling for a change of gloves in the middle of an over (like Jadeja just did).

Absolute stupidity. Good to see the Umps piss the 12th man back to the pavilion.

Actually, the number of times batsman want a change of gloves during a session in general does my frigging head in.

 

[31550]

Calling for a change of gloves in the middle of an over (like Jadeja just did).

Absolute stupidity. Good to see the Umps piss the 12th man back to the pavilion.

Actually, the number of times batsman want a change of gloves during a session in general does my frigging head in.

LOL we have a guy in vets who always puts a spare pair of gloves on the boundary when he bats, and calls for them after about 4 or 5 overs if he's still in. Compulsory retirement at 40.
Geez if I ever last long enough for my gloves to require changing I ain't changing nothin!

 

[Rabish Binney]

LOL we have a guy in vets who always puts a spare pair of gloves on the boundary when he bats, and calls for them after about 4 or 5 overs if he's still in. Compulsory retirement at 40.
Geez if I ever last long enough for my gloves to require changing I ain't changing nothin!

He's watched too much TV.

 

[31550]

He's watched too much TV.

Naah he sweats like a pig but still ...

 

[damochandler]

Australia wasting time

 

[damochandler]

Spreading the field when it’s 10 & 11 at the crease