The stump camera and associated software cannot give correct decision. The software traces the ball after it hits the ground and extrapolate the path of the ball to see if it would have hit the stump or not. However, in doing so there is an inherent assumption that the ball will take the projected path. What is the reliability of this assumption? The ball could have deviated because of various reasons such as, whether the seam of the ball hit the ground or not, whether there was wind blowing across the pitch or not, and many other factors. Does the software take care of all these factors? I don't think so. Is the software as sophisticated as NASA's software which tracks satellite around earth or find the path of a probe sent to Mars? I don't think so. It is a so called "BLACK BOX". Let the software manufacturer provides us with the source code and let us evaluate the reliability of the software.
Re: DRS decision and accuracy
by Syz on Jun 15, 2011 04:26 AM
I do not know whether the manufacturer of the software ever evaluated the performance of the software under actual condition. That is, whether they have thrown the ball and calculated the projected path and then compared with the actual path. Have they done that? If so, how many times the projected path matched with the predicted path? Is there 100% reliability? It is impossible to have 100% reliability; even 95% is very tough to achieve. They need to provide us with such information, which we call performance evaluation.
i do agree my english is damn poor.. but, i dont still could get into some dilemma regarding tremletts views. in first he says it is very "accurate and fair" and then the aricle says Tremlett "can't understand why as the ICC recommends its usage in all big matches' what those two statements of him make of it?
The third umpire who actually gives the verdict is always from the home country or host country and as India saw to its horror when it used DRS in srilanka.. the third umpire ruled in favour of the home team wherever the benefit of doubt is involved... it is this human element involved that makes it dubious...
The third umpire who actually gives the verdict is always from the home country or host country and as India saw to its horror when it used DRS in srilanka.. the third umpire ruled in favour of the home team wherever the benefit of doubt is involved... it is this human element involved that makes it dubious...
Re: umpire involved
by Gopi on Jun 15, 2011 04:09 AM
this reasoning is excellent. i was wondering why and thought DRS was fool-proof. well this explains that DRS is not idiot-proof!
I think the BCCI is shooting itself in the foot by rejecting the DRS. Firstly, over the last few years India has been more often than not been at the wrong end of some dubious umpiring decisions. DRS would help st this right. Secondly, India, as the worlds no 1 cricketing nation must show the aptitude to embrace technology which will make things better, if not perfect, for the game. The problem lies, I think, with these Rajiv Shukla types at the helm of affairs in the BCCI who know nothing and claim to know it all.
I don't think India will object to DRS if so called predictive technology is removed.
Let DRS be confined to whether ball pitched in line, hit in line, whether there was a snick (hot spot is good), whether ball hit bat first or pad, etc, etc.
Basically DRS should be confined to facts. Let the umpire judge whether it would hit the stumps, etc.
