Calling JFZ, HE rule change

[c***@gmail.com]

Yo JZF,

Have you heard about the rule change where they are going treat HE as unerring?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-sri-lanka-2016/content/story/1024585.html

<Speaking to ESPNcricinfo after the first day's play of the third Test at Lord's, Jayawardene, who attended the latest meeting last week after being appointed to the ICC Cricket Committee in May, revealed that the proposal is to reduce the margin by half. If the change is approved, only 25% of the ball would need to be hitting the stumps in order to overturn an on-field not out decision, instead of the current 50%.>

Wasn't the quoted error in HE supposed to 2.5cm? Given the Stump diameter is 1.5" (4 cm), aren't they going below the error limit with this new ruling?

[jzfredricks]

Yeah, just read it.

They're not really calling it "unerring" though, are they?

There are only 2 quoted Margins of Error for xEye; their own brochure (very old now) said +-5mm (at point of pitching), and +-5mm (at point of impact). The MCC then did some testing, which involved wrapping the stumps in tin foil (I'm not jesting!), and its result was "as low as 3.5mm".

However...

those aren't the MoE *at the stumps*.

The MoE *at the stumps* is COMPOUNDED, as it is based off TWO readings, both of which have errors.

It also depends on two other key factors; the distance of pitching from the stumps, and the distance the ball travels before impacting the pads.

Best case? A short ball (~300cm from stumps), with the batsman basically standing on the stumps. The MoE @ stumps is close to 0.

Worst case? A short ball (~300cm from stumps), with NO travel (essentially a half-volley). The MoE @ stumps for this is about 15cm. Yes, centimeters.

But that's just maths. Who cares about maths?

And it's using xEye's own 5mm MoE. When was the last time someone fibbed in their marketing brochure?

Still.. MIT's review of DRS is coming out this month I think. Can't wait.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by jzfredricks
Yeah, just read it.
They're not really calling it "unerring" though, are they?
There are only 2 quoted Margins of Error for xEye; their own brochure (very old now) said +-5mm (at point of pitching), and +-5mm (at point of impact). The MCC then did some testing, which involved wrapping the stumps in tin foil (I'm not jesting!), and its result was "as low as 3.5mm".
However...
those aren't the MoE *at the stumps*.
The MoE *at the stumps* is COMPOUNDED, as it is based off TWO readings, both of which have errors.
It also depends on two other key factors; the distance of pitching from the stumps, and the distance the ball travels before impacting the pads.
But that's just maths. Who cares about maths?
And it's using xEye's own 5mm MoE. When was the last time someone fibbed in their marketing brochure?
Still.. MIT's review of DRS is coming out this month I think. Can't wait.

What ever happened to the "cambridge" study? That too on all off 14 deliveries?

Guess its time to ping that Ralstan bloke again.

What is the MIT review all about? If this supposed to be an actual experimental study to see if Xeye perform as advertised ro another lab simulation?

[jzfredricks]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by jzfredricks
Yeah, just read it.
They're not really calling it "unerring" though, are they?
There are only 2 quoted Margins of Error for xEye; their own brochure (very old now) said +-5mm (at point of pitching), and +-5mm (at point of impact). The MCC then did some testing, which involved wrapping the stumps in tin foil (I'm not jesting!), and its result was "as low as 3.5mm".
However...
those aren't the MoE *at the stumps*.
The MoE *at the stumps* is COMPOUNDED, as it is based off TWO readings, both of which have errors.
It also depends on two other key factors; the distance of pitching from the stumps, and the distance the ball travels before impacting the pads.
But that's just maths. Who cares about maths?
And it's using xEye's own 5mm MoE. When was the last time someone fibbed in their marketing brochure?
Still.. MIT's review of DRS is coming out this month I think. Can't wait.

What ever happened to the "cambridge" study? That too on all off 14 deliveries?

If it's the study I'm thinking of, it didn't attempt to work out the mathematical accuracy.

Post by c***@gmail.com
Guess its time to ping that Ralstan bloke again.

Who?

Post by c***@gmail.com
What is the MIT review all about? If this supposed to be an actual experimental study to see if Xeye perform as advertised ro another lab simulation?

HOPEFULLY it's looking at 2 things;
1) the accuracy of the readings and prediction
2) the DRS regulations

Re the latter: I'd like them to say "we've proven the MoE @ stumps is greatly variable, but the current regulations assume it is static, this could lead to problems" etc.

[c***@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 9:58:22 PM UTC-7, jzfredricks wrote:
The MCC then did some testing, which involved wrapping the stumps in tin foil (I'm not jesting!), and its result was "as low as 3.5mm".
Are you jesting about the tinfoil part or about the MCC testing part? LOL.

[jzfredricks]

Post by jzfredricks
The MCC then did some testing, which involved wrapping the stumps in tin foil (I'm not jesting!), and its result was "as low as 3.5mm".
Are you jesting about the tinfoil part or about the MCC testing part? LOL.

I've never been more serious.
Mike defended this, of course.

[jzfredricks]

See attached image of the issue that will remain even if they change it from "50% of ball, 50% of stump" to "25% of ball, 50% of stump".

The real issue here is explaining to people that they use the MIDDLE of the stump! Fans will see the ball projection touching other parts of the stump, too.

BTW, I have no good solution to this issue. If we can't teach paid cricket commentators about DRS, how will we teach the billions of fans?

http://imgur.com/ZqfqotW

[jzfredricks]

One of the big issues could be the graphics.

Fans are seeing the xEye prediction hitting the stumps, and Not Outs aren't being over-turned, and they're asking why.

Today's DRS regs are a bit worse than "50%", though. To overturn a Not Out, DRS must show "the middle of the ball hitting (inside) the MIDDLE of the stump" (we'll ignore height).

In my words; 50% of the ball hitting 50% of the stump.

Why is this bad? Worst case is 49% of the ball is hitting 50% of the stump. This will remain NOT OUT.
What does the fan see, though? They see 65%, roughly, of the ball hitting PART of the stump (~4.5cm of the ball, that is, touching the stump) and it's STILL not enough to over turn the decision?

That just leads to a lack of confidence in the system.