[Cricket] 2019 Cricket World Cup

[Bold Seagull]

What if the umpire gives it, and the review shows it's missing by an inch? They overturn it, they forget all about the margin for error there.

Have they tested the technology where a bowler bowls at the stumps without a batsman, and the recorded data is fed into the computer, but the data for the last yard is withheld, so the program has to work out whether the ball was going to hit the stumps?

They know through testing the margin for error isn't that large, so in your scenario above completely missing, even with margin for error the technology can be trusted. This margin for error is less than half the width of the ball, hence it's umpires call either way if less than half the ball is missing / hitting.

 

[pasty]

OUCH! That's gotta hurt

 

[Taybha]

Bosh

 

[Silverhatch]

**** me - JA is QUICK

 

[Pevenseagull]

Careful now, he supposed to be playing for Sussex later in the month

 

[Bold Seagull]

Better than yesterday by NZ? I'm not watching but yesterday was something else!

Yeah I think so. Reason being so many balls from Woakes and Archer have been wicket taking deliveries. Felt India batted poorly yesterday, but this spell from Woakes and Archer, every ball has had something in it.

 

[Frankie]

Archer will make the ball invisible until it hits the stumps

Beautifully bowled young man x

 

[Triggaaar]

They know through testing the margin for error isn't that large, so in your scenario above completely missing, even with margin for error the technology can be trusted. This margin for error is less than half the width of the ball, hence it's umpires call either way if less than half the ball is missing / hitting.

No, that makes no sense. I said missing by an inch - that is less than half the width of a ball. They will overrule if it might be just missing the stumps (even if it's 1mm), but won't overrule if it's hitting the stumps by an inch.

 

[Triggaaar]

This tournament sees another great catch. This time it's an Aussie catching his own helmet.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No, that makes no sense. I said missing by an inch - that is less than half the width of a ball. They will overrule if it might be just missing the stumps (even if it's 1mm), but won't overrule if it's hitting the stumps by an inch.

Oh god....

 

[pasty]

Come on England. Not got a wicket for 4 overs, what are you messing about at?

 

[Mackenzie]

Brilliant to see England not relenting, not giving the Australians anything. Keep going lads.

 

[GOM]

No, that makes no sense. I said missing by an inch - that is less than half the width of a ball. They will overrule if it might be just missing the stumps (even if it's 1mm), but won't overrule if it's hitting the stumps by an inch.

Scenario 1- Missing by an inch - max margin of error an inch, three possible outcomes. just clips wicket, misses by an inch (no error) or misses by 2 inches. 2 out of 3 not out.

Scenario 2 - Hitting by an inch - max margin of error an inch, three possible outcomes. hits wickets comfortably, hits by an inch (no error) or just misses. 2 out of 3 out.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

No, that makes no sense. I said missing by an inch - that is less than half the width of a ball. They will overrule if it might be just missing the stumps (even if it's 1mm), but won't overrule if it's hitting the stumps by an inch.

You come across so contrary sometimes!

I am not sure which system they are using in this World Cup (Hawk-Eye, Eagle Eye or Virtual Eye) but Hawkeye has been proven to be accurate to 3.6 millimeters or 1% of a stump. They have allowed a little extra to ensure umpires are still essential to the game and also to avoid massive controversy over extremely (e.g. less than 1 or 2 mm) tight margins. The umpires call aspect is about as good an application of technology in sport right now. Not sure what you're really complaining about tbh.

 

[Pantani]

Looks a decent pitch now. Australia will need 270 odd as a minimum for me.

 

[Mackenzie]

Hesgoal has an excellent small river if anyone likes looking at pictures of that sort of thing.

If you know what I mean.

 

[Triggaaar]

Scenario 1- Missing by an inch - max margin of error an inch, three possible outcomes. just clips wicket, misses by an inch (no error) or misses by 2 inches. 2 out of 3 not out.

Scenario 2 - Hitting by an inch - max margin of error an inch, three possible outcomes. hits wickets comfortably, hits by an inch (no error) or just misses. 2 out of 3 out.

Exactly. And in scenario 2, if it's hitting by an inch (2 out of 3 out) and the umpire said not out, it stays as not out despite the technology.

They've decided to weight it in favour of the batsman, and that's fine. But Bold was claiming that the technology can be trusted when it's missing, but not when it's hitting - that makes no sense.

 

[Blackadder]

Hesgoal has an excellent small river if anyone likes looking at pictures of that sort of thing.

If you know what I mean.

Watching the same. It's bordering on a brook.

 

[Stat Brother]

I'm watching via Hindi Star Sports.

I'm not sure I'd wear 'Fogg' deodorant.
But more importantly why does every new car advert (of which there are many) use a red car?


As an aside I do wonder how much Benny Cumberthingy got for less than 2 seconds advertising a new MG?

 

[Easy 10]

I'll mention again, if anyone is sneakily watching at work, the Bet365 site has a live feed (in a small window). I've decided to take the afternoon off, but this'll keep me going. Handy for the in-play odds as well.