A good idea - that the ‘umpire’s call’ zone should be wider for height than it should be for line, since the ball-tracking estimate is less confident about height than it is for line - has lost.
2. If the projection improves based on the no. of frames, shouldn't the "zone" of umpires call be variable and not constant? For example, if the error for a projection is say 20% of the ball radius, shouldn't a 40% impact be also considered "hitting"?
3. Why do we have umpire's call on impact? How does it differ from line calls in tennis?
Nice analysis!
I have a few questions though:
1. Why is the height estimation less accurate?
2. If the projection improves based on the no. of frames, shouldn't the "zone" of umpires call be variable and not constant? For example, if the error for a projection is say 20% of the ball radius, shouldn't a 40% impact be also considered "hitting"?
3. Why do we have umpire's call on impact? How does it differ from line calls in tennis?
IT won't get revisited. Favoring bowlers = more chances of wickets = more results in tests instead of draw matches