No referrals in India-South Africa series

[Sachinism]

Calling upon the Boss to define just how quickly a 'blue moon' comes around. No comment either on Bowden screwing us over numerous times in the past, or Brian Jerling with his ignorance of the LBW law in the West Indies, or Ashocka de Silva, etc?

Or Taufel in England Or Dharmasena getting a hat-trick vs Tendulkar

[thevortex]

Calling upon the Boss to define just how quickly a 'blue moon' comes around. No comment either on Bowden screwing us over numerous times in the past, or Brian Jerling with his ignorance of the LBW law in the West Indies, or Ashocka de Silva, etc?

Indiividual umpires have given wrong decisions at various points of time. It is not that these have all been directed at India all the time, right?

Or Taufel in England Or Dharmasena getting a hat-trick vs Tendulkar

I really do consider Taufel to be the best umpire - ever. And Hawkeye can never hope to match his intuition. His being young truly is a blessing to the game we so much covet. ________ HairySexyStud live

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

hmmm is that why you wrote approvingly of SCG 2008 in the article section? Anyone going thru that article would be forgiven to think that there was no hanky-panky going on in that match ....

Bossbhai - did you read my rejoinder to your point on the Sydney Test match? I have written a separate article on the shameful events in that Test match separately. That article was supposed to be an ode to Laxman - period. Hope this helps.

Does it ever occur to you (forget the eXperts who have vested interests ) that if you diss Hawkeye you are ridiculing SCience and laws of Physics because that is what it is grounded on .... and at the same time honouring such rascals as Bucknor, Bowden , Jerling , Hair, Harper etc .... ?

Science? How so, Bossbhai? Do you have access to any independent testing data of the error coefficients and accuracy of the Hawkeye system? In my opinion, laws of physics is beyond Hawkeye and its reconstructed/predicted path. It does not seem to understand that. Not in tennis and not in cricket. That said, in tournaments like the Australian open which take place indoor, Hawkeye does not seem to have too much of a problem. Come Wimbledon we shall again see. I think if the French Open uses Hawkeye that will thoroughly expose the technology. I am waiting for that. Lastly I have no problem when talking about the mediocrity - perceived or otherwise - of umpires. But I dont believe that any of these have vested interests. Talk of racism/vested interests - Chris Broad is your man. None other. :) ________ Weed bowls

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

yes I did but you completely miss the point .... which I shall repeat again is that ... you dont simply talk in glowing terms about such matches. It simply sends a clear and unmistakable message that you dont really mind getting sccrewed in that fashion.

Well, Bossbhai - I saw linings of silver even in that match. I dont think it is for anybody to say that one should not talk in glowing terms about the match as a whole. Lets diss the bad parts but lets also look at the good ones (whatever is left ) and praise them with gusto. In this we may differ, but that is OK.

not right now but I dont think that is needed (but it can be obtained ) ... consider this : The hawkeye technology is the same one that is used in the military (infact it was developed in the US military I think) . Next point is Cricinfo paid millions of dollars to acquire the Hawk eye technology and no-one in their right mind will pay that kind of money without having made some due-dilligence ? Next is the series of tests that were conducted by the tennis association where they subjected it to stringent tests to determine its accuracy before making it the official. You must be quite naive to think that Hawkeye could get to where it is without having been put thru the scanner.

For one moment, lets get away from the patronizing. Do we have independently verifiable accuracy and error coefficients for the technology? Lets focus on the question. Next - lets ask this question. Is this technology really developed by the military? How come there is a private UK company claiming credit for that? And even if it was developed by the military are they now using it in any form or fashion? And next, Hawkeye is part of Wisden just the same as Cricinfo. And lets get this. Wisden is a business. Business interests need not be the sports' interests. Not all the time. I am sure you understand. Hawkeye is a great coffee table tool. Something that can be used as a conversation starter for the weaker commentators. But something on which to base a decision at the highest level. I guess not. Not on the evidence so far. By the way this is the thought that a lot of players and commentators also share. I am sure you would have already read quite a few articles and interviews on Cricinfo on this subject. Leave alone me being naive. Hawkeye being used is making a lot of us passionate fans naive. And the players too. How many of us knew that as of Nov 2008 ICC had allowed the replay of the predicted path (as provided by Hawkeye) to be used in umpiring decisions? On what basis was that decision taken? What overruled the earlier wisdom that wanted only the tracking aspect and not the prediction aspect to be made available to the umpires? Do think about these factors for a minute.

And may I ask you to provide some evidence where Hawkeye was responsible for a Bucknoresque error ? Aus have now played 6 test matches and 4 ODIs in the past 2 months with this system .... could you show me one single episode where Hawkeye did a major boo-boo ?

I did provide one example in my article 'Stop this nonsense'. If I have to write about each one of these gaffes, I might develop high blood pressure :). But seriously, dont tell me,Bossbhai that you did not see questionable presentations from Hawkeye. You seem to be a veteran cricket fan and I am sure you would not have missed the erroneous presentations from Hawkeye.

All these soo called experts have to be politically correct when talking about umpires .... even while Bucknor was wrecking that test match Channel 9 spared no efforts to keep reminding us how good he was/is ..... you will get a different opinion if you talk to them privately. The Bozos even had the gall to come up with a Tea time show on how the umpiring "evens out" in the next test match after Billy bowden gave one single wrong decision favouring India ..... Truth is they never even out .... they simply add up.

Rest assured, I am not being politically correct. I am not good at that sort of thing. I also happen to believe that evening out is not a great thing. At least not if it is done consciously. But the whole point is that cricket is not about millimetres. It never was, it is not presently. And hopefully if Hawkeye does not thrust its neck into the mix, it may not ever be. Millimetres are the province of statistics and numbers, they dont belong on the cricket field. If it is a question of millimetres, then it is a question of doubt and that goes to the batsman. Yes, that is not a rule. Just a tradition. A sound tradition too. I get the feeling that owing to the bowler-unfriendly nature of today's tracks, people are looking at the benefit of doubt to the batsman aspect in the wrong way. Lets improve the tracks to give the bowlers chances. An approach to take a call on marginal decisions in the bowling side's favour may not be the best thing to happen to the game. Even bowlers may not see eye to eye with that. :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

For those of you who have been posting long winded posts. Here is something long winded to reead http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/UDRS%281%29.pdf I expect thevortex's blood pressure to go up a bit on the UDRS issue after reading this:winky: Some quotes

Under the existing protocol a ball has to be hitting the stumps by aprox 4.5cm to be definitely given out (assuming other elements are OK). This inner zone of the stumps – the “zone of certainty” is not there to account for inaccuracies in Hawk-Eye. Hawk- Eye is much more accurate than that, and I invite any sceptic to come and see how Hawk-Eye works before disagreeing. From independent tests conducted, pitching and interception points had an error of 2.6mm. The prediction was under 1cm in almost all cases. In the “extreme” cases where a batsmen is a long way down the wicket, or there is little data post bounce it would be under 2cm. Having a zone of certainty is there to maintain some of the art of umpiring and hence ensure that the use technology doesn’t change the fabric of the game. The ICC, and in particular David Richardson, have done a good job in listening to feedback and responding to issues which have arisen. The improvement in the protocol is a testament to that. The ICC meet again in May, when the topic will be discussed. Below is a list of issues which they may consider: On field call area Extend the “on field call” area beyond the stumps. This would enable an OUT decision to remain as OUT if Hawk-Eye shows it just missing the stumps. I think England assigned more “annoyed points” when Swann’s successful LBW appeal to Morkel was over turned than South Africa would have done if the original decision was upheld. Equally the North decision in Australia. Jonathan Agnew suggested it should be extended above the stumps and to the off side, but not the leg side. One can understand the justification, but try explaining the reason to an American! Losing a review Should a fielding side lose a review when Hawk-Eye returns an answer of “on field call” ie they were correct to review, just not correct enough? Sex it up “Sex up” the review system by giving it a better name and showing the process on the big screen in the ground. Hawk-Eye has added an extra element of drama and entertainment to tennis, which cricket doesn’t currently have. What is there to hide? A 3rd umpire shouldn’t be influenced by crowd noise any more than a standing umpire or a TMO in rugby, where the replays are shown on the big screen. Carry over unused reviews Limit the number of unsuccessful reviews per innings, but allow any unused reviews from the 1st innings to be carried over to the 2nd. This prevents pointless reviews when sides are 9 wickets down. Time taken to make a review It is clear teams are already waiting for a signal from the dressing room. Some people think that this acceptable, but the majority appear to feel that this is wrong. On an operational level, the review process can be sped up. For example, it is not necessary to show 4 replays trying to determine if there has been an inside edge on a LBW appeal, if Hawk-Eye is available and is going to show a NOT OUT decision. Communication Communication of the review protocol so cricket fans fully understand it and the reasons for the decisions made. Currently I haven’t seen a good explanation on any cricket website and many of the arguments against the referral system are made by people who don’t understand it. Sponsor Finding a sponsor. Tennis now makes money from Hawk-Eye, and for the referral system to be viable long term, it can not be a drain on financial resources or entirely reliant on the broadcasters. Take in to account the reason for the initial decision The existing protocol is exposed to many annoyed points in the scenario when a batsman goes back to a ball which keeps a bit low and is clearly going on to hit the top of middle. The standing umpire gives a NOT OUT decision only because he thinks there has been an inside edge. The TV replays show conclusively that it was pad first, but the NOT OUT decision remains because the ball was hitting the stumps just above the zone of certainty

[cowboysfan]

On field call area Extend the “on field call” area beyond the stumps. This would enable an OUT decision to remain as OUT if Hawk-Eye shows it just missing the stumps. I think England assigned more “annoyed points” when Swann’s successful LBW appeal to Morkel was over turned than South Africa would have done if the original decision was upheld. Equally the North decision in Australia. Jonathan Agnew suggested it should be extended above the stumps and to the off side, but not the leg side. One can understand the justification, but try explaining the reason to an American! ----------------------------------- this will further complicate and annoy viewers while seemingly trying to placate the players.

[thevortex]

If you refering to the "howler" in the main article ... that is not really a "bucknoresque" howler at all .... to which you agreed later. Unless you are talking about something else. Will respond later to the other points in your previous post.

Bucknoresque howler or not, I am at least glad you are saying it is a howler! :)

[thevortex]

For those of you who have been posting long winded posts. Here is something long winded to reead http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/UDRS%281%29.pdf I expect thevortex's blood pressure to go up a bit on the UDRS issue after reading this:winky: Some quotes

And why would that happen, kpsrinivasan? I mean, the blood pressure :) There is nothing concrete in that article you linked upto. By the way who is the author of that particular interesting article? Tell me, do you believe that Hawkeye is accurate enough so that umpires can give a batsman out if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the top of the stumps (in its predicted path). If that is the way cricket is headed, I will be saddened.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

And why would that happen' date= kpsrinivasan? I mean, the blood pressure :) There is nothing concrete in that article you linked upto. By the way who is the author of that particular interesting article? Tell me, do you believe that Hawkeye is accurate enough so that umpires can give a batsman out if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the top of the stumps (in its predicted path). If that is the way cricket is headed, I will be saddened.

because they want to do everything that you are suggesting shouldn't be done:) The truth is I don't know whether Hawkeye is accurate enough just as much I assume that you don't know whether it is not. Since neither of us have seen independent research confirming whether it is or not, we are both going by assumption. I will take your point that the Benefit of Doubt should go the batsman and I still believe that it holds true even with Hawk-eye. Let me try and illustrate with an example. Pre-UDRS Scenario1 Ball pitches in line, it is clipping the off stump or clipping the bails. An on-field umpire A would rule it out because he thinks the ball may be clipping the off stump or the bails. Another on-field umpire B would rule it not out because he thinks the ball may be missing the off stump or going above the stumps. Most batsmen/ bowler would not complian about the decision and accept it either way. No body would call it a howler. These are 50-50 decisions and might go either way. Scenario 2 Ball pitches outside leg stump, hits the pad, umpire makes a mistake gives it out. That is a howler and there is nothing the batsmen can do or ball pitch in line with the leg stump, umpire thinks other wise and gives it not out. Nothing the bowler can do. Now that is a howler. Post-UDRS Ball pitches in line, it is clipping the off stump or clipping the bails. An on-field umpire A would rule it out because he thinks the ball may be clipping the off stump or the bails. Another on-field umpire B would rule it not out because he thinks the ball may be missing the off stump or going above the stumps. Batsman / Bowler calls for Review. Third Umpire looks at Hawk-eye and tells the onfield umpire, Hawk-eye predicts that the ball may clip the off stump or clip the bails. can't be 100% sure about it, whatever decision you have made based on your judgement is correct, so stick with it. Umpire A will still say it is out & Umpire B will still say it is not. Most batsmen / bowler will still accept and move on.No body would still call it a howler. These are 50-50 decisions and might go either way. Scenario 2 Ball pitches outside leg stump, hits the pad, umpire makes a mistake gives it out. That is a howler and the batsmen can reviw and hawke-eye will tell you where the ball pitched. 3rd umpire tells on-filed umpire ball pitched outside leg stump, so it is not out.or ball pitches in line with the leg stump, umpire thinks other wise and gives it not out. Again bowler reviews and gets the right decision. Now that is a howler eradicated..

[thevortex]

As I said in that thread .. its not a howler to which you agreed. if there was anything "howling" it was the interpretation or the lack of it that was done by the umpires. I fail to see what wrong Hawkeye did .

I did mention this in the article itself though I did not linger on it. That ball was going above the stumps - easily. Hawkeye had it depicted as the ball clipping the top of the bails. I know my claim is subjective.But do tell me this - have you never felt this way about Hawkeye's results? Especially when it comes to brushing the leg stump and clipping the bails?

[thevortex]

because they want to do everything that you are suggesting shouldn't be done:) The truth is I don't know whether Hawkeye is accurate enough just as much I assume that you don't know whether it is not. Since neither of us have seen independent research confirming whether it is or not, we are both going by assumption. I will take your point that the Benefit of Doubt should go the batsman and I still believe that it holds true even with Hawk-eye. Let me try and illustrate with an example. Pre-UDRS Scenario1 Ball pitches in line, it is clipping the off stump or clipping the bails. An on-field umpire A would rule it out because he thinks the ball may be clipping the off stump or the bails. Another on-field umpire B would rule it not out because he thinks the ball may be missing the off stump or going above the stumps. Most batsmen/ bowler would not complian about the decision and accept it either way. No body would call it a howler. These are 50-50 decisions and might go either way. Scenario 2 Ball pitches outside leg stump, hits the pad, umpire makes a mistake gives it out. That is a howler and there is nothing the batsmen can do or ball pitch in line with the leg stump, umpire thinks other wise and gives it not out. Nothing the bowler can do. Now that is a howler. Post-UDRS Ball pitches in line, it is clipping the off stump or clipping the bails. An on-field umpire A would rule it out because he thinks the ball may be clipping the off stump or the bails. Another on-field umpire B would rule it not out because he thinks the ball may be missing the off stump or going above the stumps. Batsman / Bowler calls for Review. Third Umpire looks at Hawk-eye and tells the onfield umpire, Hawk-eye predicts that the ball may clip the off stump or clip the bails. can't be 100% sure about it, whatever decision you have made based on your judgement is correct, so stick with it. Umpire A will still say it is out & Umpire B will still say it is not. Most batsmen / bowler will still accept and move on.No body would still call it a howler. These are 50-50 decisions and might go either way. Scenario 2 Ball pitches outside leg stump, hits the pad, umpire makes a mistake gives it out. That is a howler and the batsmen can reviw and hawke-eye will tell you where the ball pitched. 3rd umpire tells on-filed umpire ball pitched outside leg stump, so it is not out.or ball pitches in line with the leg stump, umpire thinks other wise and gives it not out. Again bowler reviews and gets the right decision. Now that is a howler eradicated..

kpsrinivasan - appreciate the effort put in for the examples and scenarios and all. Let me throw out a thought here. If you were to use Hawkeye, the decision on whether the ball pitched in line or not is determined thus - more than half the ball (or is it at least half the ball) must pitch in the green section - that is the line of the stumps. Do you see where Hawkeye's error coefficient can play havoc with this? Now this comes even before discussing whether the ball hits the wicket or not. Next - lets take the first scenario. If the ball was really (and this is a key word) clipping the wickets according to the umpires then 9 times out of 10 they will not rule it out. That is how the game has worked. Only when the umpire is certain, he is supposed to give it out. Not even when there is a smidgen of doubt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, you see :). Forget Hawkeye showing the ball clipping the stumps - that is a scenario that is not even worth discussing because the system is just not that accurate in my opinion. Although it is not always wrong, I have seen it being very wrong in certain scenarios. Exaggerated spin/seam/swing movement or the ball pitching a touch closer to the batsman are example scenarios where Hawkeye really lets it go. Lastly consider this. There are the group of people who are hollering for Hawkeye to be implemented. At the other end there is a group which is not convinced. Now I would venture to say that is the duty of the first group to provide absolute verifiable (independently) data on the accuracy or lack thereof of Hawkeye. Dont you think so? I dont think that the fact that second group does not have measurable data should be an excuse for Hawkeye to be used at the highest level of the game. After all not for nothing are a lot of players and a whole lot of officials/commentators can be wrong all at the same time and all on the same subject. Can they?

[thevortex]

We shouldnt blame the umpires for any bad decisions against our batsmen. It's a shame really not to see UDRS being used for tests played by India. I am sure the player's opinion is also playing an important role in this and therefore if at all these same players suffer due to poor umpiring , they shouldn't moan about it.

Fair enough view, saneindian.

[Gunner_Mania]

Next - lets take the first scenario. If the ball was really (and this is a key word) clipping the wickets according to the umpires then 9 times out of 10 they will not rule it out. That is how the game has worked. Only when the umpire is certain, he is supposed to give it out. Not even when there is a smidgen of doubt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, you see :).

I don't know who is being obtuse, no offense - You or me. Surely one of us is not getting through to the other. If the on field-umpire gives it 9 times out of 10 not out as you say and if the batsmen reviews it, unless it is a howler where the ball is hitting the stumps fully not a part of it or is pitched in line fully not just a part of the ball, the third umpire is going to say to the on-filed, just that, according to hawk-eye only a part of the ball is pitching in line or may hit it and the on-field umpire is just going to say, that is not convincing enough for me so it stays not out. Isn't that exactly how you want it? If you are telling me that a ball that Hawkeye predicts is hitting the middle of middle-stump shouldn't be relied upon because it is got whatever percentage of millimeiter error and if on that delivery an umpire makes a Bucknorusque howler and that should be accepted, sorry thats just not on. I mean at the end of the day the decision is still in the hands of the on-field umpire. When he gives out, it means he doesn't have a doubt whether that is 1 out of 10 times or 9 out of 10 times. This is a human making a judgement no Hawkeye involved. He thinks the ball is hitting the stumps. Now if Hawkeye's predicted path says that 50% of the ball is hitting or 50% of the ball is pitching and all those things, it doen't matter coz if there is a doubt on Hawkeye's predicitive path the onfield umpire's decision - made by a human without technology intervention - stays which is what you want and which is what is happening.

[thevortex]

I don't know who is being obtuse, no offense - You or me. Surely one of us is not getting through to the other. If the on field-umpire gives it 9 times out of 10 not out as you say and if the batsmen reviews it, unless it is a howler where the ball is hitting the stumps fully not a part of it or is pitched in line fully not just a part of the ball, the third umpire is going to say to the on-filed, just that, according to hawk-eye only a part of the ball is pitching in line or may hit it and the on-field umpire is just going to say, that is not convincing enough for me so it stays not out. Isn't that exactly how you want it? If you are telling me that a ball that Hawkeye predicts is hitting the middle of middle-stump shouldn't be relied upon because it is got whatever percentage of millimeiter error and if on that delivery an umpire makes a Bucknorusque howler and that should be accepted, sorry thats just not on. I mean at the end of the day the decision is still in the hands of the on-field umpire. When he gives out, it means he doesn't have a doubt whether that is 1 out of 10 times or 9 out of 10 times. This is a human making a judgement no Hawkeye involved. He thinks the ball is hitting the stumps. Now if Hawkeye's predicted path says that 50% of the ball is hitting or 50% of the ball is pitching and all those things, it doen't matter coz if there is a doubt on Hawkeye's predicitive path the onfield umpire's decision - made by a human without technology intervention - stays which is what you want and which is what is happening.

Well, kpsrinivasan - any obtuseness, if you do sense that from my side is certainly not deliberate. :) Let me try one more time to get my point across. Are you sure that the 3rd umpire is actually conveying the information of the ball only partly hitting the top of the bails to the on field umpire? And are you sure that it is the on field umpire's decision finally? My understanding is that the moment there is a review, it is the 3rd umpire's decision - which I do not agree with in principle. Lastly, if the 3rd umpire does get back to the onfield umpire and tells him that the ball is only kissing the top of the bails and snicking the leg stump in passing and that it is upto him, I expect the umpire in this case to deliver the decision as not out. If the on field umpire - after knowing all this and if the decision is still in his hands - rules it out, then yes that is a human howler. In this case, kpsrinivasan, to the point of sounding like a parrot, the ball would in no way have hit the stumps (I am talking about the Strauss incident I wrote about). But Hawkeye showed it kissing the top of the bails. Yes, I do not have measurements. But if you had viewed the dismissal in slow motion replays, I am sure you would have noticed that. My point is not about Hawkeye showing the ball hitting the middle of middle stump. If that is about what the technology can do, then what is the point? A decision-making tool which in itself is not reliable will not improve decision making. And forget the point of impact and the predicted path. Think of how accurate Hawkeye would be when it comes to judging whether half or more than half of the ball is pitching in line. I, for one, am not convinced.

[Gunner_Mania]

Well, kpsrinivasan - any obtuseness, if you do sense that from my side is certainly not deliberate. :) Let me try one more time to get my point across. Are you sure that the 3rd umpire is actually conveying the information of the ball only partly hitting the top of the bails to the on field umpire? And are you sure that it is the on field umpire's decision finally? My understanding is that the moment there is a review, it is the 3rd umpire's decision - which I do not agree with in principle.

Absolutely. The 3rd umpire does not make a decision. He just conveys what hawk eye shows him and it is the on field umpire that makes the decision.