No referrals in India-South Africa series

[thevortex]

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.

How do you conclude that? Do we know whether the on field umpire is simply conveying the signals for the 3rd umpire's decision? After all that is what happens when the 3rd umpire is involved in a run out decision.

[Gunner_Mania]

How do you conclude that? Do we know whether the on field umpire is simply conveying the signals for the 3rd umpire's decision? After all that is what happens when the 3rd umpire is involved in a run out decision.

because the Sky commentators here were saying the conversation that was taking place between the 3rd umpire and the on field umpire as they could also hear it in their ear pieces.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid29318049001?bctid=61983907001 I don't know if you can watch this video. It might be only for UK viewers. It is the one with the Strauss dismissal, highlights from Sky. The commentators also think that the ball is going high, but the onfield umpire has given it as out because he thinks that there is no doubt the ball will hit the stumps. After the Hawk-eye, the commentators say that the decision will remain with the on field umpire i.e. whatever decision he made stays, he doesn't have to change it.

[thevortex]

because the Sky commentators here were saying the conversation that was taking place between the 3rd umpire and the on field umpire as they could also hear it in their ear pieces.

Now, that is another mess altogether. I dont get why commentators should get to hear what the decision makers are discussing about. That apart until we have official confirmation of this intricate yet essential decision taking maneuver I am not sure we can say 100% that this is what is happening.

This is a well known thingy ...which has been mentioned during the Pak-Nz, Aus-WI, Aus-Pak test series by the commentators .... the 3rd ump tells the onfield umpire what hawkeye came-up with and the rule is that if it was brushing the stumps whatever was the original decision ... it stays. run out is a totally different animal (though it shouldnt be).

Now, that to me also does not make sense. If the ball only brushes the stumps, why exactly would the original decision stay? So, in that case, they are saying ignore Hawkeye? Help me understand how this works please. But kpsrinivasan and Bossbhai if the decision does rest with the on field umpire I will be very happy. That is how I see UDRS working - empowering the onfield umpire, rather than doing anything else.

[thevortex]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid29318049001?bctid=61983907001 I don't know if you can watch this video. It might be only for UK viewers. It is the one with the Strauss dismissal, highlights from Sky. The commentators also think that the ball is going high, but the onfield umpire has given it as out because he thinks that there is no doubt the ball will hit the stumps. After the Hawk-eye, the commentators say that the decision will remain with the on field umpire i.e. whatever decision he made stays, he doesn't have to change it.

Thank you kpsrinivasan. I could not watch the video. But tell me are you happy with that reasoning?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

Now' date=' that is another mess altogether. I dont get why commentators should get to hear what the decision makers are discussing about. That apart until we have official confirmation of this intricate yet essential decision taking maneuver I am not sure we can say 100% that this is what is happening.[/quote'] I am on a limb out here, but I think it must have come about due to the UDRS howlers without Hawek-eye predicted path in the WI-Eng last summer. The commentators were going ballistic, although decisions were against Eng, so I can understand that part, but a big fuss was being made about what went on between the umpires. Now this is pure speculation on my part.

The communication between on-field umpires and the 3rd umpire is being provided by the umpires’ communication system. This mono audio feed should be made available to the outdoor broadcast so that it can be fed to the commentators during reviews.

This is from the ICC http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_39EFCA4C7A2F335D543EF937F162F837_1257924435584_10.pdf

Now, that to me also does not make sense. If the ball only brushes the stumps, why exactly would the original decision stay? So, in that case, they are saying ignore Hawkeye? Help me understand how this works please.

Thats the whole point I've been trying to help you understand all along:P, because it means Hawk-eye cannot conclusively prove the onfield umpire wrong. so whatever he thought was the right decision will stay - whether it be Out or Not. It is a 50-50 decision and it rests with the umpire. This was the point I made earlier with my scenarios & pre and Post UDRS post.

[thevortex]

kpsrinivasan - I think Bossbhai understood my point about the Hawkeye benefit of doubt part better. :) My point guys does not lie in technicalities. Nor in millimetres. My point lies in the logic of absolutely trusting a 'mathematically reconstructed' path provided by a third party software without independently verifying its veracity, accuracy and effectiveness. I think on that point we have agreed as much as we three ever will :). Enjoyed discussing this with both of you. Incidentally I do not seem to have as much of a problem with Hotspot or Snicko as with Hawkeye. Do you perchance feel that way?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Thats just your wishfull thinking ... because I cant possibly imagine how you can think that ICC would allow Hawkeye such importance without being certain of its accuracy .. especially given how most administrators are old fuddy duddies who are loath to change .... just because the data is not readily available doesnt mean that there is no data.

Bossbhai - there is no point in me being wishful in this matter. You speak as if I have some former enmity with Hawkeye and its promoters! :) If there is data on that subject then it is bound to show why Hawkeye is wrong in many cases. By the way are you telling me that you agree with what Hawkeye shows all the time as far as the ball path is concerned? Simply put you are ready to blindly believe in the ICC. To me as an avid and passionate cricket lover, the ICC has given no evidence of being well organized, structured and logical about its decisions till date. And David Richardson spewing out percentages does not mean that that is the very essence of truth. Not for me at any rate.

[thevortex]

http://tvnz.co.nz/cricket-news/hawk-eye-inventor-defends-technology-3336134

I have read this article before in a different publication though. Seriously what would you expect from its inventor? Further denigration? He is bound to defend it!

[Gunner_Mania]

kpsrinivasan - I think Bossbhai understood my point about the Hawkeye benefit of doubt part better. :) My point guys does not lie in technicalities. Nor in millimetres. My point lies in the logic of absolutely trusting a 'mathematically reconstructed' path provided by a third party software without independently verifying its veracity, accuracy and effectiveness. I think on that point we have agreed as much as we three ever will :). Enjoyed discussing this with both of you. Incidentally I do not seem to have as much of a problem with Hotspot or Snicko as with Hawkeye. Do you perchance feel that way?

I think I understand your point as well. To put simply, you are happy to use Hawk-eye provided there is independent verification and confirmation of it being 100% accurate. which it doesn't seem to be at the moment. My view is I will take a 99.6 or 4% accurate Hawk-eye with the proviso that for the part where there is the error / element of doubt, the decision rests with the on-field umpire. This comes back to the point where the decision is marginal the 50-50s in other words, the human element of umpiring is retained and that is the way it is now implemented. On-field umpire makes a decision without Hawk-eye's assistance. If reviewed and Hawk-eye cannot prove beyond doubt that the umpire is made an error of judgement then the call remains with the umpire. I don't believe that is a change from what existed in the game forever and most players would take it without grumbling. Where I do see hawk-eye being useful is like I said in an earlier argument, when Hawk-eye shows a ball is hitting the middle of the stump and for whatever reason the umpire as failed to see it, that should be able to be overturned. Unless you think Hawk-eye is completely rubbish and it's predicted path is absolutely wrong. Snicko and Hotspot are useful, Hot spot I think especially, but with Snicko it takes time to process the sound and create the graphics and I for one don't prefer the game waiting for 4-5 for a decision to be made. No more than 90 seconds should be spent on a review.

[thevortex]

kpsrinivasan - you are close to understanding my point. However it is not as simple as you make it out with Hawkeye. I thought Bossbhai put it across very well when he says 'Benefit of doubt goes to the onfield umpire'. I think that, in a sentence sums up what is wrong with the implementation of the technology. Lets leave the implementation part. Now lets get onto the technology itself. Do you realize when you are talking about 99.6% you are quoting Hawkeye's promoters and David Richardson with absolutely nothing to back them up? I dont know how you guys are such a trusting lot, but I guess I am not inclined to just believe anything that they come up especially when they talk numbers. And I am not even very statistically inclined. I would have thought die-hard cricket fans here arguing about averages, strike rates and such would be up in arms about this random number quoting by these people. But I am truly surprised at this seeming acceptance. Answer me this one question, kpsrinivasan. I am guessing you are in the habit of watching whole matches fairly regularly. Tell me did you find the predicted path of Hawkeye reliable enough to use it as the sole basis for decision making at the highest level of the game? After that, I would love for you to consider this point. Technology per se was supposed to come in as an aid to the umpires so that they may then make the decision thus empowered. Right now, Hawkeye and its implementation methodology have made it such that they are not just an aid that the umpire can consult with and then make his own decision. Hawkeye is the basis of the decision. Now, we must all shudder and shake after reading this statement. Hawkeye is the sole basis for the decision. The umpire may not overrule his aid. How does that sound to you? Oh I am sure I am going to get back replies that any old technology should be better than Bucknor and Bowden. But see, that is not the point, is it? We were not expecting technology to compete with the lowest common minimum among the umpires - were we? Should we not want it to be accurate and reliable enough to function as an aid for the best umpires in the business?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Just look at how the howlers have suddenly come to a grinding halt .... I mean have you ever witnessed a tour to Australia without any umpiring controversy ? They most often end with visiting captains filing official complaints .... Last time Pak visited back in 04/05 Woolmer counted about 2 dozen dubious umpiring calls that went against Pakistan .... Ditto when WI last visited. No such nonsense this time around if this isnt proof then nothing else is will convince you and Iam afraid you will keep arguing for the sake of it.

Bossbhai - I think I posed a few pertinent questions on the technology and its implementation itself. But you seem keen to discuss about umpiring controversies which are by their very nature highly subjective. Also you seem to have a predisposition to believe that when Test matches take place in Australia even neutral umpires turn out to be biased. I am afraid I will have to disagree with that line of thought. I did ask the same question in the other thread with the statistics related to LBWs. I dont believe in arguing for the sake of it. If you feel that is where this is heading, then lets give it some pause.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

theres nothing subjective when almost every team that visits Australia ends up complaining about umpiring .... Just in the last deccade India (Twice) ... Pak, WI, NZ have all filed official complaints ... these are cold facts . Let me know if you dont agree. But at this point I need to ask you this question : do you really beleive that umpiring was fair and just over the years before the introduction of UDRS ? If you think so then there is simply no point in discussing this matter at all. Heck we used to create a log of umpiring muggery with video clips every time we played Aus.

I think we are confusing two things. Human error and wanton/racist acts. If it is the former I wholeheartedly agree. If it is the latter, I dont. Trust this answers your question.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --