Me versus umpiring charm (Calling Boss)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

In both the highlights link that you have posted and the video I posted the commentators - Bumble, Athers, Boycott everybody agrees it was a good decision.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Guys - this was a simple point raised :). Where is the confusion? Yes the umpire made a mistake in this case. The case went up to Hawkeye and it showed the ball hitting the top of the middle stump - close to the bails. So, whither goes benefit of doubt in this case? And you guys know what the rule says. Even if the ball kisses the bails as per Hawkeye the batsman is still dismissed. So where is the sense in such a decision? And what happens to trusting technology over the human umpire? Are you guys not getting yourself in a knot with this? Another simple question - you guys want numbers to prove just about anything about cricket and cricket players. But why dont you ask for numbers when it comes to Hawkeye's accuracy and performance? Yet another one. Promise this is the last :). You guys certainly dont believe that the umpires' accuracy percentage is in the 90's, right? But you conveniently believe Hawkeye's accuracy to be as per what Richardson announced. Again why the dichotomy? I want to reiterate. I am NOT against technology. I am not even against UDRS. I think it is past time to implement such a system for cricket. But what I am against is using experimental technology indulging in mathematical predictions and virtual reconstruction, straight at the highest level without independent verification. Surely you guys see some merit in that... [bossbhai - no the link is not working for me]

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - if you had read this article you would know that this was not the seminal example - so to speak - to find Hawkeye at fault. This was just the last straw. So, dont use this one example to extrapolate or derive interpretations from, if you dont mind. In this case, I am bemoaning the lack of application of the benefit of doubt aspect of cricket. Here you are finding an example where the game has not relied on the video evidence but still relies on the 'wrong' decision by the on field umpire. I thought you guys would rise up in arms against this, no? Bossbhai - and I have asked you the same questions many times before. You use your eyes to trust Hawkeye but you only rely on numbers to trust cricketers. Pardon me if I think that is a bit odd. No offense meant.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

I think your first question can only be answered if you yourself watched the happening live. I am sure there will be similar scenarios coming up in the near future. On the second, I am not sure you understood my point. You want for cricketers to be ratified based on statistics right? You dont just go with promise and what your eyes see, right? Then why the exception for Hawkeye?

[thevortex]

Wanted to mention something. Tuffey bowling to Ponting before the rain delay in today's 3rd ODI. Ball strikes Ponting on the move. Ball was an off cutter, pitching short of length on or just outside off stump and coming in. In replays if you see, the ball would appear to be hitting leg stump. Ponting was still out but not given by Asad Rauf. However, in the context of this discussion, Hawkeye showed that ball as hitting the middle of middle stump. Bossbhai - if you get to see the replay of this incident, please comment.

[Gunner_Mania]

Guys - this was a simple point raised :). Where is the confusion? Yes the umpire made a mistake in this case. The case went up to Hawkeye and it showed the ball hitting the top of the middle stump - close to the bails. So, whither goes benefit of doubt in this case? And you guys know what the rule says. Even if the ball kisses the bails as per Hawkeye the batsman is still dismissed. So where is the sense in such a decision? And what happens to trusting technology over the human umpire? Are you guys not getting yourself in a knot with this?

The point you are missing is that this is only true if the on field Umpire had no doubt in the first place. If the umpire had a doubt and gave the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen, the benefit of doubt would still hold true. Like I have argued many times, forget that Hawk eye existed in this scenario when you saw live you thought the ball wouldn't hit, the umpire thought it would hit. He didn't have doubt it would miss, so he gave out. Now comes the technology bit, you say don't trust it 100% for the border line decision. If this is treated as border line decision, the umpires didnt trust technology, he didnt trust hawk-eye and said may be there is doubt here, he madethe same point as you, I cant 100% be sure of that path, I will go by my judgement and I believe that it is out. Now reverse the scenarion, the onfieled umpire had a doubt and gave the batsmen benefit of doubt and said not out, assume SA referred it, the on field umpire would have looked at the exact replay and said, I don't trust hawk-eye here , I will go by my judgement tat the ball may miss the top of the off stump and give this not out.

[bossbhai - no the link is not working for me]

(oh and I've posted an you tube video of the dismissal in the earlier post removing the link, for your benefit to watch live),

[thevortex]

So Gunner - why are you then relying on the on field umpire when according to you the technology is more reliable? That is my question. Which again you have not answered. The point you have understood correctly is that I do not trust Hawkeye on borderline cases. And if the technology cannot be used in borderline cases, then what use is it, pray? I will see the youtube video and comment - thanks for the effort. By the way did you watch Ponting getting rapped in the 3rd ODI a few minutes back? I am curious what you and Bossbhai make of that.

[Gunner_Mania]

So Gunner - why are you then relying on the on field umpire when according to you the technology is more reliable? That is my question. Which again you have not answered. The point you have understood correctly is that I do not trust Hawkeye on borderline cases. And if the technology cannot be used in borderline cases, then what use is it, pray? I will see the youtube video and comment - thanks for the effort. By the way did you watch Ponting getting rapped in the 3rd ODI a few minutes back? I am curious what you and Bossbhai make of that.

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=929614&postcount=75 My post on the other thread we discussed this. I never said Technology is 100% reliable. Even in that post and this post I say the same thing. Where technology is not 100% sure, the on field umpire makes the call - irrespective of whether he was right or wrong. I am not for using technology only when it is perfect and can over rule umpire's every borderline mistakes. Now if that happens then there is no need for an onfield umpire. So to answer your question you stick to human judgement - right or wrong- as long it is not an absolute howler .i.e when the ball pitche outside the leg stump and the umpire gives him out. Hawk-eye will expose this and that too without needing predictable path. So to answer your second question use technology to remove howlers not borderline decisions. To answer your 3rd question, No I'vent had a chance, no telecast of the NZ-Aus series in the Old Blighty.

[Gunner_Mania]

Here another line of thought on the Strauss dismissal thevortex - When I saw the dismissal live, I thought the ball was missing top of middle stump, I am giving not out, whatever Hwk eye says. Tony Hill - When I saw the dismissal live, I thought the ball was clipping top of middle stump, I am giving out, whatever Hawk eye says. The common theme is neither trust Hawk-eye's predicted path but made different judgements based on their view.

[thevortex]

I think Gunner_Mania you have presented your line of thought very succinctly and clearly. Particularly liked the last post. Though I still disagree in principle. But see, unless I am thoroughly mistaken there is a rule which governs these Hawkeye interpretations and says that at least half the ball must have pitched in line and I suppose some such regulation is present also when the ball hits the stumps. So why not use those standards in this case? I understand why it happened this way - the control goes back to the on field umpire. My question is - why should it, under this new system? You take the run out decision - the control, once it goes to the 3rd umpire does not come back to the on field umpire. That is why it has worked well without issues. Why not apply that same logic in this case? I would be happy if Hawkeye prevents howlers. Right now, it does not serve that purpose widely. What it has done is introduce howlers of its own and this where the game can do without its ilk. Do you believe that Hawkeye has not introduced even one howler since its introduction?

[thevortex]

Gunner - I finally got to see the youtube video. Only reaffirms my opinion and raises my ire over Hawkeye and the ICC's mindless implementation of the same at Test level. Why dont they experiment at ODI and T20 level instead of ruining Tests? Just about the lowest part of the ball touches the top of the bail. And that is out? I am curious what Bossbhai makes of this.

[Gunner_Mania]

I think Gunner_Mania you have presented your line of thought very succinctly and clearly. Particularly liked the last post. Though I still disagree in principle. But see, unless I am thoroughly mistaken there is a rule which governs these Hawkeye interpretations and says that at least half the ball must have pitched in line and I suppose some such regulation is present also when the ball hits the stumps. So why not use those standards in this case? I understand why it happened this way - the control goes back to the on field umpire. My question is - why should it, under this new system? You take the run out decision - the control, once it goes to the 3rd umpire does not come back to the on field umpire. That is why it has worked well without issues. Why not apply that same logic in this case? I would be happy if Hawkeye prevents howlers. Right now, it does not serve that purpose widely. What it has done is introduce howlers of its own and this where the game can do without its ilk. Do you believe that Hawkeye has not introduced even one howler since its introduction?

Thanks. Finally you see my point:) The difference between the run out decision and this is, in the case of the run out decision the on field umpire doesn't make a decision. He straight away says to the 3rd umpire. I don't know. I leave it for you to make the decision. So it stays with the 3rd umpire. In the case of Hawk eye and LBW, the on field umpire makes a decision and then he is asking the umpire, Tell me whether I am right, may be may not be absolutely wrong. So the 3rd umpire says you are right, stick to your decision, you may or may not be right, can't know for sure, so we will go by your judgement, or sorry mate you got that one wrong. we need to change the decision. When UDRS was first tested in the WI-Eng series the year before, the 3rd umpire had the final say, no one had a clue how interpretations were being arrived at. It was absolutely shambolic. It was only then this system of 50-50 was arrived where the onfield umpires decision stays if it was a 50-50 call. I also agree with you 100% that this should have been trialled in the ODIs first before getting it into test.

[thevortex]

I dont think we are too far off from being on the same page, Gunner. However my basic disagreement is about the accuracy or lack thereof of Hawkeye when it comes to the path of the ball. I think the point you make about the difference between the run out and the referral is a fine one. Consider me convinced about the difference. And it is logical to give the control back to the umpire. I am OK with this as long as this implementation also considers the benefit of doubt aspect. In this given example of Strauss, Hill declares Strauss out and it goes to the TV umpire. The umpire clearly is able to see that only the lowest part of the ball makes contact with the top of the stumps. So why not tell the on field umpire that there is enough doubt to give this in favour of the batsman? I mean, that is how technology could prevent howlers. And based on that youtube video there is no way that the batsman can be declared out without a doubt. What do you think?

[Gunner_Mania]

In this given example of Strauss, Hill declares Strauss out and it goes to the TV umpire. The umpire clearly is able to see that only the lowest part of the ball makes contact with the top of the stumps. So why not tell the on field umpire that there is enough doubt to give this in favour of the batsman? I mean, that is how technology could prevent howlers. And based on that youtube video there is no way that the batsman can be declared out without a doubt. What do you think?

Bala - Where we both and probably BossBhai also agrees is that Hawkeye is not 100% accurate and we don't need any tests or proof for that. I think it is a given. No system is ever 100% accurate. The Strauss example is not a howler. It is a marginal call. The 3rd umpire shouldn't be making interpretations. Technology should tell him beyond doubt - either it is out or it is not out. In Strauss's case it didn't, so he didnt get involved in the decision making process. Just left it to the on field umpire. You are suggesting a territory where Harper looks at half a ball hitting the stump and interprets it as that is missing, while Tony Hill may look at the same replay and interpret as that is hitting the stumps. That will lead to more inconsistencies. Of course if the MCC change the laws of the game and say only if 100% off the ball is hitting the stumps then it is out, then that will be a different story, but as it stands now and we know from years and years of cricket that even a part of the ball can clip the bails and the batsman can get out. In the India-BD series, Billy Bowden gave not out on a ball that was hitting middle stump half way through. Now that is a howler.The 3rd umpire with the help of Hawk eye with whatever error tolerance level would have said that it was hitting the stumps. There is no interpretation here, because a blind bat would have said that was out. That is where 3rd umpire should over turn decisions.

[Lord]

Wanted to mention something. Tuffey bowling to Ponting before the rain delay in today's 3rd ODI. Ball strikes Ponting on the move. Ball was an off cutter, pitching short of length on or just outside off stump and coming in. In replays if you see, the ball would appear to be hitting leg stump. Ponting was still out but not given by Asad Rauf. However, in the context of this discussion, Hawkeye showed that ball as hitting the middle of middle stump. Bossbhai - if you get to see the replay of this incident, please comment.

LEG STUMP???? dude that was hitting middle n was plumb unless there was bat involved.the commies also said it was plumb WITHOUT watching the Hawkeye.u saying they r dumb? all i can say is u'll make a very bad umpire,maybe even worse than Saheba:--D