Me versus umpiring charm (Calling Boss)

[Gunner_Mania]

All I am sure of is there is no way that that ball could have crashed into middle of middle stump. So when I say it would have hit the leg stump then it would only have to move one stump width not two as you mentioned a few posts earlier. In the distance of a yard, this is eminently possible.

It would have to move two stumps. Hawk eye says it has moved from Off to Middle, you are saying it would have gone from Off to leg. Thats 2 stumps not one.

[thevortex]

No Gunner - the ball would have to travel the width of just one stump, the middle stump. Because it impacted at off stump. It need not cross leg stump, only then would it have to move two stumps. It would just cross middle stump and hit leg stump flush on - thats my call, anyway.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

No Gunner - the ball would have to travel the width of just one stump' date=' the middle stump. Because it impacted at off stump. It need not cross leg stump, only then would it have to move two stumps. It would just cross middle stump and hit leg stump flush on - thats my call, anyway.[/quote'] You are talking about the width of the stick. When you say width of stumps it means the width between two stumps, moving one stump would be between off & middle, 2nd stump would be between middle and leg.

[thevortex]

OK, there you go,Gunner. I was indeed talking about width of the stumps, plus the gap in between. I hope this helps, Bossbhai. So by my count, it would have to deviate by the width of one stump to hit leg stump. And that is not such a hard thing over a distance of a yard or so. And Bossbhai - I saw this live along with multiple replays. And I am absolutely certain that that ball will NOT have hit middle of middle stump. Its OK if we disagree. We are going to have to put a lid on this through the IPL season, I am afraid. Lets take this further when the next Test series comes on. Thanks guys.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Discussions are not undertaken to convince the other of one's own viewpoint. I dont need others here to agree with me for my point to be validated. Nor do I need external agreement to feel vindicated or feel some other sort of confirmation of my judgment. You hold your opinions - you explain them. I hold my opinions - I explain them. Your continual stand of not explaining your immeasurable love for Hawkeye despite the presence of even a single verifiable, independent measuring statistic for that piece of technology should tell everybody how objective you are, Bossbhai. I was hesitating to put this in so many words, but I am forced to do so - no offense meant. By the way, why do you assume that the impact is on the outermost edge of off stump, eh? Your problem is that you want to believe Hawkeye right down to the last inch - despite the absence of any independent verifiable statistic. Pardon me if I do not fall prey to the same sentiment. You are free to believe what you want though. I still am willing to agree to disagree. And your continuous use of the Sydney Test and Bucknor as examples to undermine all on field umpires is not just inadequate but also illogical. Oh yes, it happened. And it was scandalous alright. Will Hawkeye prevent that sort of disaster? Probably yes. But that sort of disaster happens once a century perhaps? Does Hawkeye introduce howlers of its own? In my opinion, yes. If you choose to disagree, you are free to. Why all the proselytizing?

[thevortex]

And from the very beginning you are not understanding the examples given in the case of Strauss. The issue is one of benefit of doubt. In this particular case, I am lamenting that the technology is not being used to arrive at the decision and that you are reverting back to the erroneous on field decision. I hope you will understand this point.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

To answer there is none - independent verification of umpires' efficiency, that is. Other than the magically spouted numbers by Richardson of course. The cricketing measure of an umpire's effectiveness is simply the satisfaction of the players and their willingness to bear with the decisions. If the on field umpires are so mediocre then you will not see a playing group so willing to shortchange itself out there. Glad that we see eye to eye about that benefit of doubt thing. My greatest worry is that sans the benefit of doubt idea being implemented and recognized we are going to see a whole new era of cricket with batsmen being dismissed over marginal decisions. Hence my ire as vented in that article. I would really, really like for Hawkeye to be independently verified. And exhaustively as well. Would you not like that? Tell me that for once.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

For your first question - because dirty laundry is not washed in public. You have a grievance - follow the proper procedure. I stand by what I said in the article, Bossbhai. If you disagree, then you are free to. I am not sure what you are expecting me to say. What I did not understand and what Gunner was kind to explain to me was the order and prioritizing of the decision taking authority. That is nothing to do with the endemic problem of not considering the 'benefit of doubt' aspect. And I have written expressly in my article - that this is not the only incident, this is just one more of those which helped me break my silence. To use just this as some sort of measuring device is to miss the whole point. You are not going to change my mind just as I apparently am not going to be able to appeal to you when you blindly support Hawkeye even though there are no independently verifiable accuracy measure. And that is that. Lastly my appeal to have Hawkeye checked does not have anything to say about umpires' performance or lack thereof on the field. I am not sure what conclusions you are drawing but I can tell you that these two are not connected. Hawkeye getting checked is what should determine its extent of usage at the highest level. Period.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

All Iam asking is please be fair ' date=' honest and consistent when you try to critique a system that if nothing has drastically leveled the playing field. To ignore that aspect implies that you prefer being pillaged by unsrcupulous rogues that sport the title of an "umpire" . That is simply against the principles of fair play.[/quote'] Appreciate your appeal, Bossbhai. And my aim is to be honest and consistent and more than anything to be objective and fair. I simply refuse to agree with your mass branding the on field umpires as unscrupulous rogues.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

You absolutely are NOT fair. The moment you give out a free pass to the umpire because by definition he is supposed to be holy is where you fail the test. Perhaps. But how do you reconcile with the fact that there rarely is a test series that goes by without some sort of umpiring controversy especially before UDRS ?

Allow me to point out a basic flaw in your reasoning. The umpires get my sympathy not because they are holy but because they are human. Pure and simple. Given your way there would be no umpires standing out there officiating. Do me a favour and throw that idea out here as a poll or something, if possible. Lets see how many among ICF would like to have cricket games with just Hawkeye and co. and sans the umpires. By the way, please dont ask me to remind you again that my grouse is not with the UDRS. It is solely and squarely with Hawkeye. Lets not even attempt to confuse the two. :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

By the way, please dont ask me to remind you again that my grouse is not with the UDRS. It is solely and squarely with Hawkeye. Lets not even attempt to confuse the two. :)

For all practical purposes Hawk-eye is the main component of UDRS. Snicko & Hotspot are ancillary. More often then not the decisions which are dependent on Snicko or Hotspot, the umpires get them right - there is always the exception of a whacko like Symmonds holding is ground though. I think, while you are sticking on your point of no certificate for Hawk-eye, I find it difficult to understand that you are not willing to give Hawkeye a chance to see if it is successful. It is because of the probability of the small percentage of error in Hawkeye that there is the option of the human judgement that is being maintained. In case of 50-50 decisions the umpire retains the decision making power. Now I think that, that is a fair compromise.

[thevortex]

What is of paramount importance is that accurate and correct decisions be made .. not the means of how that can be acheived. This is like telling a bank that they need to use security guards than any electronic gadgetry to do safekeeping.

Nope. Your comparison does not gel. I am saying that even to operate the safety equipment, you need a human. And to make inferences out of it. And you are saying that this security equipment basically needs nobody, needs to be certified by nobody and the customers just have to trust whatever it shows and however it works!

Hawk eye is the major part of UDRS sice lbws have been the main bone of contention over the yrs.

For all practical purposes Hawk-eye is the main component of UDRS. Snicko & Hotspot are ancillary. More often then not the decisions which are dependent on Snicko or Hotspot, the umpires get them right - there is always the exception of a whacko like Symmonds holding is ground though. I think, while you are sticking on your point of no certificate for Hawk-eye, I find it difficult to understand that you are not willing to give Hawkeye a chance to see if it is successful. It is because of the probability of the small percentage of error in Hawkeye that there is the option of the human judgement that is being maintained. In case of 50-50 decisions the umpire retains the decision making power. Now I think that, that is a fair compromise.

Gunner and Bossbhai - Today Hawkeye could be a big component of UDRS. But let that not fool you into believing that Hawkeye is UDRS. Lets see the bigger picture, if you dont mind. UDRS gives players a chance to pose dissent lawfully against an umpire's decision. Hawkeye is just a tool. Dont even think of elevating Hawkeye from just a tool to the system of Decision Review in and of itself! The system of UDRS will necessarily be bigger than Hawkeye. That is when better alternatives will come in. That is the attitude which will promote Hawkeye becoming better as well. Gunner - I am willing to give Hawkeye every chance to improve. I am just NOT willing to give it all the chances it deserves at the highest level of the game without accreditation and without experimenting with it at lower forms of the game and also crucially without the stamping of approval from the players themselves. I hope my stand is clear.