No UDRS for Sri Lanka-India Tests

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Lets forget the predicitive path element for a moment. Up untill the point of impact, Hawkeye is not making any predictions, it is calculatiing the trajectory of the ball based on the actual trajectory it has travelled. Now at this point if the ball has pitched outside the leg stump, but the onfield umpire judged it to have pitched it as in line or inside leg stump with his naked eye, why does he need to have a tool to see it, anybody can tell him, he is wrong. Now coming to the predicitive path, the 3rd umpire doesnt always agree with hawkeye. He can clearly disagree with it. Its just a different terminology being used, I said that as 3rd umpire not trusting hawkeye's judgement and hence going by the onfield umpires judgement. So in effect he is disagreeing with the hawkeye. They only agree with it where its clear to even a blind bat but the umpire goofed it.

Gunner - I am not sure you are understanding it right. Do you really believe that the 3rd umpire can disagree with Hawkeye???? And do you believe that that is when he passes the baton back to the on field umpire? Most definitely not. I gather you are not disputing that Hawkeye is being used as a decision making tool and not as an aid then?

As allways allow me to pour some cold water via some cold facts - that is if they are allowed to get in your way - Why is Sangakarra begging for UDRS then ? From what I can see from MSD's statement it appears that they wanted all the bells and whistles which is why they rejected UDRS. And have you come across ONE SINGLE Bucknoresque error committed by Hawkeye since we started arguing on this topic roughly 6 months ago ? There have been about a dozen Test matches and numerous ODIs and T20s which is more than enough sample to bring out that ONE Single howler which you claim happens regularly. And BTW even your favourite umpire - Taufel - made errors in the WI vs SAF test match as did all the others ... Rudi, Rauf, Ashoka, Gould etc etc..

Hello Bossbhai - its been sometime :). Cold water and Sangakkara and facts? I dont see how they are connected. Am I supposed to believe Sangakkara over Tendulkar and Dhoni et al? How does that work, pray? By the way it is not about the errors that the umpires make. The point is to not introduce newer errors. Did you hear what Warne had to say about Hawkeye during commentary today? :) About evidence, like I told you I am not going to be able to put in youtube links with those erroneous displays. I am not watching a video stream. Nevertheless if and when I see a Hawkeye howler, I will put it in a separate thread - just for you :).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - I am not sure you are understanding it right. Do you really believe that the 3rd umpire can disagree with Hawkeye???? And do you believe that that is when he passes the baton back to the on field umpire? Most definitely not. I gather you are not disputing that Hawkeye is being used as a decision making tool and not as an aid then? Hello Bossbhai - its been sometime :). Cold water and Sangakkara and facts? I dont see how they are connected. Am I supposed to believe Sangakkara over Tendulkar and Dhoni et al? How does that work, pray? By the way it is not about the errors that the umpires make. The point is to not introduce newer errors. Did you hear what Warne had to say about Hawkeye during commentary today? :) About evidence, like I told you I am not going to be able to put in youtube links with those erroneous displays. I am not watching a video stream. Nevertheless if and when I see a Hawkeye howler, I will put it in a separate thread - just for you :).

I am not sure you understand it right. What exactly do you mean by disagreeing with Hawkeye? Am I right in understanding that you dont have a grouse with Hawkeye in general , but only its predicitive path? Do you accept that Hawkeye is allright before the point of impact, the path and trajectory even where the ball pitched etc is accurate as that is the actual trajectory and path that the ball has taken and not an imaginary one? Why do you think he can not disagree with Hawkeye? The implementation of the UDRS clearly provides scope for disagreement with Hawkeye. If I am understanding your concept of disagreeing with Hawkeye, I think what you mean is, if an Umpire has given a batsman out and hawkeye shows that the ball is just clipping the bails or is kissing the offstump then the 3rd umpire must over rule Hawkeye and tell the onfield umpire that it is not out. If thats what you mean, that is not disagreeing with Hawkeye, that is disagreeing with the on field umpires judgement, who has made the decision based on his naked vision not technology. Technology is only corroborating the decision he has made. oh and Pray why should we accept Dhoni & Tendulkar et al's word only and not Sangakkara's? How does that work?

[Lord]

there is no UDRS in Oz-Pak series too,but not anybody is saying anthing.n there is hotspot.i'm pretty sure Dhoni n co. would accept UDRS if hotspot was there.yet they r being painted as hypocrites n losers?

[thevortex]

I ask again (for the millionth time) ... why ( and most importantly "HOW" ) are you crying foul without a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that H/E is utterly erroneous ? Let me break this down further ... If H/E is erroneous --> there must be howlers --> someone here would most definitely have noticed just like how umpiring howlers get routinely logged. So why isnt anybody (not just you) unable to find ONE measely piece of evidence that is clear as daylight to show H/E is as erroneous as the umpires ? Whereas the reverse is just as easy as randomly watching a sessions worth of criccket ? Previously you hid behind the "Not enough data" excuse ... Iam pretty sure that you will now come up with some other excuse.

Bossbhai - you are walking down the path of classic impasse'. Please note that your question can be - and will be - flipped around for you to answer! You were the one who were fanning the flames for Hawkeye to start with. My point is simple. There is no evidence for Hawkeye. So how come you hold it to be truer than the Bhagavadgita and the Bible put together?

Where are the errors ? If you cant show them how do you know there are errrors ?

Watch and thou shalt spot them :). Please note that I am not saying that every representation of Hawkeye is wrong.

I missed that. Enlighten us preferably with data/evidence to back up.

Please see post #55. What do you mean by evidence? You mean you want me to come up with an audio recording. With all due respect, that is ridiculous!

You said "players" can take it ( i.e the "Charm"). I showed you an example of how Sangakkara doesnt. Let me know if more such evidence is needed. Also keep in mind that 8 out of 9 teams approved technology. Most teams have come around since the initial resistance to change. MSD & Co are shameless hypocrites considering how they made a big song and dance and had Bucknor removed on grounds of "Charmness".

So Sangakkara is to be glorified and MSD and Co are to be vilified? Nice logic! Another classic case of riding roughshod on evidence. In legal parlance it is not about how many guilty you punish. It is about how many innocents who are wrongly punished. Principle of naturl justice and all that.

[thevortex]

I am not sure you understand it right. What exactly do you mean by disagreeing with Hawkeye? Am I right in understanding that you dont have a grouse with Hawkeye in general , but only its predicitive path? Do you accept that Hawkeye is allright before the point of impact, the path and trajectory even where the ball pitched etc is accurate as that is the actual trajectory and path that the ball has taken and not an imaginary one? Why do you think he can not disagree with Hawkeye? The implementation of the UDRS clearly provides scope for disagreement with Hawkeye. If I am understanding your concept of disagreeing with Hawkeye, I think what you mean is, if an Umpire has given a batsman out and hawkeye shows that the ball is just clipping the bails or is kissing the offstump then the 3rd umpire must over rule Hawkeye and tell the onfield umpire that it is not out. If thats what you mean, that is not disagreeing with Hawkeye, that is disagreeing with the on field umpires judgement, who has made the decision based on his naked vision not technology. Technology is only corroborating the decision he has made. oh and Pray why should we accept Dhoni & Tendulkar et al's word only and not Sangakkara's? How does that work?

Gunner - in short - show me an instance where the 3rd umpire did what you talk about. If he did then I will not have a problem. And about your example - the likely scenario is the umpire ruling the batsman not out and with the technology's example, the 3rd umpire ruling it out based on Hawkeye's 'kissing' rendition! I am not saying we should accept Tendulkar's word over Sangakkara's. That would make me Bossbhai! :) I am just saying that there is dissent. And that the dissent is not baseless. So quit saying there is no issue at all. There is..... That is my point.

[The Outsider]

The Michael Clarke dismissal highlighted the importance of Hawk Eye and UDRS. On first sight in real time, it did look out and the umpire did give it out. However, as soon as the replay was shown (without Hawk Eye), it was clear that the ball would have slid down leg due to the slope, something Hawk Eye confirmed.

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - in short - show me an instance where the 3rd umpire did what you talk about. If he did then I will not have a problem. And about your example - the likely scenario is the umpire ruling the batsman not out and with the technology's example' date= the 3rd umpire ruling it out based on Hawkeye's 'kissing' rendition!

I am sure we could find enough instances of that from the Eng-SA series where UDRS was used. Thats where you have got the whole thing wrong. The 3rd umpire would do no such thing. He will simply hand it back to the onfield umpire and say, Hawkeye is inconclusive, so we will stick to your decision i.e. not out.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

I am sure we could find enough instances of that from the Eng-SA series where UDRS was used. Thats where you have got the whole thing wrong. The 3rd umpire would do no such thing. He will simply hand it back to the onfield umpire and say, Hawkeye is inconclusive, so we will stick to your decision i.e. not out.

This is almost maddening :). What part of it do you think I am not understanding? It is precisely because the 3rd umpire would do no such thing I am saying that Hawkeye is not being used as an aid. Rather as a decision making tool! And I am NOT talking about a case where Hawkeye's representation is borderline. What if it showed it hitting cleanly (and if it was wrong in that presumption)? Can the 3rd umpire disagree? Now do you get my line of thought?

[thevortex]

this is just silly now. You started your tirade against H/E saying that it was nonsense and all sorts of other uncharitable comments. Six months later you are yet to produce A SINGLE piece of evidence that conclusively backs your preposterous claim. This is not how debates are conducted.

A debate? You are in no position to ask for evidence considering that you dont have on board anything!! This is exactly what I was saying was an 'impasse'. What I am saying is that there is ample doubt about the representation of Hawkeye. So much so that an entire international team along with its coaches and what-not absolutely rejecting it. Nothing, I repeat, nothing can get more conclusive as far as an official opinion on the 'technology' is concerned. Want more?!

I dont nor do atleast a couple of dozen regular and reputed posters. And just to remind you ... its YOUR job to bring forth the evidence being the aggrieved party. Infact I have told you to just point out the event from the scorecard and that me or someone here would produce the video footage.

All me to point out that my first post against Hawkeye was in response to your unwavering awe of Hawkeye. Especially when there was NO evidence in its favour. Now who is the aggrieved party? Who is required to provide evidence? And evidence of what? When you dont have evidence of it being correct, why should anybody at all try to find out evidence of it being faulty?? Onus of proof is on Hawkeye and by corollary on supporters of Hawkeye (read yourself and Gunner).

I meant the ball that showed hitting middle stump when it hit Pontings thighs. Again just the over number would be good enough. From what I can recall no such thing actually happened other than in Warne's head ( and possibly yours).

You are not following, Bossbhai. It was just a funny comment (from Warne). But what it showed was his utter lack of respect and belief for Hawkeye. In contrast Hot Spot is very well regarded by all and sundry. Spot the difference?

You need to follow the discussion and read correctly what is being said in response to what ... let me summarize this bit about MSD and co again ... You said : Players get on with the "Charm" I produced evidence that proved you wrong. End of story. And yes MSD and Co are hypocrites going by their contrasting actions. (SCG vs today).

Allow me to make a small correction again. I said players got on with what you so endearingly call 'charm'. And yes, they did. The aggrieved players. That is the context. Now you were pulling somebody totally off the context - read Sangakkara. I will let you figure the rest out. And until you understand that SCG was an aberration you may never even get close to understanding my criticisms of Hawkeye.

[thevortex]

OK - case in point. How many here agree with Hawkeye's representation of the ball entirely missing leg stump in the case of Ponting's dismissal against Asif in the second innings? The incident just happened.

[The Outsider]

Not that I mind Ponting getting sawed off, but just now was another example of the utility of Hawk Eye - looked close in real time, but looked to be missing leg stump on the slow motion replay, confirmed by Hawk Eye.

[thevortex]

Just watch Hot Spot! It is on now. It just showed Hawkeye up. Utter nonsense. That was out and was hitting leg stump.

[cowboysfan]

i cannot believe we are still debating this,there is absolutely no point at all.

[thevortex]

This would make very very interesting viewing for the ones who dont as yet have a closed mind as far as Hawkeye is concerned. The telecast showed Hot Spot's representation too in the subsequent over. Makes for compelling viewing.

[The Outsider]

This would make very very interesting viewing for the ones who dont as yet have a closed mind as far as Hawkeye is concerned. The telecast showed Hot Spot's representation too in the subsequent over. Makes for compelling viewing.

Compelling viewing? I don't want to debate you any further on this, but if you had an open mind you would see that the ball hit Ponting in front of middle and leg, had a fair distance to travel on the slope, and would have at most clipped and more likely missed leg stump.

[thevortex]

Compelling viewing? I don't want to debate you any further on this' date=' but if you had an open mind you would see that the ball hit Ponting in front of middle and leg, had a fair distance to travel on the slope, and would have at most clipped and more likely missed leg stump.[/quote'] Let me ask you. Did you watch the Hot Spot representation? Ponting was dead in front and there was absolutely no way that the ball would have missed the leg stump. And lets not get into how far away Hawkeye was showing the ball was moving down...! And yes this is also considering the Lords slope and the distance to travel. Key thing to keep in mind that Ponting really does not go too far forward, just sidles sideways more than anything. Its his customary lunge.