thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 No I dont. Reasons for the 276354736254th time : If it was fallible ( meaning H/E Inc., had bribed to sell a lemon to ICC and get into UDRS ) there would be dead bodies. Since I dont see dead bodies means it actually works. End of story. That is retrogressive. And that is now how a case is solved :). And your explanation does not gel with your answer 'No'. You should answer 'No' only and only if you have evidence of Hawkeye's infallibility in match conditions. Now I dont know how to take your answer. Whether you are lying to yourself or not, I really dont know. The question was simple. The answer should be too. If you are really honest about it...
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 When Bucknor' date=' Bowden, Benson, Taufel mug batsmen its visible in daylight ... you dont freakin need a certified 3rd party to tell you that. No such thing happens when H/E is incharge. Try and understand that simple fact and stop this verbal gymnastics to defend the undefendable.[/quote'] Truly speaking whenever you are pushed into a corner on the Hawkeye subject your only recourse is to go back to that Sydney Test. How long do you think that is going to hold? I mean - are you serious? Do you think that Sydney Test is the barometer of a human umpire's efficiency or lack therof? Get real please. And oh about Hawkeye - sorry there is no evidence. Now you may or may not be in the frame of mind to accept this gracefully. But this is fact.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Iam not the freakin owner of that company nor am I the ICC man .. how much freakin hard is that to understand ? I have no control over it. All I can do is honestly evaluate whats in front of me. As far as I know you are in the same damn freakin boat except with a different view point. Now where is the freakin evidence to further your case ? The H/E that you see being used in Aus-vs-Pak is not operated under "Lab conditions" it is a freakin live real Test Match. So where are the bloody bodies that there should be if the system was erroneous as you claim ? I thought you were old enough to have a debate with without you resorting to silly language like that. Was I mistaken? The ball has been and will always be in your court. Evidence is for you to proceed. It is silly to keep asking evidence of others. You want to put in the system. Put your evidence forward before implementing it. You should NOT be allowed to play with lives (in this case batsmen's). And it need not be necessary to prove that a system is faulty AFTER it has been implemented. Do I really need to stress it any further?
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 How many examples do you need from other test matches ? Name a number. Whatever floats your boat, Bossbhai! Just so long as you understand and accept that Hawkeye does not have evidence in its favour.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 And if we are in the same boat just with a different viewpoint, then there really should not be such a hullabaloo. You trust your eye. I trust mine. Just dont bring science into it, will you?
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 So where are the freakin dead bodies ? What was the evidence that you based your case upon other than your own fertile wishfull thinking ? Keep flipping it around! What was the evidence that you based your case upon when you supported Hawkeye? Because remember - this happened first. I simply refuted it and called things out as they were. I said - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. And guess what - that is TRUE.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 At his point I need to know if you have A Single piece of evidence that conclusively proves H/E to be as erroneous as Mr. Bucknor. Straight answer yes/no please. I promise - you will have a very straight answer just as soon as you provide a straight answer to my previous question. :) You cant have it all your way, you know.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Which question .... ? Are you trying to tell me you asked whatever that question is before I asked you to provide evidence - which was 6 months ago ? I really dont think I missed any of your questions .. so feel free to post it again. See post #99. Linked for your convenience - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1118828&postcount=99 The point is you should not be asking for evidence of a system's failures after it has been implemented. You ought to question it and see why it ought to be implemented in the first place. Makes sense?
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 ok heres your question : There exists nothing other than whats on H/E website which isnt enough for you as there is no "certificate" to go with it. Now are you trying to tell me that this bit of information was not given to you earlier ? Straight answer yes/no ? So that is a 'No' right? Just so things are clear.
thevortex Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Paul Hawkins on his site says there was independent 3rd party testing done. If it means Zilch to you what do you expect me to do and say ? How else do I need to answer this ? And I really need you to tell me whether this question was answered or not earlier. I insist. You did say the same thing earlier as well. I confirm. However this 3rd party verification - as I pointed out earlier too - is nowhere to be found. Not even a reference to this supposed verification. This does make matters look dubious, dont you think?
varun Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Have you guys read these documents on Hawkeye's website ? They make for interesting reading. http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Collingwood%20LBW%20Dismissal%20Oval%20Test.pdf
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now