No UDRS for Sri Lanka-India Tests

[varun]

Did you know about this ? :D

For all official series we have offered this additional evidence to the teams, umpires and commentators. We want to encourage commentators to make informed comments, and by way of doing that we have an open offer: If a commentators claims that a Hawk- Eye replay is wrong in a series where the system is being used officially, and the commentator is subsequently proven to be correct, Hawk-Eye will contribute £10,000 to a charity of the commentators choice. If the commentator is wrong, we ask that they contribute £1,000 to the Lords Taverner’s.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Did you know about this ? :D

As a matter of fact, I did not, Varun. Thanks for pointing out. With that out of the way, I must say this is entirely laughable. Utter balderdash. How is a commentatory going to 'prove' Hawkeye wrong? A projection is just that because in reality it DID NOT happen. So the guy is saying - you take Hawkeye's version. Otherwise try and recreate reality or reshape it perhaps? By the way, Shane Warne has never made it a secret about his opinion on Hawkeye and technology in general. However I can attest that he has a soft spot about Hot Spot.

[thevortex]

Quit twisting facts, Bossbhai. It does not do you an iota of good. This mysterious 3rd party verification that the 'inventor of Hawkeye' has spoken about (and which you are all over yourself to go ahead and believe in without any proof) is nowhere to be found. You are talking about ICC publishing this proof in the future? Well that is when the technology should have been implemented. You guys keep talking about us fans being one of the stakeholders of the game. That is not so that the players dance around at our whim. That is just so that the game does not go by the wayside with such improper implementations. As true stakeholders we MUST have been appraised as to why exactly ICC was in such a hurry to award Hawkeye with such a contract. They have not done that. The truth is there is no proof nor scientific verification for Hawkeye. And again, quit putting words in my mouth. Tendulkar (aka God in your words) has given it a very non-flattering certificate. Other than that it has none. Forget about publishing it on its website. There is nothing anywhere out in the world. You are welcome to point to information contrary to the above, if you have it. Till then I am afraid you must make yourself conversant with the twin facets of fact and truth. However I will say this. You can still defend Hawkeye to your fullest. It will, as I have always said, one pair of eyes against another and one set of cricket intuition against another.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Despite my support for Hawk Eye and the fact that I am in agreement with it the vast majority of the times, I have written to them on numerous occasions to conduct and publish tests of their device, but have received no response - verbal or in action. It's a pretty simple test - deliver 1000 balls through a bowling machine, cut off the visuals for Hawk Eye after 18 yards, and compare the predictions to the actual events. I can't believe that such a simple test for a multi million dollar company would be a challenge.

[thevortex]

Just 2 days ago the same Shane Warne was complaining about umpiring decision from a Test match against Pak which the Aussies lost. Not a big fan of "Charmness" then ehh ?. He also was deviously chuckling about how he could teach a thing or two on how to pressure a umpire. Iam sure you missed that bit. This just confirms that you neither read me and Gunner_Mania's posts(theres 100s of them litelerally) clearly nor the pdf file.

Bossbhai - have you heard Warne commenting? That somebody does not agree with an umpire's decision does not make them an immediate devotee of Hawkeye the way you imagine. Please try to understand that. ICC has yet to publish proof of Hawkeye's 3rd party verification as also proof of its correct operation in real match conditions. Try and see if you can understand and better yet accept this. If not, you are living in la-la land. Dont get me wrong. You are welcome to. Just that the ground realities are what they are.

[thevortex]

Despite my support for Hawk Eye and the fact that I am in agreement with it the vast majority of the times' date=' I have written to them on numerous occasions to conduct and publish tests of their device, but have received no response - verbal or in action. It's a pretty simple test - deliver 1000 balls through a bowling machine, cut off the visuals for Hawk Eye after 18 yards, and compare the predictions to the actual events. I can't believe that such a simple test for a multi million dollar company would be a challenge.[/quote'] Excellent effort, Outsider. No matter our disagreements (on Hawkeye) I appreciate your act as a fellow cricket fan.

[thevortex]

How do you think we all (including you I must emphasize) arrived at the conclusion that Bucknor and other umpires screwed up bad on a lbw ? There is obviously no alternate ending available to compare with the actual event to figure out of the ball would have hit the stumps. It is the same method that H/E is going to use. Meaning there are no absolute shockers committed by H/E that are blindingly obvious. PLEASE read the post carefully and UNDERSTAND before you reply.

Can you ever, and I really mean EVER, get over Bucknor, Benson and that Sydney Test? Or are you going to use that Test as your own personal barometer of the umpires' standards throughout all time? And come again on your logic as to why Hawkeye does not commit 'absolute shockers'. Does that mean it can commit shockers but not absolute shockers? What does that mean exactly? And what is the basis of such statements?

[riya]

And then again there will be a big hue and cry when a few decisions go against us.

Yep,we would start whining.But many suggested that the 4th umpire a Srilankan was supporting Lanka in the last series and made decisions favouring them though i don't remember what were those.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Spider]

Wouldent using hawkeye reduce the decisions to a formular that does not include the possibility of umpire bias. So even if one team disagrees with hawkeyes decision they cant claim the umpire deliberiately made a bad decision. Both umpires and hawkeye will make mistakes but the umpire could be blamed for having reasons other than his judgement when making decisions.

[thevortex]

I did not even mention SCG'08 in that post. confirmation again that you simply dont read the posts CLEARLY. Bucknor is THE most useless umpire that there ever was and is the reason UDRS. This is a universal fact. However he is not the only umpire to have committed howlers. Its pretty easy to post videos of umpiring howlers that are bleedingly obvious and I have done so in the past. You were not interested in seeing more evidence to highlight you beloved umpires incompetence. So whatever method was used to arrive at the conclusion that Bucknor ( and others and Not just at SCG'08 I must always mention this to pre-empt you going on a tangent) committed howlers is what will be used to determine whether H/E commits similar mistakes/howlers whatever you want to call them.

Why exactly are you bringing Bucknor in? And then insinuating that I brought him in? What purpose does that serve, Bossbhai? Get over it. Hawkeye does not have evidence or science behind it.

Absolute , not so absolute whatever you want to call it. Given the way you are spewing hatred against H/E it appears that you consider it to be as useless as Bucknor ( again just a yardstick PLEASE for gods sake dont rant away about SCG'08 and how that was an abberation ). IF so then where are those howlers ? If not then why and what are you upset about H/E other than the fact that you are not made privy to "3rd Party Testing" ?.

I am not spewing hatred against anybody. I am just pointing out the obvious which you conveniently and blindly chose to ignore. Howlers are there if you open your eyes to them. When you are ready to leave the implementation of Hawkeye unquestioned why would I then expect you to wake up to those howlers? Wasted time, na?

And the million dollar question ( which you cleverly skirt around ) is will it suddenly make any difference to you if someone gets hold of this evidence which BTW was conducted back in May'2008. Are you going to turn around overnight and become a supporter of H/E ? Big fat chance. ( Before replying read it AGAIN ). Dont try to get technical and legal. I know its a hypothetical question. So please answer honestly without trying to be evasive.

Hypothetical question - that is the right word. If proof is given, that does not presuppose the idea that this was and still is a faulty implementation. Confirmation and report printing should come before not after implementation. So then veracity and verification should be done retrospectively. As simple as that. And by the way Hawkeye let me be perfectly honest. There is a reason why Hawkeye cannot do all this. It is just not accurate enough for real time cricket usage. Forget tennis. That is just crazy. At least in cricket the rules talk about half a ball or whatever. In tennis, if any part of the ball is shown in contact with the line, the ball is in. How much more crazier can it get?!!! And hey I dont get why this hypothetical question is a million dollar one :). Nothing million-dollarish about it at all.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

If you had read the post and followed the discussion and kept track of your own question you would find the answer in that post. You asked how do we decide whether H/E is correct or not since the event hasnt occured . I said we will use the same method that was used to figure out how umpires made howlers. (and again for Gods sake Iam not talking about SCG'08 or just Bucknor ... your beloved umpires make howlers on almost a daily basis ). Read and understand my last 2-3 posts for more information.

And you again completely and roundly miss the point. Do you perhaps believe that our conversation's point was to compare umpires and their efficiency or lack thereof with that of Hawkeye's? No. The point was about whether there was or there was (or is) not any proof about Hawkeye's accuracy and reliability in real time match conditions. I hope that is clear. And that I need not repeat this another time.

Thats because you dont have the honesty or the courtesy to answer that question. May-2008 is not AFTER implementation. Its BEFORE. The ICC in their infinite wisdom dont think they owe you a report. This does not mean that there doesnt exist a report or a test. So any chance of me getting a answer ?

May 2008? A report was published? Really? Would you have the nicety to share that report with us all, Bossbhai? I dont see how my honesty is called into question. I have told you before. We can continue discussing as long as we discuss the subject. The moment we start discussing ourselves is when I would think its time to stop. Its upto you what you want to do.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

totally Disagree. You are missing the point and just dont understand it. The point is from a Avg fans ( you and me ) point of view. See we have no access to the inner workings of H/E as it is beyond our control. This much is no brainer. What we do have access though is to see it in action and see for ourselves how it performs. Same thing for umpires. We have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that umpires make howlers time and again in pretty much every single test match( Not just SCG'08 and not just Bucknor. I must say that to pre-empt the obvious tangent) . So we will apply the same yardstick to H/E in order to evaluate it. This is my answer to your question from post#125 where you asked how the commentators would evaluate H/E.

You continue to miss the point, Bossbhai. Whether by accident or by design I am not sure. See, you are looking at Hawkeye only after the point of implementation. I am saying - for it to be implemented there better be strong, correlated cross verified even certified proof of its efficacy. Does that make sense? And let me make one last thing clear. I dont judge umpires by the 'howlers' that they make. To understand my question vis a vis Hawkeye you have to go back to that construction analogy. You are saying - show many how many cars have fallen off the bridge after this new arrangement. I am saying - show me the reasons for the arrangement in the first place. You dont want to have even one mishap after implementation. That is the whole point. Not just one of the points. I cannot be clearer than this, Bossbhai. It is upto you to make of it what you will.

Were did I say it was published? The question is Hypothetical because you are reqd to pretend or assume that ICC comes forward and releases that report which would say something on the lines of " We did conduct Independent testing of H/E back in May'2008 and here are the results from that test and the conclusion is that it was accurate". Will you then suddenly become a fan of H/E ? How hard is to answer that simple question without being rhetoric or evasive ?

It depends on the publishing of the ICC - does it not, then Bossbhai? Your previous post was not clear on this subject. Thanks for clarifying. How can I say how I would react to a report which is, in the first place hypothetical and secondly when I dont know what content it might have. Whether the content might be rebutted or not? Who knows? You are just assuming that a foolproof report will be submitted. That is different from mere hypothesis. Looking at it from my point of view a watertight proof sheet for Hawkeye cannot exist because it is full of holes. I cannot be more honest.