No UDRS for Sri Lanka-India Tests

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Pak_Forever]

UDRS should be made mandatory in all Test matches.

[thevortex]

so basically no matter whether this independent 3rd party report existed or not and regardless of what it said you would basically continue to ridicule H/E using some pretext or the other. Just about sums up your take on this which is no big surprise really. So much for "scientific" and "independent" and "3rd party" and "accuracy" and all that ... why bother ? Just say "I love umpires and hate H/E" and be done with it.

Is that what you understood? If so you are wrong. I hope that point about assumption and hypothesis does not go unnoticed. I would appreciate it if you would address all of my post instead of breaking it into convenient pieces and tackling just the part which sounds comfortable to you :). And I am convinced you already understand what I am saying but do not really want to accept the truth. In which case there is no point.

Dear God. :banghead:. It does not make any sense. Because if H/E = erroneous then DeadBodies(Howlers) = true. Do you agree with that logical hypothesis . Simple Yes/No please?.

Take one step back. Without knowing whether Hawkeye is erroneous or not, why in the whole wide world would you implement such a thing at international level? Sounds downright asinine, right?

Are you saying that there were no mishaps in the old system ? Are you saying that there have been mishaps in the new system ? If so where are these mishaps(Howlers) that no one else seems to have noticed ?

Did I say that? Please re-read.

[thevortex]

UDRS should be made mandatory in all Test matches.

Oh absolutely. No arguments about that. But rethink the role and implementation of Hawkeye in the same please :).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Absolutely. Because inspite of me making it crystal clear that you need to pretend that ICC comes out with a report validating H/E you continue to be evasive. And the reason I break up your posts is to save myself time by preventing you from going on a tangent and try to get a CLEAR answer on the main sticking points. As such if there is anybody that still owes me CLEAR answers is you. You know very well that you are now in a spot and being evasive is your only recourse to save face. If you insist that is not the case then kindly answer CLEARLY that question. Dont worry about things like "how can I answer when I dont have anything to look at". I already told you to assume that ICC has published that report which says H/E = accurate. In such a circumstance will you accept H/E ? A simple Yes/No answer will do. We are not worried about whether such a statement is provided by ICC or whatever your other "technical" gripes maybe. We dont have control on these things. Again simply Yes/No. No pedantics and verbal gymnastics please. Its a request.

Bossbhai - it is in my nature to accede to requests. But see I dont know what to do here. I am being frank with you. I am not doing semantics or verbal gymnastics or anything. I strongly believe that Hawkeye cannot be proven correct if the metrics are correct and if the intentions are to be honest to the game and not the technology. So the question of publishing a report to conclusively bear out Hawkeye is out of the question - the way I see it. So the pretend thing does not really work for me, Bossbhai. I hope you understand. I can see why you want to go this way. But really try and see if you can get what I say and mean. No offense meant.

We cannot go back in time nor can we force ICC or H/E Inc. to do what we want. Reality is that H/E is here now. So lets evaluate it maturely based on evidence that is available to me and you (i.e TV coverage). I have explained this in detail earlier. So If you want to discuss this maturely please answer the question without being evasive. Else this ends here. So do you agree with that hypothesis in my previous post ?

No. You HAVE to admit that implementing this technology without demonstrable and verifiable proof was a mistake. Then we can move forward. It is not a question of evaluating status quo (that too, we will come to that later) but of letting things slide into what is today the status quo. As for analyzing what happened, the Ponting one was a mistake. Look at your poll. The 'not sure' and 'Hawkeye is wrong' crowd put together is greater than the 'Hawkeye is great and good' crowd. You are the one who is so fond of polls. Make what you will of that. Lastly yes you cannot go back in time. But you can question reality instead of just lying down and taking it. Can you not?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Because its not that preposterous to assume such a thing since H/E on its website claims - with a photograph - that there was testing done. If I or anyone else had enough money, inclination and time to burn I could simply go the legal route to force these guys to come up with that report. and if that claim by H/E turns it turns out to be a dud then they risk going out of business. So any chance I can get a straight answer to my question ? ( will you accept H/E if you see a Independent report ratifying its accuracy ) Responded in that thread.

Where is the sense in going the route you suggest, Bossbhai? Tell me that. Should they not have tabled the proof before having the system implemented at the highest level? Can you answer this with a simple yes or no? About the imaginary report - I simply doubt that such a report will ever come up. Hawkeye is NOT right, remember, in my mind? The only question is about how not right or how not wrong it is. That is always going to be debatable .I dont see the point in you insisting me to imagine that Hawkeye is infallible. Because the only way a honest report can make it look infallible is when it is really infallible. Which it is not, in my opinion. Honestly. My grouse is not just with the company. It is mainly with ICC who hurried and hashed up the implementation in this regard. Cricket deserves better.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Let me simplify things for you, Bossbhai. Break it down, as it were. Bossbhai - Hawkeye is correct. It does not matter if there is proof or not. I am ready to believe anything that Hawkeye says. thevortex - Show me the proof. That is all. All the rest of what you have written is mere window dressing.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Not quite ... you have the option to produce a bleedingly obvious howler by H/E similar to those you see regularly from your beloved umpires. Its been 6 months since I first asked and you got nothing to show. Again not quite. You started this H/E bashing not based on existence of proof . Your basis was the Strauss decision which you tried to sell as a howler something hardly any one agreed.

One cannot awaken those who are already awake. I guess thats the moral of this long winded discussion. You seem to be unable to understand that proof ought to be there before the implementation. I will leave you to it. My criticism of Hawkeye was based on non-existence of proof. How much more simple can it get?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

See my response in that thread, Bossbhai:). Thing is that reply again states, in effect, nothing more than what Hawkeye's website states. That independent testing was done. You might not care about the details. But I am sure conscientious cricket fans exist who do. And they probably dont just rely on science and stats when it suits them :).

[thevortex]

Am curious. Can a Hawkeye response graph be generated for the last delivery of the Indian innings? If so, does it show the ball hitting the stumps? Just curious. Is this possible?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

lol thanks for confirming once again that you just dont read my posts ... what a waste of time !! Yes it is possible and you can do it on your own from the cricinfo scorecard under the hawkeye tab.

Found it :). By the way, the Hawkeye tab does not come up unless you click on a couple of tabs within the Full Scorecard. Maybe a glitch. And by the way watch that last over by Muralitharan on your lovely Hawkeye. And explain it to all of us about why Hawkeye did not figure that that last delivery of the Indian innings was not bowled according to it!!!

[thevortex]

Oh and they get away of course by saying that this application provides a close but not exact representation :)

[thevortex]

Also watch the penultimate ball of the innings on Hawkeye. If you had watched it live, you might find out how very wrong that representation was.

[thevortex]

This is laughable. I have been keeping an eye peeled out for Hawkeye's mess-ups. And I did not have to wait long. Rangana Herath's first over to Dravid in the second innings. An arm ball pitching at around middle stump and not really straightening. That ball would most definitely have missed leg stump. The players knew it. The umpire knew it. But clearly nobody told Hawkeye. Because it showed the ball hitting the leg stump - smack. Not merely brushing or kissing it either. Enough said.