CSK Fan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Ponting got a life today because of the umpires and that might completely change the fortune of the game. But hey, accroding to Vortex, umpires can screw the game as much as possible, even by the margin of inches, sometimes with bias but God forbide we use a technology which has a much lower error rate and with no bias
CSK Fan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Minor correction - Ponting appears plumb not because the pitch is at an angle. He appears plumb because he was plumb out :). Yes, of course, you eye is much better than a thousand camera frames i assume. Just google for optical illusions and you will know unreliable the eye is particulalry when u are seeing a single frame of the ball swinging in!
The Outsider Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 Ponting got a life today because of the umpires and that might completely change the fortune of the game. But hey' date=' accroding to Vortex, umpires can screw the game as much as possible, even by the margin of inches, sometimes with bias but God forbide we use a technology which has a much lower error rate and with no bias[/quote'] The decision would not have been overturned with UDRS. Less than half the ball was hitting the top of the stumps. On field decision would have stood.
CSK Fan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 The decision would not have been overturned with UDRS. Less than half the ball was hitting the top of the stumps. On field decision would have stood. After seeing the replays, I admit you are right. This descision would not have been overturned, i stand corrected
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Ponting got a life today because of the umpires and that might completely change the fortune of the game. But hey' date=' accroding to Vortex, umpires can screw the game as much as possible, even by the margin of inches, sometimes with bias but God forbide we use a technology which has a much lower error rate and with no bias[/quote'] You may be wrong in this isntance, My Two cents. But I am sure there are going to be cases where umpires do mess up in the near future. That alone cannot be the reason to bring on Hawkeye into the game. And especially implement it the way it has been.
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Back to making unanimous proclamations ehh? Very well thats much easier to do than comming up evidence and explain thru logic and reason. So heres my proclamation which is worth more than yours as it has evidence to go with it ... Ponting appears plumb because the camera is not positioned exactly behind the umpire. How do you deduce this, pray? I am not talking about real time action. I am talking about slow motion replays. Did you see them? Did you see the Hot Spot representation? Do I need to tell you that the Hot Spot uses more cameras (or at least more expensive ones) to do its job? So going by your logic, it should be more accurate na? Why dont you believe Hot Spot, Bossbhai? Ponting was dead and buried.
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 do you even understand whats being written ? Your entire case relies on that straight camera being right behind the umpire. Otherwise It is like saying the umpire can stand at mid-on and still be able to decide correctly on a lbw. Understand ? You could have a camera that has gazillion frames per second but it means jack if it is not right behind the umpire. And how did we figure out it wasnt ? Read post#39 again. Conveniently ignoring the subject matter of my post, are we, Bossbhai? Lets try that again. More cameras, expensive cameras means more accurate results right? Thats what you have been blathering about for many a month now. So why dont you agree with Hot Spot? You have not even deigned to comment on the Hot Spot version? What happened? Afraid that it may falsify Hawkeye? :) Oh and by the way, have you heard of zoom on cameras, Bossbhai? When the slow motion replays are shown, things are zoomed in you know. And I can confirm that I saw the slow motion replay straight on. Want to check with others?
thevortex Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 It is a direct function of your ability to READ and UNDERSTAND my posts. Since you cant do either the natural outcome is that your brain thinks there was no answerr given. Those pics came from the same freakin slow motion replay. I dont have my own cameras in Lords . You can have a camera that is 100x optical zoom but AFAIK there isnt a camera that can account for angles by zoom. In other words just because you have zoomed in doesnt mean the cameras positioning becomes irrelevant. Wrong. And at this point I dont have any more patience to waste time in explaining things to you for like 218th time. Its not worth it for soo many reasons the primary one being you know zilch about debating nor do you have the courtesy to keep track of the discussion and to not be pedantic. Bye now. I understand that you are taking the convenient way out. No regrets. Its not as if this debate was absorbing or enriching in any way. I am actually glad really. From your post I also understand that you have no clue about the kind of costly cameras which are used for cricket production. Zero. Zilch. There are so many loose ends that you have left dangling. 1) Based on this snapshot of yours - if you really depend on it so much - are you ready to compare this with Hawkeye's version? We already know that extending this line does not match with Hawkeye's version. Anything to say about that? 2) Hot Spot. You have consistently avoided even mentioning this name. I know you are mortally afraid that it might smash Hawkeye to pieces. Still.... give some thought to this, you know. 3) When your technology is not able to depict correctly even when the result is clean bowled, you have got to question it, na? Or not, I guess. You can go on celebrating Hawkeye.
Sachinism Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 Testmatchsofa will be interviewing the inventor of hawkeye today at lunch (during Aus-Pak game) You can get your questions in on twitter @testmatchsofa or email at thesofa@testmatchsofa.com here's their website if you wanna listen to alternative cricket commentary http://www.testmatchsofa.com/
thevortex Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 Sachinism - sorry could not follow that interview. Did you follow that? Anything interesting come out of that? Thanks in advance.
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