ICC - UDRS for world cup 2011 but Hot Spot unlikely

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Would love it :yay:

[Jersey #10]

UDRS FTW! fair play is very important now

[Mr. Wicket]

:woot::woot::woot::woot:

[thevortex]

I don't see your point. Yes, Indians arent as forceful as the Australians. And? You think Indians should be more aggressive with appealing? More importantly, do you think that its desirable part of the game? If the answer to that is no, then your rejection of the review system makes no sense. Yes its not perfect but at least hawkeye is unbiased and fair if nothing else. At least for me, thats much more important than any tiny implementation of the lbw rule like half the ball clipping the bail or whatever else..

Let me place it in perspective for you f.b.m. I am definitely not condoning the Aussie way of appealing. What I was trying to explain to Bossbhai was a way of understanding the numbers skewed in favour of the Aussies as far as decisions against opposition teams go. This is why they get a lot of decisions in their favour while the others dont. Just a simple explanation. Not a defense of the Aussie way. Hope that helps. For the nth time (make that n+1 now :)) I am NOT against the review system. I am against the Hawkeye system and its whole implementation methodology. You say that the ball clipping the top of the bail is 'tiny'. You would not if you were the batsman, f.b.m. This changes the whole perspective of LBW as seen throughout the history of the game. Do you believe that human umpires have been giving people out when they reckon the ball might have clipped the top of the bail? No way. And now people are going to be given out for that. If this is the way the ICC thinks it can shift the balance in power, then it is a poor way to go.

Can you explain how almost all of his decisions favoured only one team over not one but many test matches? Before you respond with the typical inane response it will be helpfull to keep in mind that inefficiency knows no colors or names of team unless its accompanied by bias.

See my response to f.b.m. And you make no sense when you tie inefficiency together with bias. Inefficiency is just that. When you extrapolate that and claim that an umpire or umpire(s) has/have bias against or for a particular team, then you have to have real concrete proof. Otherwise you are just willfully maligning them. :)

Iam aware that nothing short of a certificate from God himself will suffice for you but hey whats the harm in trying right ! And speaking of evidence have you found a single controversial hawke eye decision yet ? since we last discussed that topic there have been a gazillion T20+ODI matches plus a few test matches.

And I am aware that one single statement of Dave Richardson is enough for you to trust all of your money on Hawkeye's accuracy :). Seriously Bossbhai - I have never been able to understand how a stats fan like you DOES NOT seek proof of the system's accuracy and simply believe in it as god sent. By the way, yes, I did see several ludicrous attempts at extrapolating the path of the ball by Hawkeye in the interim. No, I did not keep notes of these. If you had been watching the game all this while, I am sure you too would have come across many such examples. I invite others to also pitch in and share their thoughts as to whether they found themselves entirely agreeing with the projected path of the ball as depicted by Hawkeye in cricket matches.

[Clarke]

Still thinking on it, slow coach :mad:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

This is simply a excuse nothing else. If you look at the infamous SCG Test match incidents .... Ishant Sharma and the entire freaking indian Team kept appealing for a loooong time. Made no bloody difference. Now dont tell me that "it happens" . Thats not acceptable.

You might need to rewind and rewatch entire series if you think the Indians appealed in the same way as the Aussies! :). Seriously!

No extrapolation is being done. Iam presenting the facts as they are. Feel free to counter based on facts and logic. So for starters how do you logically explain Bucknors decisions being overwhelmingly favourable to one side alone if he is error prone but un-biased ? The excuse of forcible appealing doesnt wash as explained earlier.

No extrapolation? Who are you kidding? This is like saying that because I moved my leg you had your headache or something like that. Unless you have concrete evidence, I would suggest you dont go around bad-mouthing cricketers or cricket officials. Of course you are always welcome to your opinions. But here is where I would like for you to make a distinction between opinion and fact.

the day Hawkeye wrecks a test match like Bucknor and Bowden have we can talk about accuracy till then you have absolutely no case. you are arguing just simply for the sake of it and you very well know it. And speaking of systems accuracy did you ever find that certificate from God that certified all human umpires as being more accurate than Hawkeye ? If not why do you keep asking for such a certificate from Hawkeye which btw is yet to wreck a test match ?

Bossbhai - I regret to say you have no idea what I have been talking about. And you have continually ignored my question as to what has made you believe Richardson's one statement about Hawkeye's accuracy percentage. Like I said, on the one hand you project yourself as a stats man and wanting proof for everything. But in Hawkeye's case you conveniently turn the other way round. Begs the question, na? It is for yourself to answer.

I dont follow tontee-tontee closely ... feel free to list those cases and we can see if others had any issues.

I dont think you read my response closely. I do not maintain notes. If you had watched you would have noticed. But only if you removed your rose-tinted glasses as far as Hawkeye is concerned :).

This was settled a long time back thru a poll. You fall in the tiny minority that dont like hawkeye. Iam sorry to say this but no-one in the right mind would oppose a system that single handedly restored the level playing field on a cricket ground. Its simply unthinkable in this day and age to accept anything less than a level playing field in competitive sport.

No, that poll was different, Bossbhai. And you know it. All I am asking is how many people feel that Hawkeye's predicted path algorithm matches with what people think might have really happened. And you mislead yourself into believing that a level playing field may only be provided by technology - even if implemented in haphazard fashion. I think you are far gone in terms of believing that umpires have it in to be biased towards teams such as India. Again it would be interesting to find out exactly how many people believe that there is still an umpiring bias in world cricket - even today.

[b555]

will the number of times a review can be asked be limited?

[thevortex]

Because I could not find any other thread suitable - how many here think that Hawkeye's depiction of the ball going about 3 to 4 inches above the stumps when Cook was given out was accurate? For the record I do believe that the ball might have gone a tad above or may have even brushed the bail. However I do not believe the umpire committed a howler in the first place and by no stretch of imagination was the ball going as high as Hawkeye had it going. Any thoughts?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

http://www.cricket-365.net/2010/05/england-vs-bangladesh-highlights-1st_26.html Pretty easy one this ... the guy is 6'2" tall and it hit him on the top part of the flap ... of a ball that was not pitched up . easily going over the top. And the reason why it appears going over by a margin more than what you think it is is probably because of the closeup shot which magnifies everything. Pause that replay and at one point they show you the points of impact on the pitch and on the pads and immediately on the next frame you will see the superimposed graphic with the trajectory. if hawkeye is soo flwed those graphics would look odd with the predicted path out of sync with the rest. These things are not rocket science anmore in this day and age.

First things first - while it did Cook above the knee roll, it was not hitting the top of the flap. Also mind the fact that Cook was playing with a bent back foot and the ball really did not have too much distance to travel. And I was not talking about any closeup shot. I saw it live on TV - in realtime as well as what was Hawkeye's approximation. Do I take it that you agree with Hawkeye's interpretation on this one as well? Before we think of rocket science, Bossbhai, the thing I have pointed out time and time again is that your unshakeable belief in Hawkeye seems to be rooted in no principles of science at all!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

huh? You stoutly back the umpires as being the best judge of lbw where determining height is very crucial and the only way this can be done scientifically is from square position . Hawkeye does that( BTW it does that from six different positions around the ground) . So between the two of us the one who is basing his points on unscientific means is you because the squareleg umpire plays absolutely no role in lbws. I was going to write a huge post dissecting that decision based on evidence at hand but then realized the futility of it all because its not like you didnt know any of what I wrote in the first para of this post. But since you stoutly keep defending the umpires and ridiculing Hawkeye I had to break it down. Now why do you do this? Simple answer is you dont like change and are not willing to take any amount of rational thinking or facts to get in your way lest it change your mind. As such it is futile to debate this topic with you.

Well, Bossbhai, there we go around in circles again. Tell me one thing - does any of this change the fact that your utterly unshakeable faith in Hawkeye is ultimately baseless? That it is more accurate than anything under the Sun is Mr. Richardson's prophecy and you happen to believe it. That is all there is to it. Dont be surprised if others do not fall hook, line and sinker to Richardson's statements. Measurement from multiple cameras or not, measurement from square leg or not - Hawkeye's depiction is an approximation. Nothing more, nothing less. And you still did not answer - did you agree with Hawkeye's interpretation as far as the amount of bounce over the wicket is concerned in the Cook dismissal?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[f.b.m]

Because its the difference between umpiring by intuition and instinct and to use technology to help you. Most umpires (and probably you and me at home) have a set of rules of thumb when it comes to lbws. In this case, its "it hit the back pad and he's playing back so he's out". There are loads of other rules of thumb like "hitting below the knee roll on the front pad - out", "two noises - not out", etc, etc. But they are exactly that: rules of thumb, not the reality itself. Its based on us watching loads of cricket in all sorts of conditions, player heights, etc, etc... and coming up with an average. These things (ie, arguements on whether the ball was too high) seem to happen more with taller players (remember Marcus North against Pakistan?), usually on bouncier pitches and bowlers. It probably says more about us than the technology thats in place. btw, Will reply to your other post later..

[thevortex]

Show me scientifically how its flawed other than asking me to take YOUR politically correct opinion . You are a hardcore apologist. Facts are not allowed to get in your way. I realize that. Iam the exact opposite of you. You are more than welcome to play the broken record of "I dont see a certificate signed by god" but there is no way I can convince you other than ask a for a similar certification for your beloved umpires which makes you very upset. So there.

Nope. It falls upon you to first point out exact on what your unshakeable faith in the Hawkeye system is reposed upon. Dont try to pass the baton on this, Bossbhai. You put forth your support and admiration of the Hawkeye system much before I made a post in this regard, I believe. So, over to you...

The last time we took a poll on this site vast majority ridiculued the thought of even questioning hawke-eye. Remember ? You can try that again. And see if the earthshattering non-howler in the form of Cooks decision has convinced posters to swing your way.

A little bit of obfuscation, Bossbhai? :) Just see what I asked and see what you have replied.

The lbw business by definition is one of approximation. Your umpires dont have a alternate ending button that replays the exact same ball without a batsman at the otherend and see if the ball hits the stumps.

My umpires? They are the game's umpires, man! Yes it is by definition one of approximation. Glad we agree. That is precisely why Hawkeye's and Mr. Richardson's claims of fantastic percentages need verification. I am sure that cannot be hard for any cricket fan to understand.

Take a wild guess what might my position be after all that I have written on this topic and indeed this particular dismissal itself.

Let me guess. You love the umpires, but you love Hawkeye and Richardson just a tad more :).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

You are missing the point. And the point is that of blatant hypocrysy on your part. Which is (to explain once again) is that you (and indeed the umpire fan club) never even so much as questioned the umpires verdict never mind going into the verification and proof business for their decision making abilities. The fact that this unshakeable faith remains as-is despite absolute carnage - which is well documented - explains the hypocrysy. So to answer your question ... no I dont need to offer any proof other than what you see on the screen. The day you find hawkeye saying it would have gone over the stumps when the ball has hit short batsmen like Langer' date=' Katich, Ponting etc below the knee roll playing back or on the crease( Remember SCG 2004 ) is when we can talk about Hawkeyes accuracy. Untill then you have no case. [/quote'] OK lets get down to brass tacks - once again. Allow me to point out that you dont have a point. Indeed what is your point? That umpires made mistakes? Wonderful. Now tell us something we dont know for a change, Bossbhai. And you make that up as reason for how Hawkeye does not need to have any verification of its accuracy. I dont know what happened to your cricket judgment due to this Hawkeye-fanboyism. But by no stretch of even your wild imagination can Simon Katich be called a short batsman. Forget about anybody having any case. For Hawkeye to be touted so much, what reason do you have? And dont give me any bull about umpires being prone to mistakes. As if that was under any argument! Point is - you are among a minority which believes that umpires have it in for teams like India. If one were to believe you, some of them have it in for India in particular! Now I am not going to ask you if this is an opinion tempered with a bit of science.

I ask once again .... is there a similar certificate for umpires ? There isnt. And they went on to wreck test matches for decades. They didnt even have any checks and balances or any sort of accountability. You were quite happy with that system but are not happy with Hawkeye which shows you live what is happening by superimposing the real images with the trajectory. Now what we can infer from this ? 1. You simply dont like Hawkeye you also dont trust your own eyes. Vast Majority of posters on the board dont find any problems with Hawkeye(Are all our eyes screwed up ?) . And indeed 8 out 9 Cricket boards and a special committe that recommended use of UDRS( Hawkeye is the major part of UDRS) for all international games. 2. You most definitely like Human umpires and have no issues with them wrecking test matches. Further more you absolutely had no issues with sweeping the howlers under the carpet otherwise known as "Charm".

Again a repetition of what you have already spouted. I dont know if your eyes are screwed up. Seriously. If only everything that the cricket boards do is fair and by the rule and spirit of the game itself, would we not live in utopia? Once again, it baffles me as to why you cannot simply accept that you dont have even a whit of proof about Hawkeye's "accuracy" and simply say that you feel good about it as opposed to human umpires against whom you seem to have a raging bias. I make no secret of liking human umpires and of wishing that the human element continue in the game so that one day technology does not take over every decision in the game. But you will neither find me apologetic for error-prone umpiring or summarily dismissive of any advancement - in technology or rules - that takes the game forward. Case in point - I am a big fan of Hot Spot. I think that technology is light years ahead of Hawkeye in accuracy. And I also support the Decision Review System. However you seem to be unable to make the distinction between the Decision Review System and Hawkeye. Finally I dont know what clap trap you are speaking here when you say - "with Hawkeye which shows you live what is happening by superimposing the real images with the trajectory". What real images, I say? Real images of events that never happened. I have been telling you from the moment we started this discussion that you are not really understanding my point. This only underlines it. Please understand that my grouse is with Hawkeye's predictive logic. And no, there can be no superimposing of 'real' images when in reality the event has not taken place. It is Hawkeye's version or no version. Before you go round in circles - yes, earlier it was the umpire's version or no version. You want to replace the umpires? Fine, bring on Hawkeye's independently verified accuracy figures. If not, well, you dont have an argument.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --