ICC - UDRS for world cup 2011 but Hot Spot unlikely

[thevortex]

I am sorry, Outsider, but it is you who do not understand Hawkeye - NOT the UDRS. For the nth time, DO NOT assume that Hawkeye is UDRS. Far from that. It is not about the entire ball hitting the wicket or pitching on line (allegedly, of course) that is the point here. It is about more than half of the sphere. And that is where millimetres are destroying the game. What you say about the umpire having no option but to give it not out is not true. Please read the rules specific to Hawkeye. The 3rd umpire simply passes the baton on to the umpire. The umpire still can take any decision. That is how the present decision making system works. Oh and about those long drawn out examples - just replace the entire ball with half or more than half. Again millimetres. This is the problem. If the rule was such that batsmen will be given out only if the entire ball pitched in line or if the entire ball hit the wicket (allegedly, again) the system might be slightly more tolerable. The extrapolation aspect of it still, without doubt, needs verification.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

About Hawkeye superceding umpires - consider this. There is an LBW shout and the umpire gives not out. The fielding team asks for a referral and the TV umpire sees a replay where Hawkeye shows the ball absolutely ephemerally kissing the top of the bail. Can he give it a not out? Or even if he conveys the view to the main umpire - will the main umpire give it not out. I understand that it is within his power to say yes or no. But has it happened? I would love to know if it has.

What you say about the umpire having no option but to give it not out is not true. Please read the rules specific to Hawkeye. The 3rd umpire simply passes the baton on to the umpire. The umpire still can take any decision. That is how the present decision making system works.

vortex, I challenge you to show me any instance where after the on field decision was given not out, the third umpire or the main umpire overturned the initial verdict after the ball was shown to be clipping the stumps.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

vortex' date=' I challenge you to show me any instance where after the on field decision was given not out, the third umpire or the main umpire overturned the initial verdict after the ball was shown to be clipping the stumps.[/quote'] Rules are not about examples, Outsider. But I thought you understood this. You were misrepresenting the rule as far as Hawkeye was concerned. By the way - read up my post again. This is what I was also asking for :).

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

And the many inches in case of umpires were just "charming" and taking the game to newer heights ? .... and you call this a discussion based on logic ?

Can this be taken as proof that you concede that Hawkeye is not accurate 'all the time'? :) And since when did you change your mind? You know what - talking about wrong decisions of umpires when confronted about accuracy percentages (claimed) regarding Hawkeye is more than a bit lame. It is either intentional obfuscation or just a means of wriggling out of the proverbial tight spot. I reiterate - all talk of logic and science fails out when you do not have anything to substantiate Hawkeye's accuracy with.

[thevortex]

Well if you are going to continue to blatantly accuse Hawkeye of being inaccurate without even as much as providing a single video to back up your case ...you were bound to get such a response. This is not how debates are conducted.

You are not that desperate for support on your viewpoint are you? Last I checked the poll was skewed 75:25 in your favour. :) My understanding of a discussion does not include dirty language. If yours does - you are welcome to it. I dont understand justifying it though. And remember one thing again and again and again. I am raising a subjective opinion that Hawkeye is inaccurate. I am not an online videos sort of person. And I hope you realize that I am in India and not in the US where you pull up all your streaming videos. My cricket is caught on TV - not on the internet. And before you jump on it, this is just plain fact. Not an excuse. You are always warmly invited for perhaps a Test match or two in my home. We could watch, catch the action and chat up. In the interim perhaps we can catch one or two Hawkeye replays and we can take it on from there. That is the best I can do, Bossbhai. And I am being nothing but honest here.

[The Outsider]

Regarding the half ball in/out thing, there are three viable alternatives : 1. Entire ball in 2. Entire ball out 3. More than half in/out The ICC picked one of them. Frankly, I don't care which one of these is used as long as it's consistent in decision making for the exact reason that cricket is a game of millimeters and the radius of a cricket ball is about 30 mm. Really don't care if it is changed to entire ball in or out.

[The Outsider]

Rules are not about examples, Outsider. But I thought you understood this. You were misrepresenting the rule as far as Hawkeye was concerned. By the way - read up my post again. This is what I was also asking for :).

Can you show me the written rules related to this? Instead of being a stickler to the written word, I prefer to base my judgment on implementations otherwise I might have been thrown in jail for having oral sex in Utah.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Regarding the half ball in/out thing, there are three viable alternatives : 1. Entire ball in 2. Entire ball out 3. More than half in/out The ICC picked one of them. Frankly, I don't care which one of these is used as long as it's consistent in decision making for the exact reason that cricket is a game of millimeters and the radius of a cricket ball is about 30 mm. Really don't care if it is changed to entire ball in or out.

There - the highlighted line is something probably only a cricket spectator would be happy with. Not a player. And guess who the game is played by. :) No offense meant.

Can you show me the written rules related to this? Instead of being a stickler to the written word, I prefer to base my judgment on implementations otherwise I might have been thrown in jail for having oral sex in Utah.

I think you figured this one out by yourself, Outsider. In your previous post. The ICC picked one of those three options. And the one they picked was not the one that you were talking about. And if you followed my viewpoint, I have also been thoroughly indictive of the application - more than the solution. In fact if you followed my post, I am not holding Hawkins responsible. I am holding the ICC responsible. No due diligence. No transparency.

[thevortex]

jeez what are you on about ? Paul Hawkins himself says that it is accurate to within 5mm . When I said accurate did you interpret it as 100% accurate ? The reason why H/E is there is because of the chumps that you so idolize - the umpires. Try to find a way of comming to terms with it. And if anyone is in a tightspot it is you who simply refuses to come up with evidence to prove H/E supposed inaccuracy which is "all over".

Read post 108. I dont idolize anybody, Bossbhai. Much as you would like that to be the case. You are just not getting the complications introduced by Hawkeye. There is no point in taking this further. I can only hope that more rumination will help bring at least one or two negative points about Hawkeye - in your mind. On my part - I always have an open mind. Tomorrow if ICC releases their official whitepaper on the touted accuracy aspect of Hawkeye and if we have a 3rd party verification on that, I will be keenly following it. You can be sure that I will not be as dismissive of it as you are of every umpire on earth. Over and above this, if the implementation of hawkeye is done with slightly greater common sense than is displayed by a blundering schoolchild when trying to eat a morsel of chocolate on the sly - well then, I will be overjoyed. That would complete the ideal UDRS.

[thevortex]

jeez what are you on about ? Paul Hawkins himself says that it is accurate to within 5mm . When I said accurate did you interpret it as 100% accurate ?

Idolizing, Bossbhai? :)

[The Outsider]

There - the highlighted line is something probably only a cricket spectator would be happy with. Not a player. And guess who the game is played by. :) No offense meant. I think you figured this one out by yourself, Outsider. In your previous post. The ICC picked one of those three options. And the one they picked was not the one that you were talking about. And if you followed my viewpoint, I have also been thoroughly indictive of the application - more than the solution. In fact if you followed my post, I am not holding Hawkins responsible. I am holding the ICC responsible. No due diligence. No transparency.

Players seem pretty happy about it. So, your only gripe it seems comes down to the fact that the ICC chose the half/half way instead of the entire ball has to pitch in line, hit in line, and hit the stumps rather than 60% of it or 80% of it? To me it's inconsequential whether 3 mm of the ball was actually outside the line of the stumps according to Hawk Eye if the umpire thought otherwise. Hawk Eye was implemented to reduce blatantly wrong decisions which it has done more often than not, and for borderline cases give the on field umpire the benefit of the doubt. It's ironic that you are the one making a point about half, one fourth, one eighth of the ball after saying millimeters are destroying the game. You are using the same millimeters to bolster your point.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

You are always warmly invited for perhaps a Test match or two in my home. We could watch, catch the action and chat up. In the interim perhaps we can catch one or two Hawkeye replays and we can take it on from there. That is the best I can do, Bossbhai. And I am being nothing but honest here.

Can I pop in too:P

[thevortex]

Players seem pretty happy about it. So, your only gripe it seems comes down to the fact that the ICC chose the half/half way instead of the entire ball has to pitch in line, hit in line, and hit the stumps rather than 60% of it or 80% of it? To me it's inconsequential whether 3 mm of the ball was actually outside the line of the stumps according to Hawk Eye if the umpire thought otherwise. Hawk Eye was implemented to reduce blatantly wrong decisions which it has done more often than not, and for borderline cases give the on field umpire the benefit of the doubt. It's ironic that you are the one making a point about half, one fourth, one eighth of the ball after saying millimeters are destroying the game. You are using the same millimeters to bolster your point.

I am surprised you dont get my point, Outsider. It is precisely because I dont want decisions awarded by millimetres (that too imaginary millimetres as computed by Hawkeye) that I am against the present implementation. Forget the half or more than half. Demand accuracy figures. Publish them. Do an independent study. And integrate the Hawkeye system better with the on field umpire. The best case scenario - I have written about this in the past is to have a hand held mobil device which beams the video to the onfield umpire. This is the age of technology - after all. That is when the right decision will come to the fore. As of now, it is just plain stupid to have one white coat watching action from the middle, then show the video to some other bloke sitting upstairs and then push the decision back again to the poor soul in the middle. Utter balderdash, really. By the way, are you not glossing over the fact that Hawkeye still does not have any accepted measure of accuracy? Without that you surely realize that there is no way you can expect everybody to believe Hawkeye's version - leave alone the extrapolation.

[thevortex]

The result of the poll was the same last time too IIRC but yet you tried to wiggle out of it thru technicalities. You wouldnt listen to me when I said that what you wanted and what I put up in the poll last time were pretty much the same thing. But you were adamant just as you are while denying all the various videos I have provided. Further more you believe that the 2 examples of Strauss and Cook prove your point ignoring the fact that absolutely no-one agrees with you. All this is very frustrating annoying and ridiculous for anyone who is following the thread. It was a matter of time when somone decided to speak their mind. You cant blame MTC. If you are so certain that H/E is ridiculously error prone you should first make sure that your case stands on real evidence not on imaginary evidence.

See, I dont wait for a specific number of people to agree with me before stating my view :). You surely dont think I am that insecure, do you? :) I am confident about my views. I express. You disagree - you are welcome to it. Any others disagreeing too have every right to do so. Just dont get out of hand when I ask you to furnish proof for Hawkeye's accuracy? Seriously, why does it stickle you guys so much when I ask for proof? Surely you see there is none and that you are all just trusting the original equipment - our unfailing eyes :). Leave it be, guys. And I dont get what you mean by me wanting to wriggle out. I have no cause of wriggling out nor am I even trying. I have repeatedly maintained my stand and questioned your unfailing and baseless support for Hawkeye. Nothing has changed and nothing will - unless and until circumstances change. It never fails to surprise me how easily a group of people - even experienced and well educated - can be misled by a new phenomenon. In this technological in nature.

If you have noticed every time you mention a particular decision it is me who is providing video footage for those events that you point. So all you need to do is point to the match + event and we will dig out the videos. Ofcourse the sooner it is done after the event the better the odds of finding the video because unlike howlers from Bucknor,Bowden,Benson and co no one really thinks these videos are worth saving on youtube because they are not howlers at all !

All I can tell you is that I am not going to vanish from this forum. And as and when I see an example of ridiculous Hawkeye extrapolation, I will mention it and you can make what you want of it.

Thanks for the offer :woot:

Not sure what 'woot' is. But you are always welcome. If you are so inclined a traditional South Indian 'kaapi' will be complementary :).

[thevortex]

Can I pop in too:P

Absolutely, Gunner. Whenever you come to 'des' from 'pardes' :)