ICC - UDRS for world cup 2011 but Hot Spot unlikely

[thevortex]

Outsider - you perhaps have not come across the many statements that disgruntled players have made against Hawkeye. Now, it is for you to make the distinction between UDRS and Hawkeye.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - I thought I am communicating in English. Where is the evidence? Is this any different from Richardson's 'pull the numbers out of the air' act? Can you not recognize this? Even after recognize this can you not resign yourself to the fact that there is zilch out there as far as independently verified statistic as far as Hawkeye is concerned. And I think you need to get this. The ICC is implementing Hawkeye. MCC is a part of ICC. These are the two main parties. I am sure you understand what a 3rd party is.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

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. 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.

So, we are fine with the half and half aspect to move on to the other issue? Yes, ideally I would love to have an independent, public statistical study on Hawk Eye's accuracy. Not only for Hawk Eye, but also for Snicko and Hot Spot. Why aren't you up in arms demanding an independent study for those technologies? In the absence of such studies I am left to rely on my experience of watching cricket and can safely conclude that Hawk Eye, Snicko, and Hot Spot are doing are reasonably good job.

[thevortex]

And Iam writing in French ? Wheres your evidence that shows H/E bungling up which you claim happens all the time ?

This was - a while back - remotely interesting. Now its just inane. Let me reiterate so that you understand exactly how much you are erring and obfuscating - both at the same time. I questioned Hawkeye and raised the point that there was no independent verification. Till date you have not been able to answer that question. You dance around this way and that - not nimbly by the way. But all this bumbling and stumbling does not change the fact. You have zilch. Yet you believe as if it were Gods' own word!!! Keep at it.

Paul Hawkins is not in a position like Richardson or the umpires. He runs a company and his credibility is at stake. Richardson and the umpires dont have to worry about credibility. What you are implying is that he is lying or that the ICC were bribed. which is inrcredulous to say the least. And no MCC operates independently from ICC.

Ah, so now you are vouching for the integrity of Mr. Hawkins? How many deals have you made with that gentleman in a corporate capacity? Come off that high horse, Bossbhai. The simple thing is that there is nothing professional going on in this case. End of story. I never said that one or the other institution was involved in bribery. Just point the incongruity. The same thing which you and many others are gullible enough to swallow down - hook, line and sinker.

So, we are fine with the half and half aspect to move on to the other issue? Yes, ideally I would love to have an independent, public statistical study on Hawk Eye's accuracy. Not only for Hawk Eye, but also for Snicko and Hot Spot. Why aren't you up in arms demanding an independent study for those technologies? In the absence of such studies I am left to rely on my experience of watching cricket and can safely conclude that Hawk Eye, Snicko, and Hot Spot are doing are reasonably good job.

Who said I was fine with that? I was just pointing out the other downsides of Hawkeye - over and above the ball impact issue. Ideally? You talk as if it was a bonus. That is a pre-requisite. And are you not missing the woods for the trees when you compare Hawkeye with Hot Spot and Snicko? Are these two technologies being used to extrapolate using their own obscure algorithm? Do these devices dictate the decision making process directly? You know the answers yourself. What surprises me is that there is no dearth of people to come up and defend Hawkeye just because it is something new - as compared to the age old umpires. Nothing more, nothing less. Any downsides it carries are of no consequence. Bravo. You guys are all positive and trusting beyond belief. Again, I tell you - these are responses of a spectator. People who are frustrated at poor decisions by the umpires. If you believe that cricketers will be happy to have their futures at the crease determined by a tool like Hawkeye with margins of millimetres - you have another thought coming. But you are always welcome to hold your own thought pattern on this. For my part, consider me a skeptic. You want to do away with the old. Show me that the new is comprehensively and demonstrably better and more accurate (read 3rd party review and verification). Until then - no go.

[Gunner_Mania]

We could keep arguing till the cows come home and thevortex you can keep asking for independent verification, but the truth is that the Hawkeye is here to stay now, it will become part of cricket and the players will accept is and take it into their strides.My final word and stance on this is, yes there is a error margin with Hawkeye, but this error margin is compensated by the way it is implemented as part of the UDRS, i.e. Hawkeye is not given control of decision making but the human still has the decision making capability in spite of Hawkeye being there. Hawkeye takes over decision making from the human only in the event of an absolute howler eg. ball pitching outside leg stump or going six inches above the stump and the umpire gives out. Not even a tailender would grumble when in such cases hawkeye over rules an umpire.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

I have said all I wanted to say. Bossbhai - you dont even have a clue as to what the underlying point is. But it is probably not that you dont understand as much as you dont want to. Gunner - the flaw in your line of thinking, in my opinion, is that 'players will eventually accept it and take it in their strides'. Why do you think it should be them who makes the compromise? Again this line of thought is perfectly natural for a cricket spectator. But there are two sides to every coin - true even in this case. And finally Gunner - I am waiting to see a decision where the umpire has the guts to disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation. You know what - this aint going to happen in the present system. Because the decision maker - on field umpire does not get to see it. All this is beyond ridiculous. Nothing I have not already mentioned.

[Gunner_Mania]

And finally Gunner - I am waiting to see a decision where the umpire has the guts to disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation. You know what - this aint going to happen in the present system. Because the decision maker - on field umpire does not get to see it. All this is beyond ridiculous. Nothing I have not already mentioned.

There never will be such a decision. I have said it tons of times and will say again, if hawkeye shows a ball is pitching outside the leg stump (at this point there is no extra polation, hawkeye is just picking the trajectory of the ball untill the point of impact) and a umpire has given that out and he disagrees with hawkeye then he is not fit to be umpiring in the first place. Same thing with using extrapolation and hawkeye is saying that the ball is going above the stumps by six inches, even including its margin of error that ball would still miss the stumps and if a umpire disagrees with it then again he needs to get his eyes checked. Your only bone of contention is with half a ball pitching in line and the ball kissing the bail or gracing the stumps, there is nothing for an umpire to disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation there, because the 3rd umpire looks at the Hawkeye and is just telling, don't trust hawkeye, your decision- the one that you already made is fair. So why would he even disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation when its his decision and not Hawkeye's that is upheld.

[thevortex]

There never will be such a decision. I have said it tons of times and will say again, if hawkeye shows a ball is pitching outside the leg stump (at this point there is no extra polation, hawkeye is just picking the trajectory of the ball untill the point of impact) and a umpire has given that out and he disagrees with hawkeye then he is not fit to be umpiring in the first place. Same thing with using extrapolation and hawkeye is saying that the ball is going above the stumps by six inches, even including its margin of error that ball would still miss the stumps and if a umpire disagrees with it then again he needs to get his eyes checked. Your only bone of contention is with half a ball pitching in line and the ball kissing the bail or gracing the stumps, there is nothing for an umpire to disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation there, because the 3rd umpire looks at the Hawkeye and is just telling, don't trust hawkeye, your decision- the one that you already made is fair. So why would he even disagree with Hawkeye's interpretation when its his decision and not Hawkeye's that is upheld.

Are you perhaps not losing the point by giving convenient examples? I have cited specific scenarios in my previous post. Fact is - such a decision (as explained in the example I gave) has not taken place. You are making a point that it should not. That is because you absolutely believe Hawkeye. I dont. As simple as that. Both the technology as well as the implementation is faulty in this case. How long we are going to stick on with this - only time will tell.

[thevortex]

We could keep arguing till the cows come home and thevortex you can keep asking for independent verification' date=' but the truth is that the Hawkeye is here to stay now, it will become part of cricket and the players will accept is and take it into their strides.My final word and stance on this is, yes there is a error margin with Hawkeye, but this error margin is compensated by the way it is implemented as part of the UDRS, i.e. Hawkeye is not given control of decision making but the human still has the decision making capability in spite of Hawkeye being there. Hawkeye takes over decision making from the human only in the event of an absolute howler eg. ball pitching outside leg stump or going six inches above the stump and the umpire gives out. Not even a tailender would grumble when in such cases hawkeye over rules an umpire.[/quote'] I forgot to respond to what I thought was an interesting point point, Gunner. Who says one has to be happy with the status quo? Because Hawkeye is here to stay - we have to shut up and not criticize it? I dont find any meaning in such lines of thought, I am afraid. Anyway we dont know that Hawkeye is here to stay. Unless you think Wisden's involvement is enough for a really long term involvement :)

[Gunner_Mania]

Are you perhaps not losing the point by giving convenient examples? I have cited specific scenarios in my previous post. Fact is - such a decision (as explained in the example I gave) has not taken place. You are making a point that it should not. That is because you absolutely believe Hawkeye. I dont. As simple as that. Both the technology as well as the implementation is faulty in this case. How long we are going to stick on with this - only time will tell.

I am not. Let me try explaining that again. I am very poor at writing emails or big explanations. May be when I come to Chennai next month we can meet for a kaapi and debate:P All I am saying it is almost impossible for an umpire to over rule Hawkeye in a match because of the way it is implemented. It is acknowledged that there is a margin of error with Hawkeye and therefore where the decision hinges on the point where the margin of error is likely to affect the decision making, it is the onfield umpire whose decision stand and not Hawkeye's. This is how it has been for ages and the status quo is still maintained. Where it is blindingly obvious and Hawkeye proves without any margin of erro that the umpire has called wrongly, then even the umpire wont disagree in it being over turned.

I forgot to respond to what I thought was an interesting point point, Gunner. Who says one has to be happy with the status quo? Because Hawkeye is here to stay - we have to shut up and not criticize it? I dont find any meaning in such lines of thought, I am afraid. Anyway we dont know that Hawkeye is here to stay. Unless you think Wisden's involvement is enough for a really long term involvement :)

I never said you have to shut up and not criticize, of course you can, its just as Bossbhai and some of us criticize umpires because of the errors they have been prone to make. As for being happy with status quo, well you are happy with the status quo that humans are prone to make error which is acceptable, but a technology which reduces the percentage of error is not acceptable. As for Hawkeye being here to stay, if not Hawkeye it will be there with a different name and improved version, but it definitely not going out of the game. lHistory tells you that once aws or technology or innovations, have made their way into the game, they don't go out but only are improved.

[Gunner_Mania]

thevortex - If you get a chance look at the decision from the WI-SA game earlier today. Sulaiman Benn bowling to Alviro Peterson. End of over 27. Let me know what you think about it. It might be available here later:) http://www.cricket-365.net/2010/06/west-indies-vs-south-africa-highlights.html and also the one where Peterson got out.

[thevortex]

I am not. Let me try explaining that again. I am very poor at writing emails or big explanations. May be when I come to Chennai next month we can meet for a kaapi and debate:P All I am saying it is almost impossible for an umpire to over rule Hawkeye in a match because of the way it is implemented. It is acknowledged that there is a margin of error with Hawkeye and therefore where the decision hinges on the point where the margin of error is likely to affect the decision making, it is the onfield umpire whose decision stand and not Hawkeye's. This is how it has been for ages and the status quo is still maintained. Where it is blindingly obvious and Hawkeye proves without any margin of erro that the umpire has called wrongly, then even the umpire wont disagree in it being over turned.

All said and done, though, such a scenario has never happened. Which hearkens back to my point, no? Gunner - let me summarize it for you. You are showing the replay and the technical data to one guy and then asking this guy to talk to somebody on the field and asking the field guy to take the call - without seeing the data. How dense is that? What is the point of this technology then? Forget error margins, millimetres, et al. This is just simple implementation policy gone haywire.

I never said you have to shut up and not criticize, of course you can, its just as Bossbhai and some of us criticize umpires because of the errors they have been prone to make. As for being happy with status quo, well you are happy with the status quo that humans are prone to make error which is acceptable, but a technology which reduces the percentage of error is not acceptable. As for Hawkeye being here to stay, if not Hawkeye it will be there with a different name and improved version, but it definitely not going out of the game. lHistory tells you that once aws or technology or innovations, have made their way into the game, they don't go out but only are improved.

I am not happy with the status quo - as in umpires either. However unlike Bossbhai and others, I am not willing to jump on Hawkeye's bandwagon just because they are new. To me they have to prove their accuracy and infallibility. They have to be deserving of the great game of cricket. No compromise on that front. Oh and you are always welcome for a kaapi and a debate :).

[thevortex]

thevortex - If you get a chance look at the decision from the WI-SA game earlier today. Sulaiman Benn bowling to Alviro Peterson. End of over 27. Let me know what you think about it. It might be available here later:) http://www.cricket-365.net/2010/06/west-indies-vs-south-africa-highlights.html and also the one where Peterson got out.

Unfortunately I sat in front of the TV only after 3 wickets were gone. If I get a chance to view it, I will certainly get back about it in this thread.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

No. Thats YOUR own faulty interpretation of what I type. Hawkeye scores over the umpires on bias . That itself is more than enough to prefer them over the umpires. Lets not even get into the accuracy and consistency part. This is why I prefer H/E over the umpires and I trust my eyes more than any "Independent 3rd Party" out there. Now you can scoff all you want about me trusting my own eyes but the two different polls that I put up on this matter tells me that Iam not alone. Pls try to come to terms with that and that fact that you have not been able to dif out one single howler by H/E that the majority here agree.

Like you say you are not bothered about Hawkeye's accuracy figures. Now, if you would create a poll and ask people if they too dont care too much about Hawkeye's accuracy figures but just want to ensure that umpiring bias is taken care of - that might be interesting. Also it would be interesting to see how many think that umpiring bias is a reality even today. By the way, I really do not care if my opinion is the same as the majority's. I have said this before. Since when did this become so important?!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[b555]

Hot Spot unlikely in 2011 World Cup http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article551505.ece