Did criticizing Hawkeye cost Atul Wassan his spot?!

[nballa]

i didn't know we had a played called atul watson.

[The Outsider]

i didn't know we had a played called atul watson.

You're right. You did not.

[thevortex]

Are MCC lying to me in that email i got? Is H/E lying on their website? Is it ever going to be possible for you to provide a straight yes/no answer to those questions ? And how come nobody amongst the commentators, broadcasters, media is not aware of the fact that H/E is a bogus un-verified inaccurate technology ? Just look at the amount of preposterous conspiracy theories you believe in . And you are talking about honesty ? when was the last time you produced even a decent study that scrutinized H/E and found it to be inaccurate ? When was the last time you took time to write to authorities concerned and got back any iota of backing up to your theories ? Zilch. So if anybody here is being dishonest and has no legs to stand on it is you.

We have been through this before. MCC has offered no numbers nor proof in their email to you. And by the way quit saying that was MCC. That was some employee from the MCC. Or are you saying that that email had a disclaimer from MCC saying that whatever that employee says is to be taken as the golden truth? :) As for Hawkeye - again nothing irrefutable is provided in their website. Have you seen advertisements, Bossbhai? Just how many products go on and say that they are No.1?! Think about it. Oh, they know. They know that it is unverified. Worse yet, amidst all the clamour about Hawkeye not being verified, none of the powers concerned are able to provide evidence to the contrary. I am sure you would have noticed that. I am sorry. But you have never had the gumption to just come out and say that there is no proof out there today. And that is that.

Brilliant lets play the game of "fill in the blanks" shall we? ... I start from a email that I got from horses mouth that carried out the official testing. End of story. Didnt go down well ehhh ?

Horses' mouth? Official testing? What were the results? This is the problem. You who would normally want strong numbers to form an opinion on other things want to rush in and accept what you want to accept at any cost in Hawkeye's case. Why is that? What sort of compulsion is that? I thought you would figure this out better. Where are the numbers? Come on.

Dont like your own medicine now vortex? see how easy it is to be pedantic and nitpick ? Even if it did say H/E in there I will simply ask for a scientific study to back that up. What now ?

Ha ha...scientific study to back Messrs. Tendulkar's and Manohar's opinions? That has to be a first. I just pointed out that there is growing incredulity and distrust out there. That is all. As for scientific you dont have even a locus standi on that point.

[SachDan]

i didn't know we had a played called atul watson.

You're right. You did not.

:haha:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

They confirmed that the numbers claimed by H/E were correct. And dont try to tell me it would have made any difference to you if that email had numbers (as can be seen below by your suspicion about who that email is from and whether its "official" )

Who confirmed? And how did those numbers come into place? What was the testing mode? Did it take place real time? In a cricket match on the centre wicket? If so, where? And how many matches were used as sample size before that number was attained? See, the thing is you are happy to be satisfied by even the promise of proof. Dont expect others to be. That is all I am saying. There are legitimate reasons to doubt the accuracy of Hawkeye. Dont try to spout anything otherwise. It would only be ridiculous.

The email did not have any disclaimers. But predictably i see that you are now saying that the words of the Manager who responded cannot be taken seriously(why am i not surprised) So 1. What will you accept as proof ? ( Are you even willing to acccept any proof ?) 2. And in what mode does this proof have to be presented to you for you to accept it ? (Paper, Email, Web Article , Video etc etc ) 3. Who needs to sign on this proof for you to accept it ? ( MCC/ICC/Supreme Court) ?

Lets first agree that that email proves nothing. Then we can go about enumerating what needs to be proof.

I was not talking about their claim. I was talking about the testing that they said was done by MCC ( tangent pre-emptor : MCC has nothing to do with H/E ). Do you still dispute that no such testing took place at all ? Kindly provide a straight answer.

We dont know of any such testing. MCC has not announced on its website about any such testing or about any of the questions that I have put forth up above.

Just like how you knew Atul Wassan had been fired ?

Pitiful attempt, Bossbhai. You are not able to distinguish between a surmise and a statement.

I have told you that there is nothing that is visible to us. It doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one at all. Especially when MCC has said that they did the testing.

And here is where we will differ. You are able to believe in the esoteric. Even the non-existing. When it comes to Hawkeye. For everything else cricketing you demand proof and numbers. How dichotomous is that? I will leave you to figure that out.

Comparing cricket stats to H/E testing is as ridiculous as it can get simply because H/E is a machine and Cricket is a sport. Most importantly I dont subscribe to ridiculous conspiracy theories like you do. Next there would be a reason to question if there was repeated questioning of H/E images on the forums like what happens with umpiring all the time. Have you even found a bucknoresque howler? Heck you are soo vague and slippery that you dont even want to clearly categorize the supposed errors you claim to have observed in H/E. To make it more ridiculous you wont even say what you will accept as proof So why the heck should I bother wasting time with you on that ?

Yeah, right. There is only one kind of error that you recognize. And that is Bucknoresque. What can I say? The proof is out there. Your closing your eyes will not make it go away. However much you wish for it to be so.

Just dont try to peddle that as "proof" of your theory. I can play that exact same game too.

First, try and understand. That is not my theory. Those are opinions of the gentlemen I have named. They have come out and said so. And there is no game to be played here except in your mind.

That is bound to happen when you know jack about the system or even the procedures that are in place.

Nothing to do with any system. Hawkeye does not have a single shred of proof backing it. So you dont have a locus standi as far as 'scientific'.

[thevortex]

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/472128.html is he lying thru his teeth vortex ? Do you have that much of courtesy to say so in clear terms (Yes/No) just because of the amount of time that I have spent trying to discuss this topic ? Will it be possible for you to JUST ONCE answer in Yes/No ?

Please, Bossbhai - dont make yourself look any more ridiculous. Hawkins is the inventor of this technology. Are you really wanting for everybody to believe exactly what he says - to the millimetre - about the system's error margin? See, you might be willing to buy that lock, stock and barrel. That is your call. Just dont stand up and start posturing when others do not straightaway gobble that stuff up. For the record - No, that statement is too vague to be categorized as truth or false. And no, I am not being vague. He is.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

What is vague about 2.6 mm ?

When is that number valid? Under all conditions? In every country in the planet? Regardless of pitch wear? Is that a range or a single, solid number? How much testing in real time cricket matches at a high level was carried out in order for him to bring out this number?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

When is that number valid? Under all conditions? In every country in the planet? Regardless of pitch wear? Is that a range or a single, solid number? How much testing in real time cricket matches at a high level was carried out in order for him to bring out this number?

My two pence -The margin of error is 2.6 mm. i.e the predicted path can be +/- 2.6mm from what may have been the actual path. Now frankly even if it is 2.7mm, 2.5mm or 3mm it is made irrelevant because of the way the whole system of UDRS is implemented.

"Our system's margin of error is so small, given the protocol that is used, it is kind of irrelevant. You have the zone of uncertainty built in, which is effectively a model of the umpire's zone of uncertainty."

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/472128.html And no, we don't have to take Paul Hawkin's word for it, it is common sense when you look at teh way the Hawk Eye is implemented within UDRS. To give an example, remember that KP decision we discussed, he was given not out, Hawkeye showed the ball clipping outside of legstump and the not out decision stood. Now had he been given out by the Umpire and Hawkeye showed it clipping, he would have been given out. Either way nobody would have grumbled about the decision be it with or without Hawkeye. On the other had the Zulqernain Haidard ecision in the second innings was a howler. The ball was missing the leg stump by a fair distance even to the naked eye but he was given out. Even with this 2.6mm error of margin, the ball would still have missed the leg stump. It is those decisions that Hawkeye can and does correct and nobody will grumble. Bottom line is an umpire without Hawkeye is doing a predicition of the ball's path and has got a wide leverage for his error margin- much greater than 2.6 mm, Hawkeye's 2.6mm is anyday acceptable.

[asterix]

Him the "inventor" claiming anything is being termed as vague..because inventors are not supposed to claim anything. They are not supposed to make others aware of what he has invented and make claims. Claims and precise claims are only the domain of those who have 'not invented' anything and especially those who are only found in discussion forums. "Precise claims" are those which ask others to provide evidence of everything while not providing a single certificate/evidence/article/document while making those claims. Example of Precise claim: LBW judgements can effectively assisted by a ground breaking technology called "Hotspots". Hotspot gives you the exact location of the ball hitting the pad and then you can yourself make a guess of it hitting the stumps or not because "Hotspot" can also show the sideways view too (never seen though for LBWs) for you to make an informed guess of the trajectory of the delivery...Also Sachin doesn't likes "Virtual eye (or whoever was the dad of H/E)" because he bungled number of time in taking the right referrals in some Goddammened tour of Srilanka in the past..Sachin is happy to be adjudged atrociously by umpires because he thinks he was on the wrong end of technology in some goddamned godforsaken bloody tour (in which all the senior player took oath to NEVER EVER, I repeat NEVER EVER succumb to the evil empire of technology, never mind selling their souls to IPL franchisees)..Because Sachin is GOD!! Whatever he says is always correct. Why? even his **** don't even smells bad..Because he is GOD!!

[Gunner_Mania]

For those asking for HotSpot, the only use it has for LBW decisions is to see whether or not there was an inside edge. Once that is sorted, the rest of the decision is still based on Hawkeye.

[asterix]

In cricket, only LBW dismissals are precise and not "vague". All other forms of dismissals like Caught, Bowled, Stumped, Run Out etc. are vague and need accurate technologies like Hotspot, Sniko, Stump Microphone. For "precise" and "clear" dismissals by LBW one doesn't needs any technology apart from Hotspot to just assist the magnificent human brain of the Umpire to judge. Hotspot can even show the side views too if required for ball hitting in the front of the pad!! I mean, why do a human brain needs an imperfect, vague, not certified technology like Hawkeye to judge LBW dismissals when it is the most clear form of dismissal in cricket where everybody can clearly see the ball will eventually either hit the stumps or not by naked eye.. Hence imperfect technologies like H/E has no place in Cricket and hence ICC should immediately remove the use of this technology from UDRS..

[thevortex]

Ok ... one more time ... do you REALLY REALLY understand how this technology works in theory/principle ? Iam not tryng to be a smart ***** . Just a honest question. If you dont understand I can explain.

I think I do, Bossbhai. Thanks for the offer.

My two pence -The margin of error is 2.6 mm. i.e the predicted path can be +/- 2.6mm from what may have been the actual path. Now frankly even if it is 2.7mm, 2.5mm or 3mm it is made irrelevant because of the way the whole system of UDRS is implemented. http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/472128.html

The cricket ball - as is a tennis ball - is a sphere. Or something close. At any point of time when the ball pitches, how many millimetres/centimetres of it do you think is touching the ground? Now tell me if that error percentile is still irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that that error percentile number is one quoted by the system's inventor.

And no, we don't have to take Paul Hawkin's word for it, it is common sense when you look at teh way the Hawk Eye is implemented within UDRS. To give an example, remember that KP decision we discussed, he was given not out, Hawkeye showed the ball clipping outside of legstump and the not out decision stood. Now had he been given out by the Umpire and Hawkeye showed it clipping, he would have been given out. Either way nobody would have grumbled about the decision be it with or without Hawkeye.

And I had laid out exactly why I disagreed with the way it was implemented. There are times when you have to allow Hawkeye to take the decision - literally.

On the other had the Zulqernain Haidard ecision in the second innings was a howler. The ball was missing the leg stump by a fair distance even to the naked eye but he was given out. Even with this 2.6mm error of margin, the ball would still have missed the leg stump. It is those decisions that Hawkeye can and does correct and nobody will grumble.

I have no problem with this. But I do have a problem with the predictive element of the technology. Also do we have any kind of error percentile for this predictive mechanism? Remember there are two kinds of errors possible. One about the area of the pitch that the ball lands on (perhaps also the part of the pad it strikes on) and then the path that the ball supposedly takes if it were not to hit the batsman.

Bottom line is an umpire without Hawkeye is doing a predicition of the ball's path and has got a wide leverage for his error margin- much greater than 2.6 mm, Hawkeye's 2.6mm is anyday acceptable.

Is that the argument that the proponents of technology put forward? I am afraid it is very nebulous if that is what is to be put forward.

For those asking for HotSpot' date=' the only use it has for LBW decisions is to see whether or not there was an inside edge. Once that is sorted, the rest of the decision is still based on Hawkeye.[/quote'] And precisely for that reason, Hot Spot is being preferred. The lack of the predictive element!

[thevortex]

Him the "inventor" claiming anything is being termed as vague..because inventors are not supposed to claim anything. They are not supposed to make others aware of what he has invented and make claims. Claims and precise claims are only the domain of those who have 'not invented' anything and especially those who are only found in discussion forums. "Precise claims" are those which ask others to provide evidence of everything while not providing a single certificate/evidence/article/document while making those claims. Example of Precise claim: LBW judgements can effectively assisted by a ground breaking technology called "Hotspots". Hotspot gives you the exact location of the ball hitting the pad and then you can yourself make a guess of it hitting the stumps or not because "Hotspot" can also show the sideways view too (never seen though for LBWs) for you to make an informed guess of the trajectory of the delivery...Also Sachin doesn't likes "Virtual eye (or whoever was the dad of H/E)" because he bungled number of time in taking the right referrals in some Goddammened tour of Srilanka in the past..Sachin is happy to be adjudged atrociously by umpires because he thinks he was on the wrong end of technology in some goddamned godforsaken bloody tour (in which all the senior player took oath to NEVER EVER, I repeat NEVER EVER succumb to the evil empire of technology, never mind selling their souls to IPL franchisees)..Because Sachin is GOD!! Whatever he says is always correct. Why? even his **** don't even smells bad..Because he is GOD!!

:) Nice one, asterix.

[achilles]

Any channel that brands its live broadcast with a - These pictures are the exclusive property of Ten Sports - when Murali got his 800' date=' is petty.[/quote'] They are protecting their interests. I'm sure no one will like his feed "accessed" by newschannels, whose logos and time checks hide the Tensports logo, with a small "Courtesy: Tensports" on the top, that no one bothers to read. Not a cricketing decision, but a commercial one. It doesn't matter whether one likes it or not.

[CSK Fan]

Him the "inventor" claiming anything is being termed as vague..because inventors are not supposed to claim anything. They are not supposed to make others aware of what he has invented and make claims. Claims and precise claims are only the domain of those who have 'not invented' anything and especially those who are only found in discussion forums. "Precise claims" are those which ask others to provide evidence of everything while not providing a single certificate/evidence/article/document while making those claims. Example of Precise claim: LBW judgements can effectively assisted by a ground breaking technology called "Hotspots". Hotspot gives you the exact location of the ball hitting the pad and then you can yourself make a guess of it hitting the stumps or not because "Hotspot" can also show the sideways view too (never seen though for LBWs) for you to make an informed guess of the trajectory of the delivery...Also Sachin doesn't likes "Virtual eye (or whoever was the dad of H/E)" because he bungled number of time in taking the right referrals in some Goddammened tour of Srilanka in the past..Sachin is happy to be adjudged atrociously by umpires because he thinks he was on the wrong end of technology in some goddamned godforsaken bloody tour (in which all the senior player took oath to NEVER EVER, I repeat NEVER EVER succumb to the evil empire of technology, never mind selling their souls to IPL franchisees)..Because Sachin is GOD!! Whatever he says is always correct. Why? even his **** don't even smells bad..Because he is GOD!!

Why do u think hot spot os precise and H/E is not?

[Gunner_Mania]

Why do u think hot spot os precise and H/E is not?

sarcasm:icflove: