Did criticizing Hawkeye cost Atul Wassan his spot?!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

You wouldnt ask if it takes into account pitch conditions if you truly knew how it works. The other condition(Geographical location) that you mentioned is just hilarious and merely a red-herring.

And you know that because you participated in how many Tests? Do you know that a cricket ball changes shape too over the course of play? And you think Hawkeye can predict bounce, trajectory and what-not correctly even in such scenarios? And every other scenario?

[thevortex]

You wouldnt ask if it takes into account pitch conditions if you truly knew how it works. The other condition(Geographical location) that you mentioned is just hilarious and merely a red-herring.

By the way, it is just like you to focus only on the periphery and deliberately try to lose focus of the core issue. Do we have actual supporting proof of this number being quoted?

[Gunner_Mania]

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.

My point about the error percentile is, 2.6mm is a very very small distance, it could be 3mm or even 3.5mm.. Thats still probably less than the raidus of the ball. So frankly if you factor in that error margin, I dont believe the decision would really change 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.

Must admit, I havent read it as I seem to have missed the thread.

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.

Its the same thing that the Human Umpire is also doing isnt it, predicting the path. He also has an undefined margin of error, and mind you this is different from umpire to umpire at least with technology it remains constant and it doesnt make up the predicitive element under any stress. As far as where the ball pitch is concerned there should be no error in this as it is a straight forwad fact, not a predicted path.

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.

No thats the argument I put forward.

And precisely for that reason, Hot Spot is being preferred. The lack of the predictive element!

Why would you need Hotspot? You don't need Hot Spot or any technology for that matter.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

My point about the error percentile is' date=' 2.6mm is a very very small distance, it could be 3mm or even 3.5mm.. Thats still probably less than the raidus of the ball. So frankly if you factor in that error margin, I dont believe the decision would really change with or without Hawkeye.[/quote'] Does the error margin have to be bigger than the radius of the cricket ball, Gunner? That is way too much, dont you think? But I am sure you understand the point.

Its the same thing that the Human Umpire is also doing isnt it, predicting the path. He also has an undefined margin of error, and mind you this is different from umpire to umpire at least with technology it remains constant and it doesnt make up the predicitive element under any stress. As far as where the ball pitch is concerned there should be no error in this as it is a straight forwad fact, not a predicted path.

See, this is one argument I keep hearing. Even if it makes mistakes it is constant and consistent. So I prefer that to umpires. Have we lost all respect for the human element? Do we not respect cricket judgment any longer? And why have the men in white out there? All this apart - it is not as if this is a faultless implementation or an error-free technology. Where is the point? That is what some of the players have questioned.

Why would you need Hotspot? You don't need Hot Spot or any technology for that matter.

Not true. Hot Spot would show you the exact point of impact. There is no mathematical extrapolation. Let the human eye take over from that point onwards. This way, there is absolutely no role for the 3rd umpire rather than act as a glorified button pusher. Dont you see that? We have had this conversation before.

[thevortex]

I have not lost track of the core issue - i.e taking the words of H/E Inc.' date=' ... I keep repeating this again and again but one more time .... what according yo you ... are the odds that H/E inventor is squarely lying thru his teeth and that he is simply unware of all the variables that affect H/E and has simply no data to back up his claims ? Think !!. Also think about the no.of people and various organizations and TV Networks that they would have to "cheat" because this product ( a bogus one according to you ) is out there in the limelight every other day. Think !! Just pure common sense. There is a limit to the lengths at which someone can go to buy into conspiracy theories.[/quote'] Lets discuss this common sense. I am not sure if you were monitoring one of my other responses on this subject. TV Networks are pro-technology. Its very simple. This technology time gives them time to heap on more commercials. Full screen, half screen, on the corners - bring them on! I am not saying that that is the nature of the beast and that they are all in collusion. Just pointing out the nature of things. And lastly you have to think. Why are you so eager to buy anything and everything that the inventory of the technology talks about his own product. Why indeed!!! I will tell you. You want a break from umpires. You have it in against them. Am not blaming you totally for that. Neither are you alone in that sentiment. So anything that takes umpires away from the game is good for you. See, that does not work for everybody. That is the point that you so often miss. Conveniently.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CSK Fan]

Does the error margin have to be bigger than the radius of the cricket ball, Gunner? That is way too much, dont you think? But I am sure you understand the point. Not true. Hot Spot would show you the exact point of impact. There is no mathematical extrapolation. Let the human eye take over from that point onwards. .

So the human eye with all its limitations will be able to make a better prediction of the trajectory than technology? On what basis is your claim? BTW, the error rate when as human eye makes a prediction is much more than 2.6mm, you seem to completely ignore this fact, of course as its your beloved umpires.

[thevortex]

Is that why they are openly squabbling over who pays the bills for the cost of implementing these gadgets ?

Are you familiar with the concept of free lunch? :)

damn right I dont like umpires. Give me a reason why I should and I will listen.(And Iam not even talking about SCG'08. ) The evidence against them accumulates on a daily basis. If you want to talk about comparing Umpires to H/E lets talk about the no.of Test matches wrecked by H/E and we can take it from there. And this is just not the opinion of me who according to you is bewitched by H/E .... you have already seen majority opinion thru 2 or 3 polls here. How does such a overwhelming sentiment get set in ? Did H/E bribe everybody here ? And you hide behind scientific basis when talking about H/E ... what is your scientific basis for umpires ? Do you even have the necessary honesty to admit that you conveniently set stringent standards for H/E but have virtually no expectations from umpires ? Heck the umpires are not even guaranteed to be impartial and un-biased - A primary requirement of any referre business. And please for the love of god dont ask for a certificate of impartiality signed by a SC judge for H/E.

I could not have put it across better myself, Bossbhai. Thanks for elucidating.

[thevortex]

So the human eye with all its limitations will be able to make a better prediction of the trajectory than technology? On what basis is your claim? BTW' date=' the error rate when as human eye makes a prediction is much more than 2.6mm, you seem to completely ignore this fact, of course as its your beloved umpires.[/quote'] My two cents - it is not a simple task to assign an error value to the human eye. Whether you like it or not, the human eye is a far more advanced machine than we care to admit. Even Mr. Hawkins would not deny that. What we do with the eye and our sight - that differs from person to person. Suffice to say that no machine can ever hope to match intuition with judgment and experience to take decisions. And contrary to how it may seem - it DOES NOT mean that I am in love with umpires just because I criticize Hawkeye. One has nothing to do with the other. I have respect for the umpires. But I have no qualms even pointing out their mistakes.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

You are blissfully missing the point, Bossbhai. Whatever floats your boat.

[asterix]

My two cents - it is not a simple task to assign an error value to the human eye. Whether you like it or not, the human eye is a far more advanced machine than we care to admit. Even Mr. Hawkins would not deny that. What we do with the eye and our sight - that differs from person to person. Suffice to say that no machine can ever hope to match intuition with judgment and experience to take decisions. And contrary to how it may seem - it DOES NOT mean that I am in love with umpires just because I criticize Hawkeye. One has nothing to do with the other. I have respect for the umpires. But I have no qualms even pointing out their mistakes.

Whatever floats your boat, Thevortex.. Human eye doesn't have decision making powers, however sophisticated it is. The decision making power is with the sophisticated brain. Which is fine if all the sophisticated brains of all the umpires from Sahiba, Oxenford, Joker Bowden, Dharmasena, Taufel and others are all same and make exact decisions under same circumstances, day in and day out. I'm not even talking about personal baises and 'beer buddy' phenomenon..Oh well the 'human touch'...The 'touch' of Dharmasena..:giggle: As I said whatever floats your boat..Glad that ICC has taken some right decisions in intruducing technology..

[asterix]

On a separate note, I would rather like to have some computer making decisions about players conduct than stupid and baised Match Refrees like Chris Broad, Mahanama, Madugalle etc. I've had enough of their "Human Element"..

[achilles]

Whatever floats your boat, Thevortex.. Human eye doesn't have decision making powers, however sophisticated it is. The decision making power is with the sophisticated brain. Which is fine if all the sophisticated brains of all the umpires from Sahiba, Oxenford, Joker Bowden, Dharmasena, Taufel and others are all same and make exact decisions under same circumstances, day in and day out. I'm not even talking about personal baises and 'beer buddy' phenomenon..Oh well the 'human touch'...The 'touch' of Dharmasena..:giggle: As I said whatever floats your boat..Glad that ICC has taken some right decisions in intruducing technology..

No one has a problem with the introduction of technology. It is with the accuracy and the balance of man and machine that is the problem.

[thevortex]

Whatever floats your boat, Thevortex.. Human eye doesn't have decision making powers, however sophisticated it is. The decision making power is with the sophisticated brain. Which is fine if all the sophisticated brains of all the umpires from Sahiba, Oxenford, Joker Bowden, Dharmasena, Taufel and others are all same and make exact decisions under same circumstances, day in and day out. I'm not even talking about personal baises and 'beer buddy' phenomenon..Oh well the 'human touch'...The 'touch' of Dharmasena..:giggle: As I said whatever floats your boat..Glad that ICC has taken some right decisions in intruducing technology..

You know what asterix? Why do we need these imperfect players with all these biases and wrong judgments and all that? How do we know that a player X does not wilfully underperform when he is playing under captain A and not doing so under captain B? Lets ditch them all, na. Why not have machines? At least they wont bowl wides and no-balls right? And they wont make basic mistakes - glaring mistakes - like not getting the foot to the pitch of the ball!!!! The human element is of paramount importance. In fact that is non-negotiable. It is because there are humans involved in it is it called sport. Otherwise it will be nothing more than a glorified than a video game. This should never be lost sight of.

[thevortex]

No one has a problem with the introduction of technology. It is with the accuracy and the balance of man and machine that is the problem.

I would have thought that much was evident, Achilles. Glad you see the point.

[achilles]

I would have thought that much was evident' date=' Achilles. Glad you see the point.[/quote'] Thanks buddy. And tbh, I thought about posting the obvious, given that the conversation on the subject is going about in circles.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --