Did criticizing Hawkeye cost Atul Wassan his spot?!

[achilles]

The discussion is going in circles because vortex wont believe any numbers provided by anybody unless it is accompanied by a certificate from a SC justice. Till then its all a big fat lie. Heck he doesnt even have the requisite courtesy to say whether he will accept H/E when all the gory details are infront of him and they clearly say H/E is accurate.

I've read your countless comments about "independent evaluators" and they really crack the junta up. But lets just agree to disagree on this one, people. Its not good to see senior members squabbling in the open. I'm sure you guys can work this out. You what compounds both your discussions even more? Both of you are right in your respective ways. So maybe we can keep it at that. Consider this to be an olive branch from a completely "Independent and Third-party evaluator, working under the Supreme Court of India" :icflove:

[asterix]

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.

Ha ha ha..Balance of Man & Machine..Dosent work when you have umpires with hidden agendas and bais. Why go for Neutral umpires then? Why not have faith in the 'human factor' of home team umpires? Fancy that? Balance of man & machine doesn't works when you have suspect "neutral umpires" too. So you'll have a Bowden not giving Australian batsmen LBW out, 9 out of 10 times. The same Bowden will give Indian batsmen LBW out 7 out of 10 times.. Remember Sydney test? Technology was there. Remember Bruce Oxenford? Imagine a scenario...Imagine the evil H/E is removed from UDRS. So the LBWs are at the mercy of Hotspot and Umpire (for example Billy Bowden) (TheVortex doesn't even wants to involve the 3rd umpires) having hand held devices or electronic glass visors on which they can see the 2-d Hotspot and then checks who is batting (if it's Sachin or Ponting). Then he thinks quickly. Who is his beer buddy, Sachin or Ponting? Then takes the decision accordingly. The it's upto the commentators to justify the decision in whichever way possible. And there will be lot's of possibilities between 'benefit of doubts to absolutely plumbs'.. Take it or leave it. Every body will be happy. I really hope in order to preserve the 'home umpire's human elements' we should remove neutral umpires too. Aren't home umpires human. After all they only make mistakes like any other human being.. Because people have comfortably forgotten an important human element: Bais. You cannot cover bais under the garb of human mistakes.

[Lord]

I've read your countless comments about "independent evaluators" and they really crack the junta up. But lets just agree to disagree on this one, people. Its not good to see senior members squabbling in the open. I'm sure you guys can work this out. You what compounds both your discussions even more? Both of you are right in your respective ways. So maybe we can keep it at that. Consider this to be an olive branch from a completely "Independent and Third-party evaluator, working under the Supreme Court of India" :icflove:

you r borringgggggg:whack:

[achilles]

Ha ha ha..Balance of Man & Machine..Dosent work when you have umpires with hidden agendas and bais. Why go for Neutral umpires then? Why not have faith in the 'human factor' of home team umpires? Fancy that? Balance of man & machine doesn't works when you have suspect "neutral umpires" too. So you'll have a Bowden not giving Australian batsmen LBW out, 9 out of 10 times. The same Bowden will give Indian batsmen LBW out 7 out of 10 times.. Remember Sydney test? Technology was there. Remember Bruce Oxenford? Imagine a scenario...Imagine the evil H/E is removed from UDRS. So the LBWs are at the mercy of Hotspot and Umpire (for example Billy Bowden) (TheVortex doesn't even wants to involve the 3rd umpires) having hand held devices or electronic glass visors on which they can see the 2-d Hotspot and then checks who is batting (if it's Sachin or Ponting). Then he thinks quickly. Who is his beer buddy, Sachin or Ponting? Then takes the decision accordingly. The it's upto the commentators to justify the decision in whichever way possible. And there will be lot's of possibilities between 'benefit of doubts to absolutely plumbs'.. Take it or leave it. Every body will be happy. I really hope in order to preserve the 'home umpire's human elements' we should remove neutral umpires too. Aren't home umpires human. After all they only make mistakes like any other human being.. Because people have comfortably forgotten an important human element: Bais. You cannot cover bais under the garb of human mistakes.

I agree with EVERY WORD you have said. However, until it is concluded that a machine can make a 99.9% correct decision, the ICC is always going to be a pack of people with varying viewpoints.

you r borringgggggg:whack:

No . It was getting a bit out of hand, here :shakehands:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[asterix]

Achillis, I'll take even marginal inaccurate decisions by any technology used in UDRS everytime as long as it's not accompanied by any Umpire's bais.

[thevortex]

both cant be right because our positions are diametrically opposite. As long as the discussion can be based on logic and common sense he(vortex) has no leg to stand on and substantiate his position. This is where conspiracy theories (such as MCC is lying in their email as is H/E and they both dont know what they are talking and only vortex knows) and the art of being a deadbeat come in very handy.

Throwing around choice adjectives is a game two can play. Keyword is 'can'. I choose not to. By the way, logic and commonsense have nothing whatsoever to do with your stand or your love for Mr. Hawkins. You will quite possibly believe him absolutely if he says tomorrow that the earth is flat! :) And what is more - you are going to ask me to show you videos to disprove the 'fact' that earth is flat!

[thevortex]

Achillis' date=' I'll take even marginal inaccurate decisions by any technology used in UDRS everytime as long as it's not accompanied by any Umpire's bais.[/quote'] You think that even neutral umpires have bias, is it? How exactly do you determine which decision is a genuine mistake and how do you differentiate that from a decision that was taken with supposedly a mind to do the player or the team in? I am curious.

[asterix]

You think that even neutral umpires have bias' date=' is it? How exactly do you determine which decision is a genuine mistake and how do you differentiate that from a decision that was taken with supposedly a mind to do the player or the team in? I am curious.[/quote'] You think home umpires have bais? How exactly do you decide? Can't they commit genuine mistakes without favouring the home team? I am curious too.. Why do you want neutral umpires? What about home umpire's human rights?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[asterix]

You think that even neutral umpires have bias' date=' is it? How exactly do you determine which decision is a genuine mistake and how do you differentiate that from a decision that was taken with supposedly a mind to do the player or the team in? I am curious.[/quote'] These are few of your past posts. You think Nuetral umpires only make mistakes and don't have bais? You must be living in fools paradise. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1108693#post1108693 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118769#post1118769 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118435#post1118435 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118436#post1118436

[saneindian]

Atul Wassan would never ever believe that there is a thread with his name in the title on ICF and the discussion has run into 3 pages!!

[asterix]

Atul Wassan would never ever believe that there is a thread with his name in the title on ICF and the discussion has run into 3 pages!!

Atul Wassan would rather bang his head in a wall if he gets to know that this stupid and ridiculous topic was actually started, in the first place. :giggle:

[thevortex]

You think home umpires have bais? How exactly do you decide? Can't they commit genuine mistakes without favouring the home team? I am curious too.. Why do you want neutral umpires? What about home umpire's human rights?

Asterix - I think I asked you a couple of questions. The answers cannot be questions themselves :). I did not say anybody has or does not have bias. But you did. Hence my question. So, it is not for me to decide at all.

These are few of your past posts. You think Nuetral umpires only make mistakes and don't have bais? You must be living in fools paradise. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1108693#post1108693 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118769#post1118769 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118435#post1118435 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=1118436#post1118436

Neutral umpires are human. Apart from the biases and sensitivity issues associated with that particular fact of truth, I dont believe any neutral umpire has it in for any particular international team. Truth to speak - international umpires are a much scrutinized lot. They cannot - just cannot - find themselves being shown up to be partial to any team. On TV. So, even if they wanted to, it would be difficult for them to be blatantly partial.

[thevortex]

This is pretty hilarious comming from someone who said Atul Wassan got fired for speaking up against H/E. And as far as believing Paul Hawkins and common sense is concerned ... are you trying to tell me that someone comes up with a media release and openly invites the Indian Captain to come have a closer look at H/E is not to be trusted and treated as a liar ? Is this how your common sense works ?

You have shown yourself to be manifestly and completely incapable of making out the difference between a surmise and a statement. Time and again. About Paul Hawkins and his offer - I would term that act to be gracious. But grace is not science. Or do you need an explanation to help you understand that fact as well? And this is not about calling Hawkins names. Dont demean yourself by throwing around such ludicrous statements. This is about corroboration. Simple, irrefutable proof. That is all.

[asterix]

Asterix - I think I asked you a couple of questions. The answers cannot be questions themselves :). I did not say anybody has or does not have bias. But you did. Hence my question. So, it is not for me to decide at all. Neutral umpires are human. Apart from the biases and sensitivity issues associated with that particular fact of truth, I dont believe any neutral umpire has it in for any particular international team. Truth to speak - international umpires are a much scrutinized lot. They cannot - just cannot - find themselves being shown up to be partial to any team. On TV. So, even if they wanted to, it would be difficult for them to be blatantly partial.

Since I cannot expect a straight answer from you, I'll give you one example (There are many. Umpires are on the field not only to make decisions, they have to book players if they are offending. For example Billy Bowden and his collegue complaining about Gambhir in the Delhi test and GAmbhir being banned while katich and Watson going scotfree is a prime example of bais. Once that's committed, I would consider Bowden capable of making baised decisions in favour of Aussies while you have be happily ignorant about them and consider as 'mistakes. As I said, whatever floats your boat). Back to the example (Since you go around asking every body about examples, certificates, proof etc. while yourself making blatant claims and not giving any examples or proof. You are like the ISI of Pakistan. Just keep on offending others but keep on asking certificates and proof from others without yourself cooperting with the investigations..). Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Sydney test. Check this topic to know more about "Neutral umpires mistakes": http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=93518 I know you'll keep on asking more examples, certificates, proof etc. But I think I've said enough. I don't owe you any more explainations. Just like you support ICC to go for Neutral umpires but get angry at ICC for selecting H/E, anybody else can have a different view of getting angry at ICC for introducing Neutral umpires (Like Billys, Bruces etc. of this world) at the expense of poor Home umpires (what about their human rights, human touch, human elements?). You throw around terms like "why not have robots?". So now I throw a term.. "why not cancel of the home matches as no home umpires are being allowed of their human rights? Why not just have matches in Neutral venues having Neutral match officials?"

[thevortex]

Since I cannot expect a straight answer from you, I'll give you one example (There are many. Umpires are on the field not only to make decisions, they have to book players if they are offending. For example Billy Bowden and his collegue complaining about Gambhir in the Delhi test and GAmbhir being banned while katich and Watson going scotfree is a prime example of bais. Once that's committed, I would consider Bowden capable of making baised decisions in favour of Aussies while you have be happily ignorant about them and consider as 'mistakes. As I said, whatever floats your boat). Back to the example (Since you go around asking every body about examples, certificates, proof etc. while yourself making blatant claims and not giving any examples or proof. You are like the ISI of Pakistan. Just keep on offending others but keep on asking certificates and proof from others without yourself cooperting with the investigations..). Bruce Oxenford was the third umpire in the Sydney test. Check this topic to know more about "Neutral umpires mistakes": http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=93518 I know you'll keep on asking more examples, certificates, proof etc. But I think I've said enough. I don't owe you any more explainations. Just like you support ICC to go for Neutral umpires but get angry at ICC for selecting H/E, anybody else can have a different view of getting angry at ICC for introducing Neutral umpires (Like Billys, Bruces etc. of this world) at the expense of poor Home umpires (what about their human rights, human touch, human elements?). You throw around terms like "why not have robots?". So now I throw a term.. "why not cancel of the home matches as no home umpires are being allowed of their human rights? Why not just have matches in Neutral venues having Neutral match officials?"

Again you have not even attempted to answer my original questions. You accuse umpires of bias. Not ineptitude or incapability. That is a serious accusation. I want to know how you do that. Its a simple question really. That bit about the ISI was mildly funny but not really relevant. If you had followed my posts, you will note that I have never defended umpires the way the proponents of Hawkeye defend that technology. But feel free to believe what you will. The point was and always is that accusing people of bias is a serious thing. Humans make mistakes. To decide that somebody made a motivated mistake you need evidence. That is the way the law works. The world works. You will have to take cognizance of that. About the Gambhir incident, I thought both must have been punished. Just as I thought that Benn should have been let off but Johnson and Haddin must have been slammed into the pound. The same way I thought Gambhir should have been punished more heavily for his heated outburst and physical contact with Afridi in an ODI match. The same way I thought it was unfair to punish Sehwag in the South African Test tour. The same way I thought that Harbhajan Singh should have been summarily dismissed from international level cricket after he dared to raise his hand against a fellow cricketer. And more importantly an opponent. So on so forth. Humans make mistakes. We can always discuss them threadbare. If it makes you feel good, call them names. But to accuse them of being biased and of making mistakes in motivated fashion, is a serious thing. You have to have evidence. And the thing is - the act itself is never evidence. And this is a straighter answer than the one you gave me, I am afraid.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

you do that by looking at the track record of who gets sawn off repeatedly. This was on blatant display during SCG'04, B'lore'04, SCG'08. Simple common sense says that un-biased mistakes will affect both teams equally. Lets just cut to the chase here ... are you trying to tell me that what you wrote in the OP was right ?. If so I would also like to create a thread titled : "Could vortex be a thief ? because someone i know lost money in your town".

The happening is not evidence. Of anything. I thought I did lay this out very clearly in my response. So whoever got sawn off; that in itself is not evidence. And by the way you are leagues away from getting close to what I meant? I was not accusing anybody of anything. But if you wish to twist it to suit whatever purposes you may have, go ahead. I will not spoil your fun.