No UDRS system for Australia (and NZ) series: BCCI

[Gunner_Mania]

source?

[cowboysfan]

could this possibly be true??

[thevortex]

http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/472128.html The highligted bit is for thevortex:)

Gunner - I guess it does not matter for you as to who is talking about this 'margin for error'. Or are you, like Bossbhai, willing to hold Mr. Hawkins' testimony as the one true thing in the whole world and that which cannot be disagreed with or superceded? :)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - I guess it does not matter for you as to who is talking about this 'margin for error'. Or are you' date=' like Bossbhai, willing to hold Mr. Hawkins' testimony as the one true thing in the whole world and that which cannot be disagreed with or superceded? :)[/quote'] If you looked at it I did not highlight for you what Mr.Hawkins was saying about how much is the margin of error, but about how the implementation makes the margin of error irrelevant and also that in some cases the implementation is such that the umpire is not required to abide by Hawk eye's prediction. Thats the point I've always made, the implementation of the technology within UDRS makes the margin of error irrelevant.

[thevortex]

here is how the last round of the discussion went .... You: where are the numbers about H/E's accuracy. Me : Heres what H/E has to say about error margins. You: Means nothing Me : Why You: Because he is not neutral and has vested interests. Me: So he is squarely lying thru his teeth to the entire world ? You: Probably ( it took about a million posts to extract this answer from you) Me: So why does MCC which did the testing not refute that claim of H/E ? You : That email from MCC means nothing Me : Why ? You: Because I see no certification and the gory details Me : What will you accept as proof and it should be presented in what mode? You: No real straight and clear answer to this other than a whole bunch vague and slippery BS.

Let me be straight here. You dont even half a leg to stand on. You dont have proof. So your questioning me on what if some hypothetical proof comes is sheer lunacy. Not to mention, manifestly deceitful as you are not able to admit and accept that there is no proof now. Start with the ground realities. Accept them. Move on.

[thevortex]

If you looked at it I did not highlight for you what Mr.Hawkins was saying about how much is the margin of error, but about how the implementation makes the margin of error irrelevant and also that in some cases the implementation is such that the umpire is not required to abide by Hawk eye's prediction. Thats the point I've always made, the implementation of the technology within UDRS makes the margin of error irrelevant.

Gunner - if I am not wrong we had this exact conversation earlier as well. Tell me this - if Hawkeye shows more than half the ball hitting the stumps and the 3rd umpire is called into officiate (lets have it that the onfield umpire's decision was not out). Do you believe that the 3rd umpire can or will declare it not out? What basis does he have other than Hawkeye to disagree with it? Just consider the court of law for one second. The judge can have several feelings about a case that is being presented to him. But there is one important fact. He cannot disagree with 'facts' being placed before him. Or evidence. Hawkeye is the only evidence that the 3rd umpire has. How does he disagree with it? On what basis? Dont you think the entire statement is more than a little hollow? In short, it reeks of the incompetence with which this entire system has been implemented - nay, fast tracked - at the highest level of the game that we all so much adore and respect.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gunner_Mania]

Gunner - if I am not wrong we had this exact conversation earlier as well. Tell me this - if Hawkeye shows more than half the ball hitting the stumps and the 3rd umpire is called into officiate (lets have it that the onfield umpire's decision was not out). Do you believe that the 3rd umpire can or will declare it not out? What basis does he have other than Hawkeye to disagree with it? Just consider the court of law for one second. The judge can have several feelings about a case that is being presented to him. But there is one important fact. He cannot disagree with 'facts' being placed before him. Or evidence. Hawkeye is the only evidence that the 3rd umpire has. How does he disagree with it? On what basis? Dont you think the entire statement is more than a little hollow? In short, it reeks of the incompetence with which this entire system has been implemented - nay, fast tracked - at the highest level of the game that we all so much adore and respect.

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket,62,AR.html The LBW law as it stands. It doesnt require the full ball to be hitting the wicket. Now taking your example, if more than half the ball is hitting the wicket according to H/E prediction, factoring in the error, it is very likely that a small portion of the ball would still be hitting the wicket and that is out according to the law. now in the situation where more than half the ball is not predicted to hit the wicket, factoring in the error it may be possible that the ball might miss the stumps, i.e. that the evidence provided to the judge is inconclusive and there fore he doesnt have to accept it.

[thevortex]

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-36-leg-before-wicket' date=62,AR.html The LBW law as it stands. It doesnt require the full ball to be hitting the wicket. Now taking your example, if more than half the ball is hitting the wicket according to H/E prediction, factoring in the error, it is very likely that a small portion of the ball would still be hitting the wicket and that is out according to the law. now in the situation where more than half the ball is not predicted to hit the wicket, factoring in the error it may be possible that the ball might miss the stumps, i.e. that the evidence provided to the judge is inconclusive and there fore he doesnt have to accept it.

Gunner - yes, the law does not in so many words require the full ball to be striking the wicket (always in the eyes of the umpire. The law also dose not state that the batsman CANNOT be declared out LBW if the umpire deems the ball's slightest edge clipping the outermost or the highest edge of the wicket. So, going by that, can we say Hawkeye is contravening the law - in word and in spirit?! And the ICC is standing by doing nothing? And Gunner - need I point it out again to you that there is NO way in which the 3rd umpire can judge the evidence to be inconclusive? If he is to reject the output provided by Hawkeye, what is he going to base his judgment on? It is just plain evident that there are scenarios - by dint of implementation - where Hawkeye literally makes decisions. Which is why there is urgent need for a rethink.

[thevortex]

Just curious as to what happens to this "highest level of the game we adore and respect" bulldust that you keep harping about when your beloved umpires recklessly saw off one batsmen after other on a daily basis with zero accountability? . [ Tangent Pre-emptor #1 : Not talking about SCG'08 Tangent pre-emptor # 2 : name the no.of shockers you want and we can list those with videos. ]

Just to inform you, these mistakes are part of the game. Part and parcel of anything that involves humans. Part of every sport. If you dont want mistakes, stick to robots playing robotic cricket!

Lets get this straight ... you and me not having access to the results = There is no proof that exists. Is this what you are trying to say ? Yes/No please.

OK Bossbhai - you have progressed a teeny weeny step. You have said you dont have any proof. Good. Now onto the next step. You may be willing to expectantly believe that somewhere in the world there is still this proof. I repeat to you for the nth time - DO NOT expect others to do the same. You have explained your extreme dislike and complete disregard for the umpires more times than one. And you have also professed your unmitigated liking and preference for Hawkeye. So, it is but natural that you expect some proof to be there. Remember that not everybody need be similarly inclined. If there is proof, I am sure there are many who would like to see it. I am part of that group - however small or large it is.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Vortex, if you argue that technology is imperfect, do you reckon human umpires are more perfect ? If you think of UDRS as merely an aid to rectify gross umpiring mistakes you may be more receptive of it. Why should an improvement over an existing solution be perfect ? Can we not accept it simply because it is *better* than what we have ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jersey #10]

I don't care as long as Sachin's wicket is dealt in a fair manner. UDRS or no UDRS, Sachin's wicket must be given a fair judgment.

[thevortex]

Read CAREFULLY ... I said "access" . For the millionth time If MCC Employess and H/E Inc openly talk about accuracy and error margins in Emails, Media Releases and on their Websites it will be based on results of testing and NOT by plucking out numbers from you know where. (Unless ofcourse we subscribe to conspiracy theories ). This is my logical assesment of this matter. Feel free to educate me what part of it is illogical and not constitute commonsense.

Bossbhai - what stops all these people from tabulating all these bits and pieces of information and get an independent verification done just so 'skeptics' such as me can be satisfied? Granted that I might not be any priority to them. But Tendulkar should be. The Indian board should be. Against the repeated demurrals from these big entities, why is the entire combine so silent? You are satisfied by whatever they have produced. Good. Dont expect others to be. As I have told you repeatedly.

Ohhh yeah iam aware of the concept of "charmness" ... I know how that works so kindly spare me the bulldust. Just want to know how these "mistakes" are taking the game to higher level but H/E would do the opposite. Please base your answers on realities and something that is grounded on fairness , level playing field and justice if at all those are allowed to get in your way. In other words you are now trying to tell me that crooks like Bucknor , Bowden , Ashoka etc etc have taken the game to high levels over 100s of tests. Once you are done .. then let us also know why the majority of the cricketers are now backing UDRS ... how did they all completely miss the beauty of charmness and the harm that will befall the "Highest level of cricket that we adore and respect" once we go UDRS fulltime ? Are they all dumb ?

If you want to know how Hawkeye is taking the game where it does not need to go - just understand this. Cricket was not, is not and should not be played in millimetres. Benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. People should not be declared out on millimetres. I plan to expand on this point sometime soon. Believe me, I have nothing against Hawkeye or its founder and neither have I ever hesitated to call out an umpire's mistake. Just point out one instance when you have actually expressed any less than gloating response you have made with respect to Hawkeye. And dont you go jump on that tree again. The question is not about UDRS. It is about one of the 'tools' - Hawkeye.

[thevortex]

Vortex' date=' if you argue that technology is imperfect, do you reckon human umpires are more perfect ? If you think of UDRS as merely an aid to rectify gross umpiring mistakes you may be more receptive of it. Why should an improvement over an existing solution be perfect ? Can we not accept it simply because it is *better* than what we have ?[/quote'] Bumper - I have nothing against UDRS. My ire is against Hawkeye. More specifically the way it has been ushered in (should I say hurried in) and implemented. Like I told Bossbhai, I expect to write in more detail about my concerns on this soon. Maybe that will help.

[Gunner_Mania]

If you want to know how Hawkeye is taking the game where it does not need to go - just understand this. Cricket was not, is not and should not be played in millimetres. Benefit of doubt should go to the batsman. People should not be declared out on millimetres.

Lets go back to that KP dismissal. Did he not get the benefit of doubt in spite of hawkeye being used? People have always been declared out on millimeters? Its just that the visual was not available on TV unless Hawkeye and its predecessors arrived to show it on television. Are you telling me that when umpires gave the borderline decisions all these years there was not a chance that the ball may have missed the stumps by millimeters? What you are now saying is that even if there is an independent verification tomorrow and a certificate is provided that Hawkeye has a 2.6mm error probability, you won't still accept hawk eye because it has an error percentage? It is not 100% accurate.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --