The age old question...

[Predator_05]

What a ridiculous statement to make. You change an old cellphone if it doesnt work for you. You do not just go ahead and buy a new cellphone because it is there. The point is that "bad" umpiring has NOT affected the net results and thus far you have been unable to prove me otherwise. If that is your best shot, the technology is there, rest assured it is not gonna be included just for that.

Excellent. Thank god most people don't have "hota hai, chalta hai" attitudes like this, otherwise we wouldn't even have Hawkeye and the Snickometer. Or any technological advent for that matter. Why bother trying improve something at all ?

I dont need to. I know the FACTS of WC finals, apparently you do not. If you choose to wallow in ignorance and get all hot under the collar be my guest. Aussies crusing at 6 plus RR as good as 37th over and Umpire's decision ruined the result.

You keep refusing to believe that a team cannot be bowled out when being in a comfortable position, and i am supposed to be the ignorant one ? Hahahah Did i say it ruined the result ? Misquoting me doesn't make you look cool. You like facts ? The fact is that India had an opportunity to come back into the game had Ponting been given out on a plumb LBW call. The fact is that the brainfart by the umpire accounted for another 100 runs. That goes out to prove that it DID influence the result. Did you expect to see such sh*tty umpiring at the biggest stage imaginable, ie; a World Cup final ? Ya bas, like with everything else...hota hai, chalta hai, zzz

Dig up yourself.

I'll take that as a NO, then.

[Captain of Bhangra]

Yes. A result is a huge thing, and in the case of some countries, can define their history. For some person to have such influence on a result is not right, for a country to lose because of a bad decision is wrong...

[Holysmoke]

What a ridiculous statement to make. You change an old cellphone if it doesnt work for you. You do not just go ahead and buy a new cellphone because it is there.

I know what you're trying to say, and its completely and utterly wrong, and shocking. You dont change and old cellphone only when it stops working. Yes, people go ahead and buy a new cellphone.. just because its there. I myself am thinkin of buying a new iphone.. why? because it is there. My motorazr is working perfectly fine. If people had that attitude, nothing would ever be invented. We would still be using the old nokia's of the 1990's... and if they got spoilt.. people just went ahead and bought the same ones that were there. I got windows vista.. why? not because my windows XP had crashed, it was working perfectly fine.. but i got windows vista because it was "there".

[MundaPakistani]

Oh' date=' mistakes will still occur even if we use technology. What I mean is, that if by using technology, we cna reduce the amount of wrong decisions, we should. Lurker said, that he feels there is a 5% rate of debatable decisions. I feel that if by using technology, we can change to rate to even 4.9%, we should go ahead and do it.[/quote'] what kind of system do you propose Holy? a challenge system or a total reliance on technology?

if the ball hits you in line (which incidentally hawk-eye can tell you as well)' date=' [b']the only other other thing that should matter is the above. no one is asking hawk-eye to automatically pull a player by his shirt and throw him to the balcony. we are just asking these incompetent bozos to use that to make up for their own limited skills.

I think that's where we differ Yoda...to me that's not enough. Instead of going by what the book says i would much rather look to see if the batsman has been 'defeated' by the bowler or not and to me a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward while trying to use his bat is not 'defeated' and doesn't deserve to be given out.

[Holysmoke]

what kind of system do you propose Holy? a challenge system or a total reliance on technology?

Challenge system. I would rather not use hawk eye till it gets "perfect" or close to it. What we can do is give the teams 3 challenges / innings.. and its decided by the third umpire.. where he uses the replays that makes the batsmen translucent.. and decides whether it has to be given out or no. Or just have the third umpire look at the replay.. as is.. and decide whether it should be out or not. Slow motion itself will give a much better chance of an accurate decision.

[yoda]

I think that's where we differ Yoda...to me that's not enough.Instead of going by what the book says i would much rather look to see if the batsman has been 'defeated' by the bowler or not and to me a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward while trying to use his bat is not 'defeated' and doesn't deserve to be given out.

You can't go by whatever you want. Remember the batsmen are playing according to the rules. What does 'defeated' mean? Some could say being hit in the chin by a bouncer is 'defeated'.

[Lurker]

Excellent. Thank god most people don't have "hota hai, chalta hai" attitudes like this, otherwise we wouldn't even have Hawkeye and the Snickometer. Or any technological advent for that matter. Why bother trying improve something at all ?

Yeah carry on the rant :wtg:

You keep refusing to believe that a team cannot be bowled out when being in a comfortable position, and i am supposed to be the ignorant one ? Hahahah

And so far what have you showed me? Zilch. The offer is still open about WC finals. Go ahead and educate yourself.

Did i say it ruined the result ? Misquoting me doesn't make you look cool.

Are you a girl that I would want to look cool in your eyes? Err no. So stop dishing out cr@p.

You like facts ? The fact is that India had an opportunity to come back into the game had Ponting been given out on a plumb LBW call. The fact is that the brainfart by the umpire accounted for another 100 runs. That goes out to prove that it DID influence the result. Did you expect to see such sh*tty umpiring at the biggest stage imaginable, ie; a World Cup final ? Ya bas, like with everything else...hota hai, chalta hai, zzz

Wow what FACTS. Again mate how many teams have been in better position than Australia in a WC finals. Go on educate yourself.

I'll take that as a NO, then.

Take it any which way you like. You know little about Indian cricket(specially about the incident I mentioned). Do yourself a favour and learn a few happenings on Indian cricket. xxx

[Lurker]

I know what you're trying to say' date=' and its completely and utterly wrong, and shocking. You dont change and old cellphone only when it stops working. Yes, people go ahead and buy a new cellphone.. just because its there. I myself am thinkin of buying a new iphone.. why? because it is there. My motorazr is working perfectly fine. If people had that attitude, nothing would ever be invented. We would still be using the old nokia's of the 1990's[b']... and if they got spoilt.. people just went ahead and bought the same ones that were there. I got windows vista.. why? not because my windows XP had crashed, it was working perfectly fine.. but i got windows vista because it was "there".

And that should tell you a story right there. Look around and see how many people have embraced Vista. And how many have not. It is not that people who are clinging on to XP are doing so because they hate Vista or because they love XP. NO. But they have no reasons for doing so. Once you get inside SW world you would see routine upgrades every year. The upgrades are hardly beneficial to everyone and so many companies dont do it. Simple. As I have mentioned earlier, I am going to use Technology if I see pros in it, not because it is simply there. xxx

[Holysmoke]

And that should tell you a story right there. Look around and see how many people have embraced Vista. And how many have not. It is not that people who are clinging on to XP are doing so because they hate Vista or because they love XP. NO. But they have no reasons for doing so. Once you get inside SW world you would see routine upgrades every year. The upgrades are hardly beneficial to everyone and so many companies dont do it. Simple. As I have mentioned earlier, I am going to use Technology if I see pros in it, not because it is simply there. xxx

no baba, u dont get it. I might be the one of the first few people to get vista.. but i know.. eventually.. everyone will get vista.. no-one is going to stick to xp. Just like no-one still uses the 1990's big fat nokia phones. I agree with the using technology only if u see pro's in it. I mean.. thats common sense. Most new technologies coming out every year have pro's. when was the last time u saw a company launch something that actually took it backwords.. technologically?..

[Predator_05]

And so far what have you showed me? Zilch. The offer is still open about WC finals. Go ahead and educate yourself.

What have you showed me so far ? WC Finals ? What about them ? You keep dodging my point that teams can lose wickets despite their comfortable position at a certain point durnig the game. You ignorantly act like this doesn't happen. Your WC finals argument doesn't prove anything

Are you a girl that I would want to look cool in your eyes? Err no. So stop dishing out cr@p.

I am sorry, did I hit a nerve ? :hysterical:

Wow what FACTS. Again mate how many teams have been in better position than Australia in a WC finals. Go on educate yourself.

More point-dodging

Take it any which way you like. You know little about Indian cricket(specially about the incident I mentioned). Do yourself a favour and learn a few happenings on Indian cricket. xxx

Yes, i know jacksh*t. Maybe i should begin to think like you and starting believing that; 1) Umpires don't have any influence on the result of a game :hysterical: 2) Only Indians cry about umpiring, West Indians and Aussies don't care about umpiring and never kick stumps around like those dastardly Indians :hysterical: 3) There is no point in implementing technology, even if it DOES improve umpiring results by reducing errors, hota hai, chalta hai...zzz :hysterical:

[Lurker]

no baba, u dont get it. I might be the one of the first few people to get vista.. but i know.. eventually.. everyone will get vista.. no-one is going to stick to xp. Just like no-one still uses the 1990's big fat nokia phones. I agree with the using technology only if u see pro's in it. I mean.. thats common sense. Most new technologies coming out every year have pro's. when was the last time u saw a company launch something that actually took it backwords.. technologically?..[/quote] Actually I see that everyday. You want some examples? AT&T was the one of the biggest company of its time. So big it was that it was broken down into smaller companies to avoid monopoly. Today every company is buying and consolidating so that it is the SINGLE company of its kind. Microsoft is new AT&T. 15 years back we had a bunch of companies come out with software that helped people use them without coding(the one I use Business Objects is exactly that). Today you have a large number of companies who build their softwares by coding and dont buy pre-made packages off the shelf. One more before I go, most companies that invested in DW or SAP technology because it was there fell on their arse. The ones that succeeded were the ones who knew what they wanted and how SAP and DW could give it to them. xxx

[Lurker]

WC Finals ? What about them ? You keep dodging my point that teams can lose wickets despite their comfortable position at a certain point durnig the game. You ignorantly act like this doesn't happen. Your WC finals argument doesn't prove anything

It wont prove anything if you do not know your cricket. Else it beats me how a cricket fan can not understand that a team scoring at 6 runs an over(something that NEVER happened in WC finals), and have lost only 2 wickets after 37 overs was destined to score a high score. But again feel free to be ignorant.

I am sorry, did I hit a nerve ? :hysterical:

Sure. You hit a nerve by insinuating you are a girl. :hysterical:

Yes, i know jacksh*t. Maybe i should begin to think like you and starting believing that; 1) Umpires don't have any influence on the result of a game :hysterical: 2) Only Indians cry about umpiring, West Indians and Aussies don't care about umpiring and never kick stumps around like those dastardly Indians :hysterical: 3) There is no point in implementing technology, even if it DOES improve umpiring results by reducing errors, hota hai, chalta hai...zzz :hysterical:

Actually you should do this. Step 1: Be ignorant of World cricket(you already are) Step 2: Be ignorant of Indian cricket(again you are already there) Step 3: Be in a rant mode(which you tend to do off and on...just develop a bit consistency here). xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

no baba, u dont get it. I might be the one of the first few people to get vista.. but i know.. eventually.. everyone will get vista.. no-one is going to stick to xp. Just like no-one still uses the 1990's big fat nokia phones. I agree with the using technology only if u see pro's in it. I mean.. thats common sense. Most new technologies coming out every year have pro's. when was the last time u saw a company launch something that actually took it backwords.. technologically?..[/quote] Actually I see that everyday. You want some examples? AT&T was the one of the biggest company of its time. So big it was that it was broken down into smaller companies to avoid monopoly. Today every company is buying and consolidating so that it is the SINGLE company of its kind. Microsoft is new AT&T. 15 years back we had a bunch of companies come out with software that helped people use them without coding(the one I use Business Objects is exactly that). Today you have a large number of companies who build their softwares by coding and dont buy pre-made packages off the shelf. One more before I go, most companies that invested in DW or SAP technology because it was there fell on their arse. The ones that succeeded were the ones who knew what they wanted and how SAP and DW could give it to them. xxx

OK. Tell me this. Do you think that we will have a better % of correct decisions with the use of technology. Yes or No. If its a Yes, then why arent you supporting the use of tech. Why would you not want to have a better % of correct decisions? As for the argument that you gave about you feeling that the rate of wrong decisions is 5% max, i dont buy that. I feel that if you can reduce that from 5% to 4.9%.. with the use of tech.. u shud do it.. what say? Why would you not want that?

[Lurker]

OK. Tell me this. Do you think that we will have a better % of correct decisions with the use of technology. Yes or No.

I beleive I have answered this in my very initial posts. NO. Even if I take away all the history and tradition thing the fact is that technology is NOT foolproof. The question then become which is better - umpire or camera? I have no qualms against umpires unless I be shown that umpiring decisions(bad ones) have affected games. Thus far we have not seen that. Considering close to 2000 Test matches have been played, including atleast 1000 or more since 1990(in full camera view) it is fascinating to see not even 10, let alone 100 Test have been cited where umpires decision changed the end result. Much ado about nothing? xxx

[Predator_05]

(something that NEVER happened in WC finals)

LMFAO. So up until '96, no team had ever chased down a target in a World Cup final. What the hell were the Sri Lankans thinking when they chose to field ? Those idiots !

have lost only 2 wickets after 37 overs was destined to score a high score. But again feel free to be ignorant.

Yes, because NEVER BEFORE in the HISTORY of cricket have we EVER seen a team collapse from 230 odd at the 35 over mark, RIGHT ? It's just impossible, isn't it ? Why don't teams just roll over and die whenever the opposition have 230 runs on the board at the 35 over mark. Don't bother playing the 15 remaining overs. I mean, scoring 350 must be DESTINED to happen from that position, right ? LOL

Actually you should do this. Step 1: Be ignorant of World cricket(you already are) Step 2: Be ignorant of Indian cricket(again you are already there) Step 3: Be in a rant mode(which you tend to do off and on...just develop a bit consistency here).

aaah, so i should do things i already do ? What ground-breaking advice that is...what would i ever do without you. :hysterical:

[Holysmoke]

there are so many? why, take this last test.. india england at lords if sree was given out(when he was plumb) we would have lost.

[Holysmoke]

another factor.. lurker.. is that u cannot see how a test match has been changed.. we do not have parellel universes where we see the effects that each decision makes. so we cannot just pick a match and say.. that this is how this match would have changed if this decision was given the other way. I am willing to bet each and every single match would have a different outcome if just 1 appeal was given another way. What i mean by that.. is not that the losing team would win, but i mean that the end result would be different. If aus was going to win.. instead of winnning by 300 runs, they would win by 326. But yes, it would make a difference

[Lurker]

LMFAO. So up until '96, no team had ever chased down a target in a World Cup final. What the hell were the Sri Lankans thinking when they chose to field ? Those idiots !

What an analogy. Keep embarassing yourself further :thumbs_up:

Yes, because NEVER BEFORE in the HISTORY of cricket have we EVER seen a team collapse from 230 odd at the 35 over mark, RIGHT ? It's just impossible, isn't it ?

Sure now we talk of possible and impossible. It is equally possible that Zaheer Khan takes 10 wickets(in an innings) twice in this series. Lets wait for that shall we now. Go read up on Indian cricket team history before you go talking about history and learning from it mate.

Why don't teams just roll over and die whenever the opposition have 230 runs on the board at the 35 over mark. Don't bother playing the 15 remaining overs. I mean, scoring 350 must be DESTINED to happen from that position, right ? LOL

Rant mode on. You are getting consistent. Good :thumbs_up:

aaah, so i should do things i already do ? What ground-breaking advice that is...what would i ever do without you. :hysterical:

Well I am here to help. :D xxx

[yoda]

there are so many? why, take this last test.. india england at lords if sree was given out(when he was plumb) we would have lost.

so what? technology sucks. :haha: