Warne Should've been fined

[C_C]

No but I accept their decision 100% of the time knowing that there will be mistakes but its not my position to go around telling them they are wrong.

If you accept anything 100% of the time without questioning the error or more pointedly, the rate of error in them, then you certainly cannot be accused of being an astute thinker.

As you and everybody that plays cricket there are some decisions that I might think are wrong and others may think is correct so the umpire will be accused of making a mistake regardless of what decision he makes. The only way around this problem is to teach everybody to respect the umpires decision right or wrong.

The only way ?
au contraire....does the word 'technology' ring a bell ?
umpires can be accused of being inconsistent. a computer cannot.

Thats what we teach our kids in juniors so they grow up playing cricket and not arguing about the umpires decision. This also helps the umpire to make decisions without having to worry about being abused regardless of the decision.

i guess that lesson was lost on Warne when he decieded to challenge Umpire Dar's verdict ( that he was let off the hook is another issue) eh ?

I guess it wasnt in program for the 50s and 60s babies, given the dissent towards umpires by certain aussie players in the 80s eh ?

I suppose Gilly missed that lesson too when he whinged before the last series vs IND saying that the aussies didnt whinge about 'incorrect' umpiring decisions during their 2001 series ?
LOL...that must be a new one from Gilly- whinging by saying he didnt whinge before!

 

[Shounak]

i think aleem dar garnered more respect from the cricket community by not being uptight with warne. umpires are human, and so are players. players should be able to vent their frustration - to an extent. what warne did was not offensive to the umpire, or to the game. dar reprimanded warne on the ground, and no greater a deal was made of it. what else needs to be achieved?

You honestly believe that yelling "look at the board" to an umpire is not offensive. Hell, any form of dissent wouldn't be offensive to the umpire, should these penalties then go unpunished. It was Mike Procter's responsibility to take action, not Dar's. Procter should show some consistency. It's his job.

 

[C_C]

i think aleem dar garnered more respect from the cricket community by not being uptight with warne. umpires are human, and so are players. players should be able to vent their frustration - to an extent. what warne did was not offensive to the umpire, or to the game. dar reprimanded warne on the ground, and no greater a deal was made of it. what else needs to be achieved?

but i suppose he sinks in the 'respect' category when he doesnt haul up someone for over-appealing or standing their ground a tad longer eh ?

I agree- players should be allowed to vent their frustrations.....but then again, if Warne yelling at the top of his lungs and asking the ump to look at the replay screen is venting, surely then an overzealous appeal or a batsman hanging on for a few extra seconds after being given out/shaking his head while walking back is a sunday church sermon by comparison ?

 

[Scallywag]

The only way ?
au contraire....does the word 'technology' ring a bell ?
umpires can be accused of being inconsistent. a computer cannot.



!

I cant wait to see a computer that detects dissent and stops players from arguing, hell why not go all the way and get robots to play instead of players and program them not to sledge each other.

 

[C_C]

i'll give your noodles a few days to think on that one!

 

[Scallywag]

If you accept anything 100% of the time without questioning the error or more pointedly, the rate of error in them, then you certainly cannot be accused of being an astute thinker.

So what you are saying is you wont accept that computers are 100% correct if you are an astute thinker.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I watched that bit of the game live (granted it was nearly 2am and I wasn't too conscious), but it really didn't look like something at all serious. Warne was frustrated after Dar wided him twice... the negative bowling rule was mentioned... it finished.

 

[C_C]

So what you are saying is you wont accept that computers are 100% correct if you are an astute thinker.

Ok. I'll amend my statements so that it isnt taken out of context:

If you accept anything HUMAN 100% of the time without questioning the error or more pointedly, the rate of error in them, then you certainly cannot be accused of being an astute thinker.

 

[Scallywag]

Ok. I'll amend my statements so that it isnt taken out of context:

If you accept anything HUMAN 100% of the time without questioning the error or more pointedly, the rate of error in them, then you certainly cannot be accused of being an astute thinker

so who will program these computers and set the parameters and set them up monkeys, what happens if they crash, what happens if its says out lbw and the ball is clearly a wide. Methinks you havent thought this one out properly. A computer is only as accurate as the person programs them to be.

 

[C_C]

so who will program these computers and set the parameters and set them up monkeys, what happens if they crash, what happens if its says out lbw and the ball is clearly a wide. Methinks you havent thought this one out properly. A computer is only as accurate as the person programs them to be.

programming can be erroneous only when the said user makes erroneous assumptions/coding.
You'd find that in all calculators, 2+2 = 4 ( unless you deciede to play rugby with your calculator....) Thats human programming too, isnt it ?
once you define the cricketing parameters for programming a computer properly, it wouldnt GIVE you an erroneous result. And even if it did, it would be CONSISTENT ( something which is open to debate for human umpires).

 

[Scallywag]

If you cant accept an umpires decision when you think he's wrong how are you going to accept a computers decision when you think its wrong, and believe me it will happen. What will happen if a bird flys past at the crucial second and the computer think its a ball and doesent give the LBW, I bet you will be the first to condem the computers as biased. You need to learn to accept the umpires decision before any improvement can be made with anything man or machine.

 

[C_C]

If you cant accept an umpires decision when you think he's wrong how are you going to accept a computers decision when you think its wrong, and believe me it will happen.

because a computer is BOUND to give the same result every single time for the same set of parameters. Human beings offer no such garantee. Besides, i am saying that it is possible to program a computer well enough so that the question of faulty decisions does NOT arise.

What will happen if a bird flys past at the crucial second and the computer think its a ball and doesent give the LBW, I bet you will be the first to condem the computers as biased.

I am sure that birds fly past the stumps ever so often......can you gimme 5 such examples in the last 5 years ?
and i am sure that IF that happens, the officials montoring the computer terminal/match refferee will make an exception.
Besides, even IF that happens, i wouldnt be accusing the computer of bias. Simply because a machine that has set parameters is incapable of bias. A computer will give you the same results a million times over if the parameters are identical. NOT the same case with human beings. Biassed means giving different answers for similar situations that favour one side consistently. A computer is incapable of that. A human being is not.

 

[Scallywag]

I only used the bird as an example to give you idea of unexpected things that can happen. Can you explain how a computer will pick up a faint edge in a close bad pad call or what if there is a set up error and at the end of the game you realise that the 12 LBWs were in fact not out.

Not to mention if a player happens to stand in front of a camera or Gilly finds a noise to make that the computer thinks is a nick.

 

[C_C]

I only used the bird as an example to give you idea of unexpected things that can happen. Can you explain how a computer will pick up a faint edge in a close bad pad call or what if there is a set up error and at the end of the game you realise that the 12 LBWs were in fact not out.

Not to mention if a player happens to stand in front of a camera or Gilly finds a noise to make that the computer thinks is a nick.

you obviously know very little about computer parameter settings.
First, a videocamera feed is more accurate at a higher speed than your eye ( your eye can only make out actions upto 60fps...rest are a blur)

a computer can pick up a faint edge in a variety of ways.....
1. noise
2. change in rotation of the ball
3. deviation at/after point of contact.

as per the lbw laws, they are very easy to simulate..... i suggest you investigate the techonolgy behind hawkeye- bear in mind that hawkeye is pretty accurate and yet its not the most accurate software capable of being produced......

 

[Scallywag]

you obviously know very little about computer parameter settings.
First, a videocamera feed is more accurate at a higher speed than your eye ( your eye can only make out actions upto 60fps...rest are a blur)

a computer can pick up a faint edge in a variety of ways.....
1. noise
2. change in rotation of the ball
3. deviation at/after point of contact.

as per the lbw laws, they are very easy to simulate..... i suggest you investigate the techonolgy behind hawkeye- bear in mind that hawkeye is pretty accurate and yet its not the most accurate software capable of being produced......

Funny thing is cc my job is solving problems in a computer controlled production line, you know things like corrupt feedback, calibrating faulty detectors and replacing defect modules, you know the sort of things I'm talking about.

 

[C_C]

Funny thing is cc my job is solving problems in a computer controlled production line, you know things like corrupt feedback, calibrating faulty detectors and replacing defect modules, you know the sort of things I'm talking about.

my line of work is electronics engineering.....
i'll leave it to you to deduce if i know about feedback and defective modules or not.

a lil thing you MIGHt know from your profession: MAINTAINANCE and SYSTEM CHECKS.

thats the key to avoiding corrupt feedbacks and faulty callibrating....
You are trying to paint a picture that a computer system is less reliable than the a human...
care to tell me if the flight paths, life support and landing projections are done by a human being or a computer in an aircraft ?

I suppose we are all really dumb arses to trust our lives to a computer rather than a human being eh ?

 

[Scallywag]

And planes have flown straight into mountains on auto pilot. Not to mention many other aviation disasters caused by faulty electronic equipment.

 

[C_C]

And planes have flown straight into mountains on auto pilot. Not to mention many other aviation disasters caused by faulty electronic equipment.

do you realise that the official information suggests that 90% of crashes in the history of airlines have been due to human errors ?
so why dont you propose a plane to Airbus/boeing that has manually controlled life support system, manually controlled naviation and landing systems and see if it gets accepted.....
I am having a tough time believing that someone who works in the field of computer controlled production lines is displaying such scant knowledge about the efficiency of electronically controlled systems.....

 

[Mr Casson]

And for the umpteenth time, just coz the ump didnt haul his **** for it, doesnt mean that the decision was correct.
Umpires bollox up from time to time when it comes to giving someone out....they aint infallible....Dar bolloxed up here......simple as that.

When players get suspended/fined for walking back whilst shaking their head/hanging on after dismissal a tad too long/appealing overzealously, this SCREAMING and pointing towards the videoscreen is definately fine-worthy.

In disciplinarian terms, this is a case of 'middle stump yorker, no deviation, hit on backfoot and umpire shakes his head in the negetive'!

Dissent is a charge that is brought on players because of disrespect shown to the umpire. If the umpire does not feel that he has been disrespected, or if he feels that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt with, then there is no charge to answer, and the matter is closed. There is no obligation for Dar to report Warne to the match referee if he has reprimanded Warne and considers that to be appropriate action.

 

[Scallywag]

Dissent is a charge that is brought on players because of disrespect shown to the umpire. If the umpire does not feel that he has been disrespected, or if he feels that the matter has been satisfactorily dealt with, then there is no charge to answer, and the matter is closed. There is no obligation for Dar to report Warne to the match referee if he has reprimanded Warne and considers that to be appropriate action.

Tread carefully here Mr casson you are agreeing with scallwag in his shambolic poo-thowing circus.