(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Will it? As I say, I'd not be anywhere near so confident of that as you are.It's just a question of getting good decision-makers who understand their brief and who have the skill and confidence to carry it out. And, given time, that will happen.
And even if it were true, there are still better ways to go about it.
Last edited by Richard; 29-06-2009 at 08:32 AM.
In my view, the fact that it might be a good idea to go further is not a reason not to take the limited steps that are being taken. The current changes are radical enough as it is, particularly given the inherent conservatism within the game, its administrators and players and followers. For this reason, and a number of other good reasons, if the system is to develop still further, such development should be evolutionary and incremental.
All our plans will be overtaken by better ones, but only if we get started. (A science fiction writer whose name eludes me wrote something along these lines regarding space probes - all our space probes will be overtaken by newer faster probes, so it might be tempting to believe fallaciously that we shouldn't bother sending the first probe in the first place - I read about it in a Dawkins book - perhaps one of our sci-fi-literate CW members will help remind me who wrote it and what the theory/story was called).
Last edited by zaremba; 30-06-2009 at 04:54 AM.
My view is that the path we're going along to get to the whole hog is completely and totally the wrong one, and that there are better routes to take.
For instance, it beggars belief to me that there's been a Cyclops in tennis for, well... a long time... and 17 years on from the first use of third-Umpires in cricket there is still no mechanism being developed which uses technology to call no-balls rather than leaving it to the bowler's-end Umpire. This, as I've said 1,000,000 times or so, should have been the first thing which was done, not a few piddling calls on whether a ball went for four or six.
Well now that they're doing this very thing (for disputed dismissals), you should be pleased, and you can spare yourself your 1,000,002nd complaint about their failure to have done so hitherto
You might say that they've not gone far enough yet, but evolutionary and incremental is the way that they should, and will, go.
As I say - the evolution is, if things go this way, following a course of evolution that is direly bad, IMO.
And they're not taking the calling of no-balls out of the hands of the bowler's-end Umpire at all - all they're doing is checking, at random, whether an occasional ball is a no-ball. There are immeasurable benefits attached to the scheme whereby all checking of the bowler on the return-crease and popping-crease is done by technology.
Last edited by Richard; 30-06-2009 at 04:34 PM.
Doesn't beggar belief at all. It's a much more difficult challenge.
A sensible compromise, if they have a camera aimed at the crease full time, would be to have a 'linesman' watching that feed everyball able to signal any overstep to the umpire.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
That is one option, but it seems to me to be a bit of an over-man-power option. A machine could do it more easily and with less potential for error.A sensible compromise, if they have a camera aimed at the crease full time, would be to have a 'linesman' watching that feed everyball able to signal any overstep to the umpire.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)