at this thread
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
No production manager will use a testing system that is 95% accurate to detect errors in a production unit that is already 90% accurate. The outcome will be full or false positives and/or false negatives. A 95% accurate testing mechanism is great when the production is about 70-75% accurate. That's the point.
EDIT: To repeat, I am not against DRS. I don't even tow the BCCI line of the system not being 100%. It doesn't have to, but it has to be significantly superior than the on-field umpires. I don't know if that is already the case.
Last edited by ankitj; 13-03-2012 at 01:36 AM.
RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*
This part of the rule looks rubbish to me TBH. In essence, we are saying that Warne's and Muralitharan's deliveries don't spin after pitching at all, and that all of Saeed Ajmal's stock delivery, doosra and teesra are exactly the same delivery and all are same as Mohammad Sami's pies.
I personally think those full tosses that hit batsmen on the pads and are expected to pitch once before reaching the stumps should be given not out as a rule.
This is not an anti-DRS point by the way, for those who don't understand.
"Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
- C.L.R. James
Point two is that the ump can only assume straight as to guess how much or little the ball would spin, and even which direction in some cases would be approaching impossible.
Point three is that if the batsman is hit by a ball which hasn't even hit the ground yet, he deserves to be out.
The maker of Virtual eye has admitted himself that technology is still doubtful as far as predictable path is concerned and can't pick up many things that a onfield umpire can. I guess you know better than him based on nothing though.
Also, the ICC after reversing it's earlier decision on making UDRS mandatory said it will get the technology testes by a independent evaluator to see if it is worth persisting with. Something which so bewilderingly hadn't done before and relied foolishly just on what the makers website did i presume.
On a side note, the companies involved did not allow ICC officials to get access to the cameras or the software at any point under the terms of contract earlier either, even to inspect .
Last edited by Cevno; 13-03-2012 at 01:35 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)