DRS: Worth Persevering With?

[Muloghonto]

WTF?? Did you seriously post that??

Edit:

By your criteria of "least amount of ambiguity to the decision-making of the game" then perhaps lawn bowls is the greatest sport??, **** maybe even tiddlywinks deserves a mention. Can't imagine that there is much "ambiguity" involved in the decision making in either of those contests.

As I've seen from past posts of yours you are voicing opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

You may believe that NFL is the greatest team sport and you may believe that it is because it is the best officiated sport, but that is just opinion mate because the numbers make that statement just laughable. And when you want to talk facts then the numbers are what count.

As i noted earlier, greatest sport can be seen in various different ways: the sport that has the most fans and thus is greatest in human appeal ? The sport that has the greatest participation rates, thus the greatest in human activity appeal ? Or the sport that is the best conceived and regulated from a logistical standpoint of functioning of the sport, thus the greatest executed contest ?

It is to the latter part where one can contend that American Football, by the virtue of its stunningly efficient and correct decision-making, is the single greatest team sport.

For the former two points,its easily,soccer ( appeal and participation).

On these two facets, there is really no question of the assessment being 'opinions', unless you would wish to demonstrate how the three parameters of greatness defined here are erroneous, with better examples or criterias to fit the bill.

 

[Muloghonto]

Why does everything have to be black and white in terms of officiating to have a perfect sport? Umpires make **** calls every 2 minutes in AFL and people still love it.

And cricket is a slow game, particularly test cricket, the cost of a few erroneous decisions and grey areas in the laws to try and keep the game at a reasonable pace is not a very high price to pay IMO.

I disagree, vehemently. The pace of the game should not trump integrity of the game, otherwise you are basically saying lets have a contest which takes 5 days to conclude and the result is due to human officiating error, not the game-play aspect of it. Ie, it is a waste of time then, for even I could score test centuries against the likes of McGrath, Warne and Gillespie in full pomp, with the aid of the human officiating error on my side.
Everytime a decision goes against the gameplay reality of the sport, it cheapens the contest. I'd much rather spend more time watching a sport where the outcome is purely determined by the awesomeness and fails of the players than spend less time watching sports where incompetent refereeing deciedes the outcome.

 

[BeeGee]

How is it a joke ? The NFL satisfies the most basic requirement to being a successful sport: picture-perfect near-100% correct decision making, where less than 5 decisions for the whole season ( when each game has 100+ decisions and over 25 teams partake. Do the math!) are wrong.

Cricket is a joke in comparison, where it is structurally broken, with a far, far higher error rate in rendering cricketing decisions. If Test cricket cannot survive the implementation of a successful technological system (which has yet to be determined for cricket's sake) that ensures near perfect decision-making impacting the game, then it shouldnt exist. Or at the very least, be demoted from being important at all. For a format that has a lesser competency of getting the officiating of the game right, is automatically, an inferior format.

Cricket isn't analogous to the NFL and shouldn't be compared to it. If you want to compare cricket to a US professional sport, it is much closer in nature to baseball. Baseball makes no use whatsoever of technology to get umpiring decisions correct, yet still manages to be successful.

We have a baseball expert on this site called Lokomotiv, I'm sure he'd love to debate this with you. You and he would hit it off like a house on fire.

 

[Muloghonto]

Cricket isn't analogous to the NFL and shouldn't be compared to it. If you want to compare cricket to a US professional sport, it is much closer in nature to baseball. Baseball makes no use whatsoever of technology to get umpiring decisions correct, yet still manages to be successful.

We have a baseball expert on this site called Lokomotiv, I'm sure he'd love to debate this with you. You and he would hit it off like a house on fire.

The fact that cricket is not analogous to football is not relevant to whether cricket should aspire to being as perfectly officiated as possible, with the aid of technology. Currently, as i noted, such a technology does not exist in a proven fashion to satisfy all of cricket's decision-making needs. But that should not take away for the necessity of such a technology existing in the future.

Baseball is a different sport than cricket but there is plenty of pressure on baseball to get more technology involved in it as well. Again, due to the sheer success of the sport that is due to the cleanliness of the officiating.
You do not get it i feel. A huge subculture to sports, in the western world, is prop betting or pool betting.Particlarly sports pools can be extremely competetive and lucrative for a few, who understand the game well enough and research the hell out of the players to create their fantasy leagues. Football inherently attracts by far the largest pools- both in terms of participation and money involved, because football has a lot of statistics one can get points for (thus, win pools) and because the officiating is so clean that there is no 'x factor' of officiating fails to trash your research.

You are simply underestimating the tens of millions of dollars that change hands due to this type of activity yearly over the western world. This purpose is better served and has a considerable influence on the governance on sports in the long term when the officiating is as clean as possible.

Not to mention, even as a casual fan, who the heck actually wouldn't want to do away with umpiring errors ? its completely assinine to say 'yes, he/she given out wrongly should exist in the game because human error is a part of human nature'.

 

[Dan]

but it makes teh moniez so it must be perfect right

Apparently so, Spark. Apparently so. Jake would be proud.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

They are not mutually exclusive,neither does the word 'fundamental' imply singularity.

The objective of a sport, fundamentally, from the logistics side of it, is to make it the fairest contest possible. The objective of the sport, in terms of competing with the wider field of entertainment, it has to be entertaining. Adding time to get the ruling right does not take away from the entertainment factor, since I'd rather spend 5 hours watching a sport i like that 'works' over spending 4 hours watching a sport i like that is 'broken' and some missed officiating results fundamentally in the outcome.

Wrong, the logistics of any sport is to provide the soundest base for $$$ generating. You know, the free market which you seem to be obsessed with?