A leap of faith in technology

[tooextracool]

Im liking the new referrals system actually. Seems to be working quite well, and unless wrong decision has been made. Its interesting that if it werent for the referral system today, 3 of Indias batting card would have been wrongly judged not out and it might very well have had a major impact on the game considering that it was Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar. Dravid's decision was a disaster considering that it pretty much took the cover off the bat and went to short leg.

 

[adharcric]

Im liking the new referrals system actually. Seems to be working quite well, and unless wrong decision has been made. Its interesting that if it werent for the referral system today, 3 of Indias batting card would have been wrongly judged not out and it might very well have had a major impact on the game considering that it was Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar. Dravid's decision was a disaster considering that it pretty much took the cover off the bat and went to short leg.

Not saying that it wasn't clearly out, but didn't Dravid glove that one? Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

 

[tooextracool]

Nope, hit the inside edge of the bat onto pad and then went to short leg.

 

[howardj]

John Buchanan's magnificent contribution.

What message does that send to young people in our society about challenging authority?" he said.

Kids are going to watch it on television and think it is OK to challenge authority. They need to be taught that all the umpire is doing is policing the laws and you need to abide by those laws. It is as simple as that. This is the last thing the sport needs.

Challenging the umpire's decision contravenes basic and fundamental law of our western society.

What a load of rubbish. It's got nothing to do with challenging authority. It's got everything to do with getting the right decision. It's why we have appeal courts etc - to get a decision right. Nothing whatsoever with challenging authority.

Then he wheels out an old favourite:

The process assumes that technology is 100 per cent accurate - this has never been proven.

THe process does no such thing. It's not about getting decision right 100% of the time, but rather improving the percentage of correct decisions. Moreover, if the technology is not conclusive in a particular instance, then the batsman simply gets the benefit of the doubt.

Fair dinkum. John Buchanan is so 'off with the fairies', it's frightening. No wonder half the Australian team thought he was out of his mind.

 

[Woodster]

To be honest, it all sits a little uneasy with me at the moment, having watched events in the SL-Ind series. Currently I'm not in favour of it, I understand the reasoning, to get more decisions correct, just don't like the fashion it's done.

Stick with the onfield decisions for lbw, with umpires being allowed to go upstairs for certain decisions (exact details of I'm not sure yet, but a front foot no-ball should be assisted in some way, allowing umpires to solely focus on the business end).

 

[zaremba]

John Buchanan's magnificent contribution.

What message does that send to young people in our society about challenging authority?" he said.

Kids are going to watch it on television and think it is OK to challenge authority. They need to be taught that all the umpire is doing is policing the laws and you need to abide by those laws. It is as simple as that. This is the last thing the sport needs.

Challenging the umpire's decision contravenes basic and fundamental law of our western society.

What a load of rubbish. It's got nothing to do with challenging authority. It's got everything to do with getting the right decision. It's why we have appeal courts etc - to get a decision right. Nothing whatsoever with challenging authority.

Then he wheels out an old favourite:

The process assumes that technology is 100 per cent accurate - this has never been proven.

THe process does no such thing. It's not about getting decision right 100% of the time, but rather improving the percentage of correct decisions. Moreover, if the technology is not conclusive in a particular instance, then the batsman simply gets the benefit of the doubt.

Fair dinkum. John Buchanan is so 'off with the fairies', it's frightening. No wonder half the Australian team thought he was out of his mind.

AWTA.

Another pearl of wisdom from JB:
"This means that all grounds on which international cricket is played must be fitted with exactly the same technology to allow consistency of decision-making around the world."

 

[Richard]

John Buchanan's magnificent contribution.

What message does that send to young people in our society about challenging authority?" he said.

Kids are going to watch it on television and think it is OK to challenge authority. They need to be taught that all the umpire is doing is policing the laws and you need to abide by those laws. It is as simple as that. This is the last thing the sport needs.

Challenging the umpire's decision contravenes basic and fundamental law of our western society.

What a load of rubbish. It's got nothing to do with challenging authority. It's got everything to do with getting the right decision. It's why we have appeal courts etc - to get a decision right. Nothing whatsoever with challenging authority.

Then he wheels out an old favourite:

The process assumes that technology is 100 per cent accurate - this has never been proven.

THe process does no such thing. It's not about getting decision right 100% of the time, but rather improving the percentage of correct decisions. Moreover, if the technology is not conclusive in a particular instance, then the batsman simply gets the benefit of the doubt.

Fair dinkum. John Buchanan is so 'off with the fairies', it's frightening. No wonder half the Australian team thought he was out of his mind.

I've always said that you'll get more correct decisions without undermining the authority of Umpires than you will do by doing it. Those behind the referrals seem to me to be more interested in removing authority from Umpires than getting correct decisions, which is bizarre TSTL.

No-one is ever going to get 100% correct decisions - however, you will damn well eliminate pretty well every single obviously wrong decision by making maximum use of everything available. However, it's the Umpires, not the players, who should do this.