***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[GIMH]

That is neither what I said, nor implied, straw man

 

[Cevno]

I posted more quotes from Ian Taylor,Cricinfo and a example too in the "my Bicycle etc... etc..." thread too.

Can't believe people are criticising him for being honest,when it harms his own interest to do so too as his equipment was used for the Ashes and is used in Australia now.

 

[GIMH]

Who am I criticising?

Simply making a point that anyone with a brain knows that the human eye is not infallible...saying the technology isn't perfect doesn't win some kind of argument, but certain posters, all of whom just happen to support India, seem to think it does.

 

[Cevno]

That is neither what I said, nor implied, straw man

You are pretty much engaging in hidden name calling in every thread. (Clowns,dolts,Retards,****'s) you have pretty much done everything and also accused people of claiming racism etc without any reason.....

Can you please explain what you mean here by your link statement and that statement you attached to it?

http://statingtheobviousthatretards...upyourboardisajokeforblockingUDRSforlbws.html

That link makes it clear what you are trying to do.

Who am I criticising?

Simply making a point that anyone with a brain knows that the human eye is not infallible...saying the technology isn't perfect doesn't win some kind of argument, but certain posters, all of whom just happen to support India, seem to think it does.

Wasn't only referring to you here but others who are saying he is just criticising a rival company.

Also you are right Human eye is not infallible and no one is claiming it ,but there is no guarantee at all of any kind that the technology is even as accurate as the Human umpire standing out there for Marginal decisions as Ian taylor said himself in the E-mail of his i posted in the other thread.

And how the hell does it matter whether the posters support India, England or Timbuktu?

 

[marc71178]

Manufacturer in criticising rival company shock.

Indeed, and haven't Hawkeye also accepted they're not 100% accurate as well?

Still better than the human eye watching a TV image.

 

[silentstriker]

Everyone knows my views on this topic but a company selling the technology is as likely to trumpet up their own claims as a rival company is likely to criticize.

 

[Teja.]

Everyone knows my views on this topic but a company selling the technology is as likely to trumpet up their own claims as a rival company is likely to criticize.

Indeed. Don't really get the direct dismissal of information.

 

[weldone]

Field Umpiring versus Ball Tracking

Neither field umpiring nor ball tracking is flawless. But the complexity doesn't end there.

The faults are of different kinds, and it's impossible to gauge (with plain or complex mathematics) which of the two is more faulty than the other.

While the probable faults by field umpires are known to all, the faults regarding ball tracking technology implementation are of two types:

1. Errors by technology in accurately tracking/gauging the probable path of the ball: There has been estimates for this type of error, and according to the estimates the errors are less than average errors made by field umpires. These estimates can be relied upon statistically as they are based on observations over a very high sample size. Also, rules can (and has) been made keeping these errors in mind such that the technology can be used in the best interest of all. So overturning field umpire's decisions based on ball tracking technology should be acceptable to all provided there are no other types of probable errors.

2. Errors by Operators: Most important type of this is the error in pin-point accuracy of the point where the ball hits the bat. If the operators are not able to stop/freeze the frame 'exactly' when the ball hits the pad, there maybe massive errors in tracking the probable path. Moreover, since this is a manual error, there can never ever be any estimates for this kind of an error. The errors will depend on operator's skill, expertise, experience, age, mood, blood pressure, the time since they had their last breakup, ***, food etc etc...and etc. And these errors are in no way comparable to the field umpiring errors (though field umpiring errors might depend on the same factors for the umpires) because of the simple fact that they can't be measured using the same scale. So, it's not necessary that this error, combined with the technological error, will be less than field umpiring errors more than half the times.

 

[Bun]

gimh

why the ridicule of people disagreeing with u?

people disagree with me left right n center every hour here, doesn.t mean I can go around calling all them retards, clowns, fangirls, broadys etc.

as voltaire said, i'may disagree with u, but i'll die to ensure u get to voice it.

 

[four_or_six]

Mods have asked before to stop with the 'retards' insults, and that includes using them as side-swipes as well as directly. It's going to be a very long series if we go down that route of posting.

 

[Howe_zat]

people disagree with me left right n center every hour here

I'm shocked.

 

[smash84]

nah....that doesn't come as a surprise

 

[GIMH]

You are pretty much engaging in hidden name calling in every thread. (Clowns,dolts,Retards,****'s) you have pretty much done everything and also accused people of claiming racism etc without any reason.....

Can you please explain what you mean here by your link statement and that statement you attached to it?

http://statingtheobviousthatretards...upyourboardisajokeforblockingUDRSforlbws.html

That link makes it clear what you are trying to do.



Wasn't only referring to you here but others who are saying he is just criticising a rival company.

Also you are right Human eye is not infallible and no one is claiming it ,but there is no guarantee at all of any kind that the technology is even as accurate as the Human umpire standing out there for Marginal decisions as Ian taylor said himself in the E-mail of his i posted in the other thread.

And how the hell does it matter whether the posters support India, England or Timbuktu?

Cevno, allow me to explain.

If someone told me that they thought people could run faster than cars, I would consider that person ********.

If someone told me they felt it was better to add a series of 49-digit numbers up manually rather than with a calculator, I would consider that person ********.

Similarly, I feel that it is ******** that people would sooner trust human umpires than technology.

You can look for some kind of hidden agenda if you want but that's all it is. I don't have a vendetta against you, as far as I was concerned you and I had resolved our issues, but you recently decided to act the goat and dig up ancient posts of mine and act like you'd proved me as the hypocrite almighty.

I mainly use the term clowns in relation to players tbf. And I used it all the way through the Ashes without any censure, but the minute I used it in reference to your bowlers (a comment I stand by, btw) I get a mod warning. Pretty obvious that the standards differ because the Aussie posters can take a joke but...

Dolts is not a word I tend to use but I'm sure you'll search all my posts to try and disprove me.
And you ask why is it relevant who people support? Pretty obvious. The only board obnoxious enough to try and stop technology for lbws is BCCI. The only supporters opposing it? Take a ****ing guess.

Bottom line: none of you went into this amount of detail about your beef with ball-tracking until that became the only component of UDRS BCCI I opposed.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that when I say 'you lot' that doesn't mean all India fans or Indians but rather a core group of them.

And @ f-o-s, it's gonna be a long summer anyway

@ Bun - wingardium leviosa

 

[marc71178]

Neither field umpiring nor ball tracking is flawless. But the complexity doesn't end there.

The faults are of different kinds, and it's impossible to gauge (with plain or complex mathematics) which of the two is more faulty than the other.

While the probable faults by field umpires are known to all, the faults regarding ball tracking technology implementation are of two types:

1. Errors by technology in accurately tracking/gauging the probable path of the ball: There has been estimates for this type of error, and according to the estimates the errors are less than average errors made by field umpires. These estimates can be relied upon statistically as they are based on observations over a very high sample size. Also, rules can (and has) been made keeping these errors in mind such that the technology can be used in the best interest of all. So overturning field umpire's decisions based on ball tracking technology should be acceptable to all provided there are no other types of probable errors.

2. Errors by Operators: Most important type of this is the error in pin-point accuracy of the point where the ball hits the bat. If the operators are not able to stop/freeze the frame 'exactly' when the ball hits the pad, there maybe massive errors in tracking the probable path. Moreover, since this is a manual error, there can never ever be any estimates for this kind of an error. The errors will depend on operator's skill, expertise, experience, age, mood, blood pressure, the time since they had their last breakup, ***, food etc etc...and etc. And these errors are in no way comparable to the field umpiring errors (though field umpiring errors might depend on the same factors for the umpires) because of the simple fact that they can't be measured using the same scale. So, it's not necessary that this error, combined with the technological error, will be less than field umpiring errors more than half the times.

What is the relevance of error 2 to the predicted path? (which is the main reason why Hawkeye is needed)

 

[smash84]

Cevno, allow me to explain.

If someone told me that they thought people could run faster than cars, I would consider that person ********.

If someone told me they felt it was better to add a series of 49-digit numbers up manually rather than with a calculator, I would consider that person ********.

Similarly, I feel that it is ******** that people would sooner trust human umpires than technology.

You can look for some kind of hidden agenda if you want but that's all it is. I don't have a vendetta against you, as far as I was concerned you and I had resolved our issues, but you recently decided to act the goat and dig up ancient posts of mine and act like you'd proved me as the hypocrite almighty.

I mainly use the term clowns in relation to players tbf. And I used it all the way through the Ashes without any censure, but the minute I used it in reference to your bowlers (a comment I stand by, btw) I get a mod warning. Pretty obvious that the standards differ because the Aussie posters can take a joke but...

Dolts is not a word I tend to use but I'm sure you'll search all my posts to try and disprove me.
And you ask why is it relevant who people support? Pretty obvious. The only board obnoxious enough to try and stop technology for lbws is BCCI. The only supporters opposing it? Take a ****ing guess.

Bottom line: none of you went into this amount of detail about your beef with ball-tracking until that became the only component of UDRS BCCI I opposed.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that when I say 'you lot' that doesn't mean all India fans or Indians but rather a core group of them.

And @ f-o-s, it's gonna be a long summer anyway

@ Bun - wingardium leviosa

gun post but no need to take it so harsh GIMH

and Cevno you are an old poster around here and know how GIMH is like. He is a fun guy........besides some good natured banter never hurt anybody........

sorry but i don't have much to do at this point in time so I might as well act the do gooder

 

[silentstriker]

Pretty obvious that the standards differ because the Aussie posters can take a joke but...

 

[Bun]

gimh not everyone takes everything the way you would. something tats a joke to an aussie may be downright insulting to an indian n vice versa.

 

[Cevno]

Cevno, allow me to explain.

If someone told me that they thought people could run faster than cars, I would consider that person ********.

If someone told me they felt it was better to add a series of 49-digit numbers up manually rather than with a calculator, I would consider that person ********.

Similarly, I feel that it is ******** that people would sooner trust human umpires than technology.

First of all let me clarify that one position on one topic does not make someone a ******.

I think those that think Robots can direct better movies better than Humans have a Stupid opinion or those who think they can write better scripts are Stupid.
I also think that those that think that machines can bake better pies than Humans on average are Bizarre .

That does not mean those who just foolishly assume that technology is better blindly on marginal calls are the same too(despite there being real no guarantee and one of the makers disagreeing too) ,and does not make me right to call them retards or even of having a ******** opinion.
Because none of those things have anything to do with the debate at hand.

You can look for some kind of hidden agenda if you want but that's all it is. I don't have a vendetta against you, as far as I was concerned you and I had resolved our issues, but you recently decided to act the goat and dig up ancient posts of mine and act like you'd proved me as the hypocrite almighty.

I just gave a example of a similar issue that was at hand in the thread as some of your comments were really one sided.

I mainly use the term clowns in relation to players tbf. And I used it all the way through the Ashes without any censure, but the minute I used it in reference to your bowlers (a comment I stand by, btw) I get a mod warning. Pretty obvious that the standards differ because the Aussie posters can take a joke but...

Dolts is not a word I tend to use but I'm sure you'll search all my posts to try and disprove me.

Here we go..

Cevno, why would anyone give a **** what Giles Clarke thinks?

The difference between us, and some of you clowns, is that we don't swing on the ECB's dick. If someone attacks the ECB, we don't take it personally like WAH WAH WAH DON'T BE RACIST WHY U HATING ON MY COUNTRY ****ERS

Giles Clarke made a **** comment. I sympathised with him at the time because the decision wound me up, but looking back, what a **** comment. And guess what? Dhoni made a **** comment.

****ing deal with it.

Don't think you were referring to any Bowlers here.

This was a pretty dire post tbh ,but even except that you are doing the same in most other threads related to this issue or similar ones or posting hidden name calling posts where you are basically saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a number of different names/abuses etc....

Cbf ,finding all of them right now though.But if the other side also starts doing the same which it can too by all means then it will only become a slanging match.
And it is not only you but others are doing the same too.(Think that Dolt comment came from Marcuss now that i recall)

And you ask why is it relevant who people support? Pretty obvious. The only board obnoxious enough to try and stop technology for lbws is BCCI. The only supporters opposing it? Take a ****ing guess.

Don't agree with that.
Indian fans do not like BCCI so much by any means.

Same can be reversed and said that English and Aussie posters are supporting it because ECB and CA are supporting it ,and also because since companies from there operate this technology and hence would benefit them, if you want to make broad generalisations.

Bottom line: none of you went into this amount of detail about your beef with ball-tracking until that became the only component of UDRS BCCI I opposed.

Can't speak for other, I have been raising issues with Hawkeye for over a year here ,and the BCCI's objection became clear only last week to only it.

But at the same time i was criticising the BCCI for not implementing UDRS at all at the same time ,and there were no threads specific to the issue at the time so may have got missed.
Joe and Shri have done the same too ,IIRC.

Infact i remember having a long argument in one of the tour threads with Uppercut and Pews in one of the threads too ,where other non Indian posters expressed doubts about sometimes accuracy of the Ball tracking too.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that when I say 'you lot' that doesn't mean all India fans or Indians but rather a core group of them.

Still doesn't make name calling right ,tbh

 

[GIMH]

Okay, so you found an instance of me calling you clowns. Fair enough.I did say usually. And I also said I don't use the word dolts, but whatever.

Cevno, please understand that if I insult you (or Bun etc) it's only because I mean it. From the bottom of my heart.

 

[GotSpin]

I'm really drunk


sooooo


gimh you're a dick