|
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
International Coach
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: India
Posts: 10,305
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) | |
|
International Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: location, location
Posts: 3,540
|
Quote:
Bit hasty to assume it is arbitrary. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | ||||
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: A Blood Rainbow
Posts: 26,757
|
That's not what I've heard before. An article last year with the Hawkeye people said that it was nothing to do with accuracy, but the fact that "those have never been given in the past".
__________________
+ and the buzz surrounds it does + * * * in which cribb demonstrates the power of the jinx Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
International Captain
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Hyderabad India
Posts: 5,148
|
You have to? The only source of imprecision can be determining position and velocity of the ball (and since cricket ball is a massive object, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle need not bother us
). Larger the distance the ball has to travel, more is the imprecision magnified. You draw a line to account for that? No. Leave it to the engineers to determine a confidence region for a certain level of acceptable probability.Problem is when you mix technology and human judgement, that too of those who possibly aren't trained in basics of physics or statistics. This is when you get arbitrary rules like 2.49 m is acceptable even if the ball is hitting the top of the off stump, but 2.5 m is not even if the ball is hitting middle of middle stump. Leave it to engineers once it goes upstairs, just give them a probability level you are happy to accept (95% or whatever). Give them specifications, they will make a tool. Last edited by 8ankitj; 28-02-2011 at 03:56 AM. |
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
International Captain
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colombo, SL
Posts: 5,175
|
Quote:
__________________
Diuretics are used to look good at TV shows I played for 20 years in the Lankan team, I did not have any problems as a Tamil - Muralidaran |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Hall of Fame Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Crabs Subbie
Posts: 15,447
|
Quote:
That's not a flaw in the UDRS system, it's a serious flaw in Bowden's decision making process. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
International Coach
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: India
Posts: 10,305
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) |
|
Cricket Web Staff Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: high dudgeon
Posts: 9,732
|
I can't agree it's a rubbish article, as it explained to me what, not having been able to watch the game, I didn't fully appreciate about the situation until I read it (sadly I was visiting a BSkyB less elderly relative yesterday afternoon) but I agree entirely that Bowden was at fault, and that UDRS cannot be expected to cope with irrational decision making by the human beings involved
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
International Captain
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kolkata --> Mumbai, India
Posts: 5,950
|
Quote:
__________________
"I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100." - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone) |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) | |
|
Cricket Web Staff Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,554
|
Quote:
If you are not trusting the technology then let's not even have the UDRS. In this instance agreed the batsman was well forward, 2.5 meters to be precise and still was deemed out by Hawk eye. Unfortunately Bell was declared not out. The funny thing is if he had been ruled out, The call would have still stayed out. We cannot have that ambiguity. Either trust hawk eye and go forward or else don't do it. The bigger point in discussion is the human intervention. Hawkeye is a far superior judge than any human of where a ball that has pitched will end up. The cricket community needs to simply embrace this reality and stop fighting the science. Human judgment is affected by a host of things that Hawkeye isn't. If Hawkeye says someone is out, he' should be out. The needless complications bring more frustration to players and fans than is necessary. The broader picture is the involvement of Bowden or anyother umpire in the UDRS and that's where the system fails.
Last edited by gvenkat; 28-02-2011 at 07:22 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) | ||
|
Cricket Web Staff Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,554
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by gvenkat; 28-02-2011 at 07:26 AM. |
||
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rule about fielders behind batsman | memphiscricket | Cricket Chat | 4 | 04-08-2010 10:22 PM |
| New Feature : UDRS: To review or not to review | gvenkat | Cricket Chat | 7 | 20-07-2010 03:39 PM |
| Rationale for the off sides rule in soccer | silentstriker | 2010 Football World Cup - South Africa | 59 | 28-06-2010 03:21 PM |
| UDRS in ODIs | Craig | Cricket Chat | 12 | 28-01-2010 04:54 PM |
| Reintroduction of the Substitute rule | aussie | Cricket Chat | 48 | 17-07-2009 07:35 AM |