This is the problem expressed in as few words as possible. It's kind of farcical that Bell would have been given out if he was say, only 2.49 metres down the crease. Assuming that the reason they have set this arbitrary number is that they don't have faith in Hawkeye's accuracy, it only puts further doubt into the viewer's mind as to whether the technology is reliable.why is it not 2.4 or 2? Who decides this arbitrary number?
India v England: MS Dhoni angered by UDRS ruling | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN CricinfoThe 2.5m rule has been put into place because it is from that point onwards that the precision of the ball tracking technology begins to reduce.
Bit hasty to assume it is arbitrary.
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".
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
You have to draw the line somewhere.If it was 2.4,people would ask why not 2.39.You can never please everyone at the same time.
Wise words kids.Lead to a happier life.
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 ankitj; 28-02-2011 at 03:56 AM.
Absolutely rubbish article.
The flaw isn't in the system. The fault here lies with Billy Bowden.
That's not a flaw in the UDRS system, it's a serious flaw in Bowden's decision making process.
"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)
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)