Themer
Chairman of Selectors
I fail to see whats wrong with that.
----------
We all know that its a flat disc mounted on top of four giant elephants which are standing of a giant turtle.
DRS no longer mandatory
- Thread starter Gurjot95
- Start date
I fail to see whats wrong with that.
----------
We all know that its a flat disc mounted on top of four giant elephants which are standing of a giant turtle.
Atharv
Club Cricketer
You know what are genuinely ridiculous? Your arguments! How can you use trigonometry when the ball does not travel in a straight line (due to both gravity and swing)???!!! Your attempt to blind us with science and establish your academic credentials is a massive fail!
There is a margin of error (as has always been admitted) with the technology. That's why batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt when the ball is predicted to barely clip a stump or bail. That's because of the effect of (unpredictable/random) swing (and freak gusts of wind etc. lol) after impact.
But the margin of error of an umpire is greater than that of the technology. It is not possible for an umpire to predict better than the technology when it is working correctly. Not unless the umpire has psychic powers, that is. We all know that most umpires perform much worse than the technology, and just about every innings of cricket without DRS has one or more decision that is endlessly debated - rationally - without resolution.
You just keep reinforcing the impression that you will agree with the BCCI whether they say that the earth is flat or black is white.
So you are saying that the gravitational acceleration on the ball released from a height of 8 feet and travelling about 15 yards down the pitch will have a drastic change on the point of impact? So instead of landing at 15 yards it will land at, I guess , 14.9999999999999........... yards . I guess it might happen.But still the error might not be as great as the errors that hawkeye has been exhibiting.
As you are an expert you know that movement of the ball off the pitch and in the air depends upon condition of the ball , wind , moisture , condition of the pitch etc. All these I have already mentioned , if you can suggest a way to measure the condition of the ball it would be great .
Just one final thing before I wrap this up . I fail to understand your obsession with BCCI. Never ever have I said in any of my posts anywhere on PCF that BCCI are a great organisation . But in opposing hawkeye they have unwittingly done a terrific job . If they had been really serious they have would have hired some top technical guys to counter it and prove that hawk eye is not good .
----------
I respect English sense of humour , but many times, like this time, I fail to understand it and that is my bad. I hope what you have said above is not a religious taunt.
Sedition
Panel of Selectors
Mr. Atharv, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Atharv
Club Cricketer
There is nothing irrational about it . If you cannot comprehend it , it is not my fault .
I agree that 'wrapping this up' would be in your best interests, Atharv. Especially as you now seem to be talking about a system that predicts where the ball goes before reaching the batsman. Actually, for that we use a time-honoured scientific technique called observation, which has an extremely small margin of error, regardless of moisture, atmospheric conditions or other irrelevancies such as the beating of butterfly wings in Guatemala.
As for your contention that it is a coincidence that you are spouting the exact same irrational line as the BCCI, well, science demands that I remain sceptical about such coincidences... There is a scientific principle known as Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is most likely to be the correct one. I followed this principle to my above conclusion, and I stand by it in the absence of evidence to the contrary...
PS: Yes gravity (and more so swing which you simply failed to address) does affect the ball between release and the batsman. By deliberately refusing to include it in your model, you are wilfully introducing a margin of error that is roughly 10 times greater than the error margin of the technology you're complaining about. Why am I not surprised?
As for your contention that it is a coincidence that you are spouting the exact same irrational line as the BCCI, well, science demands that I remain sceptical about such coincidences... There is a scientific principle known as Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is most likely to be the correct one. I followed this principle to my above conclusion, and I stand by it in the absence of evidence to the contrary...
PS: Yes gravity (and more so swing which you simply failed to address) does affect the ball between release and the batsman. By deliberately refusing to include it in your model, you are wilfully introducing a margin of error that is roughly 10 times greater than the error margin of the technology you're complaining about. Why am I not surprised?
Atharv
Club Cricketer
I agree that 'wrapping this up' would be in your best interests, Atharv. Especially as you now seem to be talking about a system that predicts where the ball goes before reaching the batsman. Actually, for that we use a time-honoured scientific technique called observation, which has an extremely small margin of error, regardless of moisture, atmospheric conditions or other irrelevancies such as the beating of butterfly wings in Guatemala.
As for your contention that it is a coincidence that you are spouting the exact same irrational line as the BCCI, well, science demands that I remain sceptical about such coincidences... There is a scientific principle known as Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is most likely to be the correct one. I followed this principle to my above conclusion, and I stand by it in the absence of evidence to the contrary...
PS: Yes gravity (and more so swing which you simply failed to address) does affect the ball between release and the batsman. By deliberately refusing to include it in your model, you are wilfully introducing a margin of error that is roughly 10 times greater than the error margin of the technology you're complaining about. Why am I not surprised?
So you are saying that once the event happens on the field you will again watch it's recording(which already has some errors because many times different camera angles show different "truth")and then you will use an erroneous technique to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. But you will not allow the Umpire to make a decision based on his observation ?
OK
.I did not "miss" gravity on purpose. I should have thanked you for bringing it to my attention. My mistake.Thank you .
Please do not be in a hurry to criticize me. If you read my posts you will see that I have already talked about the swing.
Don't know about Ockham's razor but read something in Sherlock holmes . Even your razor says the it is the most likely explanation and not the accurate explanation.So there is a possibility that your assumption is wrong
. Goodbye dude.
Have a nice day .
So you are saying that once the event happens on the field you will again watch it's recording(which already has some errors because many times different camera angles show different "truth")and then you will use an erroneous technique to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. But you will not allow the Umpire to make a decision based on his observation ?
OK
I did not "miss" gravity on purpose. I should have thanked you for bringing it to my attention. My mistake.Thank you .
Please do not be in a hurry to criticize me. If you read my posts you will see that I have already talked about the swing.
Don't know about Ockham's razor but read something in Sherlock holmes . Even your razor says the it is the most likely explanation and not the accurate explanation.So there is a possibility that your assumption is wrong
Goodbye dude.
Have a nice day .
I'm guessing you're alluding to paralax? In which case, having 6 (or more) camera angles will eliminate this entirely.
I'm guessing that you're charitably attributing a degree of intelligence and/or thoughtfulness to that post which just isn't there.
Now that he clearly has nothing to say, I'm happy to let Atharv have the last word...
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I can only assume someone just bought Atharv a 'top of the range' stencil picture set from the 1850's and he assumes they've placed two of them around the ground.
There are 6 high-high-high definition cameras. The sort that are able to track far more information than 'the picture' you keep referring to. By using 6 (or more) cameras placed in the correct positions, a 3D model of the ball is created, one complete with every possible equation going. Hawkeye could quite literally be nothing but a screen with tons of numbers on that looks a little like the Matrix. This would make no sense to anyone other than someone well versed in some form of Cpu language. The graphical interface we the fan sees is merely there to give the audience something to see.
About the only time Hawkeye fails is if the batsmen is struck full on the pad, as there is no way of predicting what the ball would have done off the pitch, as no information is provided to extrapolate its path. Funnily enough, neither can an umpire, and they are taught to assume the ball is going straight on.
What are people's favourite quote so far? I think mine is "I need not provide any links because I know what I am talking about."
I can't remember the exact quote, or who said it (Einstein maybe) but he suggested that if you know what you're talking about, you should be able to explain anything to someone who doesn't.
There are 6 high-high-high definition cameras. The sort that are able to track far more information than 'the picture' you keep referring to. By using 6 (or more) cameras placed in the correct positions, a 3D model of the ball is created, one complete with every possible equation going. Hawkeye could quite literally be nothing but a screen with tons of numbers on that looks a little like the Matrix. This would make no sense to anyone other than someone well versed in some form of Cpu language. The graphical interface we the fan sees is merely there to give the audience something to see.
About the only time Hawkeye fails is if the batsmen is struck full on the pad, as there is no way of predicting what the ball would have done off the pitch, as no information is provided to extrapolate its path. Funnily enough, neither can an umpire, and they are taught to assume the ball is going straight on.
What are people's favourite quote so far? I think mine is "I need not provide any links because I know what I am talking about."
I can't remember the exact quote, or who said it (Einstein maybe) but he suggested that if you know what you're talking about, you should be able to explain anything to someone who doesn't.
Jagar
Club Captain
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
It's English Literature.
I respect English sense of humour , but many times, like this time, I fail to understand it and that is my bad. I hope what you have said above is not a religious taunt.
A reference to Terry Pratchett's discworld, nothing to do with any religions.
iridescentt
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
So you are saying that the gravitational acceleration on the ball released from a height of 8 feet and travelling about 15 yards down the pitch will have a drastic change on the point of impact? So instead of landing at 15 yards it will land at, I guess , 14.9999999999999........... yards . I guess it might happen.But still the error might not be as great as the errors that hawkeye has been exhibiting.
Please Artharv, refer to us specific examples of the error's you've determined. Enlighten us my boy.
Predict? If only we could somehow measure the distance the ball travels and somehow time how long it takes for the ball to travel said distance. I hear they've invented stopwatches, it's witchcraft I tells ya!
We know the speed, could work it out on a bit of paper. It's not rocket science.
Seriously, if you don't understand the technology, then don't try and form an argument against it, being the person who is arguing against the use of DRS you need to have an understanding of it greater than those who are defending DRS, yet you don't. If you're going to continue this banal tirade, at least provide some actual evidence to support your argument and not your biassed opinions.
The DRS has its flaws, most of which are the human element and the interpretation of it, such as that catch off of Strauss, the evidence was inconclusive to our eyes, the technology itself wasn't flawed on that situation. Yet the right decision was made, no conclusive decision could be made, even if those who have played cricket know that if the fingers are under the ball it's very probable it was a clean catch. The flaw is in the implementation of the technology, not the technology itself.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Your last line is interesting Sureshot, because that is the crux isn't it? Where some people seem to be adverse to the DRS being implemented due to previous supposed errors, the fact is that the system has never failed, merely the human method of interpretation.
The only thing that remains entirely consistent throughout is in fact the pre-programmed technology, it is the human input into the system that has provided the variable results.
The only thing that remains entirely consistent throughout is in fact the pre-programmed technology, it is the human input into the system that has provided the variable results.
Yes but the system has failed in the sense that some things in that system are hard for humans to interpret eg. is that a hot spot mark? or just some post urinal dribble? Was that a noise or a creaky bat? So I can see where those who want true 100% infallibility are upset, but I'm happy with just an improvement in decisions.
eg. is that a hot spot mark? or just some post urinal dribble? Was that a noise or a creaky bat? So I can see where those who want true 100% infallibility are upset, but I'm happy with just an improvement in decisions.puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Haha Sifter, it's generally pointless when the 'reasoned' (I'll use the term relatively) among us try and debate DRS, because we all come up with roughly the same thing.
"Yeah, it can get better. However it already increases accurate decisions and will only improve as a system through continued use and backing."
Ok, now that we're all agreed, I will ask a controversial question. If cricket could reach a point where the technology is instant and infallible, how long until umpires are replaced? In terms of training it would no doubt be cost-effective. Not to mention that it would provide a universal set of umpiring conditions applicable regardless of the personality at each end.
Is this a potential future? Would you even want it to be one?
I know my own feelings on the matter.
"Yeah, it can get better. However it already increases accurate decisions and will only improve as a system through continued use and backing."
Ok, now that we're all agreed, I will ask a controversial question. If cricket could reach a point where the technology is instant and infallible, how long until umpires are replaced? In terms of training it would no doubt be cost-effective. Not to mention that it would provide a universal set of umpiring conditions applicable regardless of the personality at each end.
Is this a potential future? Would you even want it to be one?
I know my own feelings on the matter.
