Is Human Error an important thing of the game

[iloveireland]

Well I firmly believe that human error is an important part of the game and makes it more exciting. If we had computers instead of umpires we would know automatically if it was out or not cause computers think the same and hawkeye has been proven to be wrong. It is also on the players part. They aren't always sure if a batsman is out or not. I know I will probably get hanged for this but bad decisions make the game more exciting.

 

[harishankar]

No it doesn't. Bad decisions only add tension between the sides and affect the result of a fairly contested match.

Let's face it... technology is here to stay and it will get better over time.

 

[SciD]

When the career of players are at stake I think they should get as many decisions right as possible no matter how they do it. They wanna call Bush in USA thencall him but please make right decisions.

P.S. I dont think Bush ever makes one.

 

[punterpupnroy]

yeah but i dont want cricket to be controlled by a man sitting in a room with a bunch of computers.

 

[iloveireland]

yeah but i dont want cricket to be controlled by a man sitting in a room with a bunch of computers.

I really dont want that. Sadly many do.

 

[SciD]

yeah but i dont want cricket to be controlled by a man sitting in a room with a bunch of computers.

Tv = Computer :cool:

 

[bowser]

To use technology or not?

They is a lot of discussion on this forum regarding the umpiring in the second test in Australia. Tony Grieg was again pushing his favourite barrow of using technology to make decisions. What is the opinion of members? For what it's worth I am against TV replays to make decisions, even run out and stumpings. My reasoning for this is that the nature of the medium is not accurate enough and too often decisions are being made "around" frames of picture to decide if the bails are off or not and when it happened. If the events were via slow motion cameras then you would get a better view as often the bat has moved 100cms or more between frames. This is not the case and is unlikely to be so in the near future. With catches behind, too often the frames do not show the actual edge where slow mo or real time is truer and Tony?s favourite snicko is slow and subject to error. There is no way to ensure that the only sound detected relates to a possible snick or hitting a pad or the ground or even comes from a totally separate source. I have played in games where a small piece of clay has hit the bat giving the same sound as an edge. Don?t even mention the highly doubtful hawkeye whose judgement of line, swing, turn and bounce is fanciful. With catches possibly carrying you are often depending on a wildly swinging camera to actually see the catch, frame problems again, players, umpires and gear being in the way and sometimes the natural fall of the field concealing the point of catching. Let?s get back to the umps making the decisions and have the TV networks get back to broadcasting the game and not looking for controversy as Grieg is apt to do. Plenty of good judges claim that the use of the 3rd ump has lead to the declining standards of umpires in general.

 

[SaiSrini]

Well I firmly believe that human error is an important part of the game and makes it more exciting. If we had computers instead of umpires we would know automatically if it was out or not cause computers think the same and hawkeye has been proven to be wrong. It is also on the players part. They aren't always sure if a batsman is out or not. I know I will probably get hanged for this but bad decisions make the game more exciting.

What an absurd comment? "Bad decisions make the game more exciting". you've just uttered the most comical lines that i've ever listened to. with cricket now becoming more of an unofficial battle between two nations for supremacy, bad decisions have no place at all in cricket.

I dont mind technology even if it takes more time to arrive at the decisions. And people who say technology is not fair always, well its better than the human mind which is more prone to making incorrect decisions and at a more regular basis. Technology with frequent updates and improvements gives the best option of getting the right decisions and that too more consistently.

 

[jordox]

The last thing I want is technology deciding the game. The only people who do want that are whiners. They don't realise that part of cricket is the human element, and Bradman once said in his book:

"All cricketers must realise that bad decisions will go against them. It is part and parcel of the game and the luck will eventually even its self out."

Lets keep cricket the way it has been played for hundreds of years. Be honest, you don't see that bad of decisions like Steve Bucknor did, blatant bad decisions, even once out of 50 matches. I love the game the way it is, it is exciting seeing an LBW go up and everyone is like "IS HE GOING TO GIVE IT!!?!?!??!?!" for a second or two, thats part of the fun of the game. Imagine how boring the game will be is when a batter is hit on the pads, the players instead of appealing say 'Can we check upstairs there'... 5 minutes later the decision is given not out......It'd be boring. Really boring.

 

[SciD]

The last thing I want is technology deciding the game. The only people who do want that are whiners. They don't realise that part of cricket is the human element, and Bradman once said in his book:

"All cricketers must realise that bad decisions will go against them. It is part and parcel of the game and the luck will eventually even its self out."

My friend Bradman played 6 decades ago. And how many test matches he played every year?

 

[jordox]

My friend Bradman played 6 decades ago. And how many test matches he played every year?

Thats it. Good job, completely miss the point I was trying to make and pick on a little thing. You Indians love doing that, don't you.

 

[SciD]

Thats it. Good job, completely miss the point I was trying to make and pick on a little thing. You Indians love doing that, don't you.

I dont wanna post the decisions of Bucknor against India in last 15 years again for you. I have done it already many times. Ans it happens every 5 matches not 50 matcheswhen it comes to Bucknor and India.

 

[jordox]

I dont wanna post the decisions of Bucknor against India in last 15 years again for you. I have done it already many times. Ans it happens every 5 matches not 50 matcheswhen it comes to Bucknor and India.

Once again, missing my point. Can you read? THIS IS THE POINT I MADE IN THAT POST:

"Lets keep cricket the way it has been played for hundreds of years. Be honest, you don't see that bad of decisions like Steve Bucknor did, blatant bad decisions, even once out of 50 matches. I love the game the way it is, it is exciting seeing an LBW go up and everyone is like "IS HE GOING TO GIVE IT!!?!?!??!?!" for a second or two, thats part of the fun of the game. Imagine how boring the game will be is when a batter is hit on the pads, the players instead of appealing say 'Can we check upstairs there'... 5 minutes later the decision is given not out......It'd be boring. Really boring."

Okay? Now have another go at replying Sid.

 

[Abhas]

Well I firmly believe that human error is an important part of the game and makes it more exciting. If we had computers instead of umpires we would know automatically if it was out or not cause computers think the same and hawkeye has been proven to be wrong. It is also on the players part. They aren't always sure if a batsman is out or not. I know I will probably get hanged for this but bad decisions make the game more exciting.

If Hawkeye has been proved wrong, then maybe the wrong decisions it gives can be source of excitement? :

Anyway.. I think nothing can replace the Human Umpire, but technology can play a vital role in the accuracy of the decisions. If there is a doubt in the umpire's mind, he can consult with the 3rd umpire to check using the technology available. Ofcourse, some decisions are still too close to go either side. In such a case, its the umpire's call, and most probably the benefit of the doubt should be given (to the batsman, as the rulebook says).

 

[SciD]

Once again, missing my point. Can you read? THIS IS THE POINT I MADE IN THAT POST:

"Lets keep cricket the way it has been played for hundreds of years. Be honest, you don't see that bad of decisions like Steve Bucknor did, blatant bad decisions, even once out of 50 matches. I love the game the way it is, it is exciting seeing an LBW go up and everyone is like "IS HE GOING TO GIVE IT!!?!?!??!?!" for a second or two, thats part of the fun of the game. Imagine how boring the game will be is when a batter is hit on the pads, the players instead of appealing say 'Can we check upstairs there'... 5 minutes later the decision is given not out......It'd be boring. Really boring."

Okay? Now have another go at replying Sid.

I the damm third umpire sees that the batsmen is given out incorrectly cant he just tell those in middle that guys you have made blunder correct it?

How much time will it waste.

Imagine being batsmen when you dont trust the Umpire will give right decision?