Is Human Error an important thing of the game

[Hooper]

Cricket is run by robots not Humans.

 

[Abhas]

Cricket is run by robots not Humans.

and what make u think that?? :

 

[harishankar]

The only ones who want the "mistakes to be part of the game" are the ones who still live in the 1930s and think that cricket is a "gentleman's game."

What a laugh.

 

[Hooper]

Oops, wrong way around. I mean its meant to be run by humans, not robots (technology). Lets just leave it that way. Imagine cricket with no appealing, no suspense over an LBW or edge? Boring! Its good to have the human factor there. Just because one team got a few roughies in a Test match you dont suddenly take away human umpires. Live with it, its a part of Cricket. Every team has there bad days.

 

[harishankar]

All we want is technology to assist humans, not replace them. Don't twist our arguments in your own way...

This seems to be a favourite argument of those against technology and it's completely incorrect to assume that we want technology replacing umpires.

Umpires still have a role to play. They will be under a lot less pressure if technology can help them make some of the tougher decisions.

 

[SciD]

All we want is technology to assist humans, not replace them. Don't twist our arguments in your own way...

This seems to be a favourite argument of those against technology and it's completely incorrect to assume that we want technology replacing umpires.

Umpires still have a role to play. They will be under a lot less pressure if technology can help them make some of the tougher decisions.

Right said. Show me one post where it said get robots out there in field and throw umpires out.
You wanna keep human element then do away with all umpiring aids and let them judge run outs too.

 

[Hooper]

But you want umpires to assist; LBWs,Catches,Stumpings,Runouts. Which is basically everything, hence the reason for no human umpires.

 

[Abhas]

nope... we want technology to assist dubious calls. some decisions are very tough for the umpire to take. we want that when in doubt, he should double check and make sure there is very little margin for error.

Checking the Hawkeye for every LBW shout will be as dumb as cutting the branch on which u'r sitting.
when it is a close call eg. Ricky Ponting's LBW in this match. he clearly got a big inside edge, but the umpire failed to see that, and ruled him out. If there was technology at his disposal, it would have been very clear that he was not out.

 

[aditya123]

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.

Why do you keep stereotyping us ?

 

[Hooper]

Because you are all acting the same? Im not sure. Thats what stereotyping means, its not nice is it?

 

[Cricket_60]

All we want is technology to assist humans, not replace them.

That's probably the best way to think of incorporating technology into umpiring. An umpire should be able to have access to technology if he is unsure or doubtful over a close LBW or caught behind decision. The mentality that cricket is a game that should contain a human element with umpiring is fair, except for the fact that this arose in the early 1900's when hawkeye and snicko weren't available to assist the umpires of the time. Match officials should still have the right to go with their own decisions but also have the safety net of technology.

 

[IloveGilly]

Kind of like what Tony Grieg was trying to imply. We don't need such things like hawk-eye or snicko as used as 3rd umpire because you are simply getting a biased and direct view of it. Hot spot is kind of like that, but it is amazing technology. Such things like the that strip down the middle of the pitch and bounce meter are pretty good in helping the 3rd umpire.

Tennis did introduct the 'challenge' system using hawk-eye for crucial points, Surely 1 or 2 for each batsman and bowler would be enough but nothing to overdo the human element of Cricket, but a problem may arise with time issues on certain decisions and if it'll be available everywhere unlike tennis.

Can't forget that the future generation grow up with a man who is always behind the stumps to make decisions for them.

Assist but not eliminate!

 

[Atlas]

Tennis did introduct the 'challenge' system using hawk-eye for crucial points, Surely 1 or 2 for each batsman and bowler would be enough but nothing to overdo the human element of Cricket, but a problem may arise with time issues on certain decisions and if it'll be available everywhere unlike tennis.

Can't forget that the future generation grow up with a man who is always behind the stumps to make decisions for them.

Assist but not eliminate!

Time isn't an issue, Test Cricket is a slow game (and teams don't really help with their slow over rates.) I agree about the Tennis comparisons. Most of the time the challenge system just weeds out the really poor decisions, where a ball is out by inch and it hasn't been over-ruled by the umpire. And that's what frustrates me and probably the players as well.

I also think they could use a system to monitor no-balls by remote, relieve some of the strain on the umpires. Its easy to do, one camera at either end focussed on the crease.

LBW's should never be referred to video, though. There's a lot of interpretation and the computer models aren't accurate enough.

 

[Animator!]

I dont replays on LBW's or a referal system, because both of those have already been proven not to work at all. So there isn't any point contemplating them. I'd prefer if they did use replays more for disputed on the field catches though, although half the time they never have an angle that provide conclusive evidence. There really isn't much that can change.

 

[usy]

Listen ..

Human error can be made once, twice, 3 times... 7 times in a match? wohoo boy! something's cookin.