Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie-n)
    Well if you use those criteria, the referral system will have problems. For example, if that decision was challenged by Collingwood, what would the third umpire conclude? Out - on the basis of Hawkeye. So you can't say you want referrals AND dismiss Hawkeye.
    I'm sorry but I don't believe it will ever be possible for a computer to predict what a cricket ball do either off the pitch or in the air. Hawk-eye can predict what they ball may do, but it is never certain, which is why Hawk-eye will never be used in a referral system.

    On that particular decision, Collingwood would have referred it and it would have been given not out, because you can't be certain that the ball is going to hit leg stump. That ball never looked like clipping the leg stump, in my eyes, it was always going down the leg side.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    I'm sorry but I don't believe it will ever be possible for a computer to predict what a cricket ball do either off the pitch or in the air. Hawk-eye can predict what they ball may do, but it is never certain, which is why Hawk-eye will never be used in a referral system.
    No system will ever be 100% certain. As it is, humans make exactly the same calculations that Hawkeye does in their head (taking into account the pact, bounce and line of the delivery before it hit the batsman and extrapolating it), but it just does so more accurately. Human sight is easily tricked and I'd be more inclined to belive Hawkeye than what I felt when I first saw the delivery.

    (Original post by AesopRock)
    On that particular decision, Collingwood would have referred it and it would have been given not out, because you can't be certain that the ball is going to hit leg stump.
    That's just my point. Where do you draw the line as to when you can be sure the ball is going to hit leg stump?

    (Original post by AesopRock)
    That ball never looked like clipping the leg stump, in my eyes, it was always going down the leg side.
    That was my first thought too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh right, so now, instead of believing Hawk-eye, we should believe Aesop because in his eyes, 'the ball was always going down leg-side'. Brilliant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    Oh right, so now, instead of believing Hawk-eye, we should believe Aesop because in his eyes, 'the ball was always going down leg-side'. Brilliant.
    You look at the camera footage, see where the ball pitched, the angle of the ball, where it hit the batsmen etc and make a decision. The pictures from the cameras are fact, that happened, and you make your judgments solely on that.

    You can't use Hawk-eye to make a decision because it is impossible to be 100% sure what a cricket ball will do. You can't give a batsmen out just because Hawk-eye says it is clipping leg stump by about 1 cm. You can only go by what you see with the video footage.

    Surely you can understand that. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    You can't use Hawk-eye to make a decision because it is impossible to be 100 % sure what a cricket ball will do. You can only go by what you see with the video footage.

    Surely you can understand that. :rolleyes:
    Surely you can understand that it would be more reliable to believe Hawk-eye, even though it might not be 100% accurate, than your own instincts. It's a complex bit of technology which takes a number of factors into account.

    In any case, it would not be a bad decision. Hawk-eye suggests it is hitting the stumps. And even if it was missing by milimetres, a 50/50 decision can go either way.

    I've just seen the ball, and at first glance it seems not out. But the replays show it may well have clipped leg stump. Bell was not unlucky.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    Surely you can understand that it would be more reliable to believe Hawk-eye, even though it might not be 100% accurate, than your own instincts. It's a complex bit of technology which takes a number of factors into account.

    In any case, it would not be a bad decision. Hawk-eye suggests it is hitting the stumps. And even if it was missing by milimetres, a 50/50 decision can go either way.

    I've just seen the ball, and at first glance it seems not out. But the replays show it may well have clipped leg stump. Bell was not unlucky.
    It would be wrong to give a batsmen out just because Hawk-eye is hitting the stumps by a few mm. We have all seen a cricket ball do strange things in the air, especially when the ball goes past the keeper. I much rather make my own decision based on the facts, and I think the players would much prefer it this way as well.

    In tennis they can use Hawk-eye because it doesn't predict what the ball is doing, it just shows what the ball has already done.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horrorshow)
    Drop Prior, He's an all round disgrace.
    If you can't walk the walk and all that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    In tennis they can use Hawk-eye because it doesn't predict what the ball is doing, it just shows what the ball has already done.
    A very good point, well made.

    But, even if we are dealing with late swing, we're talking about the ball hitting the pad about a metre before it's hitting the stumps. i.e. the ball is virtually a split second away from the stumps. The ball couldn't deviate a significant amount at all in that space of time. i.e. The Hawk-eye would be very, very, very accurate - and much more so that the opinions of 3rd Umpires.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    If you can't walk the walk and all that.
    Funny, I said exactly the same thing to a friend today. Prior deserves all the stick he's getting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horrorshow)
    Same **** different day with england again.

    Well played india.
    Agreed.

    (Original post by Horrorshow)
    Drop Prior, He's an all round disgrace.
    lol Prior is not a disgrace. He needs to improve his keeping for sure, but he is a decent enough batsmen. You can't really drop him after one bad game. Plus, who would replace him? The only 2 names that stand out to me are Chris Read (best keeper in the country) and Tim Ambrose (young lad, made some big scores this season).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Suc-Cesc!!!)
    A very good point, well made.

    But, even if we are dealing with late swing, we're talking about the ball hitting the pad about a metre before it's hitting the stumps. i.e. the ball is virtually a split second away from the stumps. The ball couldn't deviate a significant amount at all in that space of time. i.e. The Hawk-eye would be very, very, very accurate - and much more so that the opinions of 3rd Umpires.
    True, I know that the Hawk-eye tolerance is very small, but that still doesn't change my opinion on it being used in a referral system.

    If you were a batsmen and given out just because Hawk-eye says it is just clipping leg stump, I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy, even if by the naked eye, it doesn't look out.

    The referral system should just be based on a "second look" policy, just like run outs are. It should be put into action when a bad decision is made due to human error, so if the error is so obvious that the everyone looking at the video clip can see a mistake has been made, then that decision can be changed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AesopRock)
    lol Prior is not a disgrace. He needs to improve his keeping for sure, but he is a decent enough batsmen. You can't really drop him after one bad game. Plus, who would replace him? The only 2 names that stand out to me are Chris Read (best keeper in the country) and Tim Ambrose (young lad, made some big scores this season).
    His batting has been pretty woeful against India, only one score of note in the first test. Hes having a complete shocker with the gloves too. I would lay off him for now though and give him the winter tours to redeem himself. He blasted a run a ball hundred on debut which I doubt any other keeper in the country could have done, and wicket keeping can easily be improved with time (see Alec Stewart, Adam Gilchrist, Kumar Sangakkara)

    Read, well best keeper yeah but we've already seen hes like a deer in headlights when it comes to batting. I think we should really put his international career to bed It is important to have someone who can bat though no matter what the purists say. It is concerning that our keeper and bowlers have scored 34 runs in this test compared to India's 259.

    Ambrose is a good pick, I expect he'll be back up keeper this winter. I also like Mustard and Davies but they're both quite young and having ordinary county seasons so perhaps in a few years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    you can get the sky headphones from the gound for £6 single ear or £10 double. Though tbh unless your going to a few games their a ripoff and the commentating isnt as good as tms. I have a mini lw radio which picks up the radio 4 lw commentry with aggers, gavaskar etc and you can get these from argos for about £5/6..but make sure its LW.

    Regarding umpires Taufel and Alem Dar are the only half decent ones about, and Taufel gets away with alot of his bad decisions cos of his rep. The worst are/were david shepard, hair and all other aussy ones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperDaz)
    It is important to have someone who can bat though no matter what the purists say. It is concerning that our keeper and bowlers have scored 34 runs in this test compared to India's 259.
    Agreed, England's tail hasn't wagged for a while now.

    If England had half decent batsmen at 8, 9 and 10 (someone like Kumble, Jason Gillespie or Brett Lee) then I would have no issues with choosing Chris Read as the England wicketkeeper. I still think he shouldn't have been dropped the first time round when Geriant Jones took over in the West Indies tour. He has been played around a bit by the Selectors/Duncan Fletcher unfairly in my book.

    Although, it might improve in the future if both Stuart Broad and Adil Rasheed become England test players.

    I think the one-day series is really important for Prior if he wants to keep his place. If he doesn't do well in these ODIS and does rubbish in the winter then by the time the English summer comes around (or maybe even earlier), he may of lost his place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If englands batsmen did the job and the bowlers were good enough at theirs, you dont need the tail to "wag". Kumble is hard to get out in tests, but apart from him for years now their tail has been poor (e.g. sreesanth, nehra, bhaj, patel, khan, balaji etc) but their batsmen score runs so its irrelevant how tailenders perform.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john williams)
    If englands batsmen did the job and the bowlers were good enough at theirs, you dont need the tail to "wag". Kumble is hard to get out in tests, but apart from him for years now their tail has been poor (e.g. sreesanth, nehra, bhaj, patel, khan, balaji etc) but their batsmen score runs so its irrelevant how tailenders perform.
    I disagree. A wagging tail is very important. Of course, you can't rely on them, but it definitely can help considerably.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree Synergetic.

    The reason Pakistan beat India last year at Karachi was precisely because of the tail wagging. To be 0-3, 39-6, and still win by 341 wins was in no small part due to the tail getting runs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think Prior can cut it with the gloves unfortunately. Three drops by him this series have been caused by a lack of a proper technique to dive and catch the ball. He has no footwork and just lunges at the ball, so just falls away. I like it when he's positive with the bat, but you could just tell today he had the weight of the world on his shoulders when he came out to bat.

    It's healthy that the press heaps pressure on him, he deserves the stick and criticism. Keepers need to keep first, and then build up their batting. First time i've said that really

    I have been impressed with India's bowlers throughout though. It's a batting paradise when they bat, but when we bat it's anything but. Fair play.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is why the referral system is being tried out in county cricket and I think it is a good idea. However I would have been very disappointed if I was Collywobbles in real time looked as though it was going past leg or maybe just clipping leg which should not be given. Prior should be given another chance in Sri Lanka, you don't get 100 on debut and not be able to bat and his wicketkeeping will develop take at Gilchrist at the start of his international career was of a similar keeping standerd to prior
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegman!)
    Prior should be given another chance in Sri Lanka, you don't get 100 on debut and not be able to bat and his wicketkeeping will develop take at Gilchrist at the start of his international career was of a similar keeping standerd to prior
    Priors international career has been very similar to that of Geriant Jones. They both got hundreds early in their career then their batting fell off. They both opened the batting in ODIs at some point due to what I call "the Gilchrist effect". Both didn't get any decent scores in ODIs and then selectors say "oh just take a look at how Gilchrist started his career off and look where he is now". Jones improved his keeping over time and so will Prior probably.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.