Should we use technology for better decisions?

[Prince EWS]

It doesn't matter if it is one decision or 10 decisions, one poor decision is enough to change the outcome of a match.

Yeah, and the naked eye makes many more wrong decisions than technology does.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is not contradictory, I am only trying to suggest that its not the technology that is making the decision and hence it is no different from the current system of two field umpires making those decision. If it is a human who is making the decision with the help of technology which IMO is not good enough for close calls. This human (aka 3rd umpire) watches the replays and draws his conclusions and then gives the decision and hence creating the same inconsistency based on individual interpretation.

Key words there. The same. It has the same inconsistency issues as the current system. So it's neither a positive nor negative argument. It does have a much greater chance of getting it right, regardless of inconsistencies in interpretations, however.

 

[Sanz]

How is it so difficult to understand that technology does nothing without human interpretation?

HotSpot cannot make a decision - it needs someone to watch it, understand what HotSpot is showing, and realise "ah, that hit bat".

That is the point. If it cant make a decision on its own and needs someone to watch it, understand it then I guess we have not reached at that point yet. Letting the humans understand it is letting the room open for individual interpretations. What if someone concludes that 'ah, that didn't hit the bat' ?

Who says technology does nothing without human interpretation ? You write the programs and feed into your system and allow the computer to interpret it for us and make the decision, use the same system for every game everywhere.

 

[Richard]

FFS, as Rob has already stated multiple times, everything is open for interpretation. There is no right or wrong - if you get enough people viewing something there'll be dissenters on even the most obvious of things. There are people who argue that Bradman wasn't the best batsman ever.

There's no point arguing this with you, you cannot see the most patently obvious things.

 

[Sanz]

FFS, as Rob has already stated multiple times, everything is open for interpretation. There is no right or wrong - if you get enough people viewing something there'll be dissenters on even the most obvious of things.

No, there wont be. I dont see any dissentors on most run-out Calls. E.g. Only time a runout decision (by 3rd umpire) is questioned is when the technology cant show one way or the other.

There's no point arguing this with you, you cannot see the most patently obvious things.

There we go again. My world is really shattered now after knowing that you are not going to argue this with me...or wait may be not...

I think I really dont give a **** about that.

 

[Richard]

No, there wont be. I dont see any dissentors on most run-out Calls. E.g. Only time a runout decision (by 3rd umpire) is questioned is when the technology cant show one way or the other.

There will be dissenters if you look deep enough.

However, most reasonable people can see an unequivocal outcome in almost every case.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wish some of these posters had been around last summer.