Why not use TV technology more?

[Richard]

The problem with overreliance on technology is the assumption of its infallibility. The fact is that it's created by humans, who are the same creatures that stand at the end of the pitch in white coats.

I'm a software tester, and one thing I know for sure is that there is no such thing as perfect software, and most comes nowhere near to approaching that. While human umpires do make mistakes - frequently - the flipside is that if there's a bug in the cricket software which you see on the telly (and there will be many), you can be guaranteed it will make the exact same mistake over and over and over.

And once we know the mistake's there - as sp713 points-out - we can correct it. Until we know it's there, we don't know the errors are made.

Undetected errors > detected errors. Until you know about a mistake, it doesn't really matter, because ignorance is bliss. It's better to think the decision's being made correctly than know it's not, IMO.

 

[Dick Rockett]

And surely the whole point in a software tester is to test it till there are no bugs? Or at least recognise what bugs there are and take them into account?

That's the ideal situation, but it's virtually impossible to find all the bugs in a given piece of software.

To give a very basic example, if you have a program with twelve sets of radio buttons, and in each set there are two options (let's say "yes" and "no"), then in order to test every possible outcome in that program you would need to perform a total of 4096 individual tests. When you have a program like Hawkeye which most probably has hundreds of thousands of lines of code, the chances of finding anything like all the bugs is ridiculously small without spending literally hundreds of years testing.

It's all very well to say that you can fix a bug once it's found - of course you can - but how many wrongful dismissals are going to occur before someone realises that this magnificent theoretical software has a fault?

 

[Richard]

It'd have to be implemented at all FC levels for me. No sense just having it at the Test level.

I'd hope any form of technological aids to Umpires would be implemented at all levels where it can possibly be afforded, including certainly all serious First-Class and List-A one-day cricket.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Undetected errors > detected errors. Until you know about a mistake, it doesn't really matter, because ignorance is bliss.

Strangely enough, I can actually respect this line of reasoning more than the one which simply assumes that a machine is more accurate than a human. I don't agree though, because essentially in that case you have the same situation as with imperfect human umpires, you just think you don't.

 

[slugger]

Look at all the mistakes by umpires litter right through the whole game and we can see so many of them over the past decade (televised games etc).. amgine all the games prior this.. its a bug in itself yet we still happy to let it continue through out the game...thats a bug in itself..

Unless the software bug is appreantaly obvoius what would it matter.. and if it was obvious it'll be picked up pretty quick ie commentators/ 1000s of viewers.

if we had software programmers who thought like you at NASA we would have never got a man on the moon..

 

[shortpitched713]

Undetected errors > detected errors. Until you know about a mistake, it doesn't really matter, because ignorance is bliss. It's better to think the decision's being made correctly than know it's not, IMO.

There is nothing more I would hate than that situation though. All effort should be made to find the errors of technology that is put in use, and I dare say its likely to be upgraded with a good deal of frequency once in place.

 

[slugger]

hang on what im trying to do is a camparison and you may as well use man biggest achievement . Kennedy chellenged NASA to have a man on the moon before the end of decade, he said that in 1963.. man walked on the moon 1969 (6 years and in time).

hawkeye was developed in 2001 its been in use in one form or another for guess what 6 years. honestly thats long enough to prove the system aint flawed. when you compare it aginst the technology of the 60's and the accomplishement. its started to sound a little embarrasing if you are still questioning its realiability.

 

[slugger]

Hawk-Eye has a couple of other useful features. Because of the six cameras tracking the ball, , Hawk-Eye picks up the exact spot where the ball pitches. Hawk-Eye also measures the speed of the ball from the bowler's hand, so it will tell you exactly how much time the batsman has to react to a ball.

The man who invented Hawk-Eye, Dr Paul Hawkins, is a former Buckinghamshire player.


[

 

[Richard]

There is nothing more I would hate than that situation though. All effort should be made to find the errors of technology that is put in use, and I dare say its likely to be upgraded with a good deal of frequency once in place.

Oh, certainly, I don't dispute this for a second. And I don't really think it's that hard to get the positioning of a superimposed mat on the pitch right, nor to make sure something relatively simple like HotSpot works.

But if they don't, and of course there will be occasions when they don't, if we don't know about it it won't really matter. It'll certainly be better than knowing beyond doubt that an unaided Umpiring decision was wrong.

 

[Dick Rockett]

hang on what im trying to do is a camparison and you may as well use man biggest achievement . Kennedy chellenged NASA to have a man on the moon before the end of decade, he said that in 1963.. man walked on the moon 1969 (6 years and in time).

hawkeye was developed in 2001 its been in use in one form or another for guess what 6 years. honestly thats long enough to prove the system aint flawed. when you compare it aginst the technology of the 60's and the accomplishement. its started to sound a little embarrasing if you are still questioning its realiability.

The space program isn't really a great example, seeing as the failure rate within it is stupendously high in relative terms.

As Brumbers said in an earlier post, Hawkeye is flawed - it occasionally shows balls which bowled the batsman as having missed the stumps.

At any rate, this line of argument (software errors) isn't really the main reason I'm against the increase of umpiring technology in cricket. For one, dodgy umpiring calls don't really bother me that much, seeing as they tend to average out. Second, I think the game is slowly losing its old world charm in its rush to modernise and thereby maximise revenue. Thirdly, the logical endpoint to this particular argument is to eventually do away with umpires altogether, and the mental image I have of a bowler appealing for lbw to something resembling an ATM is a ridiculous one. I fully expect that most people will disagree with me, but that's my personal view

 

[Richard]

Without humans, technology is of no use.

There will always be Umpires. The most vital part of an Umpire's role is as an authority figure, not an arbitrator. No set of lights, big screen or ATM-style compound will ever be able to step in when the going gets heated or tell a player he's running on the pitch.

Most vitally, it'll never be able to signal four, six, over and the like, all of which are required in the Laws Of Cricket to be signalled by a standing Umpire.

 

[open365]

That's the ideal situation, but it's virtually impossible to find all the bugs in a given piece of software.

To give a very basic example, if you have a program with twelve sets of radio buttons, and in each set there are two options (let's say "yes" and "no"), then in order to test every possible outcome in that program you would need to perform a total of 4096 individual tests. When you have a program like Hawkeye which most probably has hundreds of thousands of lines of code, the chances of finding anything like all the bugs is ridiculously small without spending literally hundreds of years testing.

It's all very well to say that you can fix a bug once it's found - of course you can - but how many wrongful dismissals are going to occur before someone realises that this magnificent theoretical software has a fault?

The biggest issue should not be on the fallability of technolody in comparison to 100% accuracy, but the fallability of the umpire in comparison to technology.

I could understand the argument if the improvement that technology would bring would be marginal, but that isn't the case. Umpire's continue to make noticeable errors that would never in a million years fall through technology's net.

 

[slugger]

The biggest issue should not be on the fallability of technolody in comparison to 100% accuracy, but the fallability of the umpire in comparison to technology.

I could understand the argument if the improvement that technology would bring would be marginal, but that isn't the case. Umpire's continue to make noticeable errors that would never in a million years fall through technology's net.

well said...

funny the whoel system was invented by an ex cricket player yet crickewt might be the last sport that embracers it.

The Football Association has declared the system as "ready for inspection by FIFA", after tests suggested that the results of a goal-line incident could be relayed to the match referee within half-a-second (IFAB, the governing body for the Laws of the game, insists on goals being signalled immediately e.g. within five seconds).

 

[pup11]

I think the technology like the Hot-spot which was introduced by Channel 9 during the last year's Ashes was a pretty innovative and it was pretty conclusive and foolproof, it is the kind of technology that can come handy in decision making.

 

[archie mac]

I think the technology like the Hot-spot which was introduced by Channel 9 during the last year's Ashes was a pretty innovative and it was pretty conclusive and foolproof, it is the kind of technology that can come handy in decision making.

Yes, no doubt it is only going to become better and better, and in the end we will have to except that it is the best way to go

 

[cameeel]

This thread seems to have a fair bit of activity, and as it's not worth creating a thread for: 'What time is stumps supposed to be at MCG tests?, I need to know for booking a train'

 

[silentstriker]

The space program isn't really a great example, seeing as the failure rate within it is stupendously high in relative terms.

Whoa! The space program has an enviable record for safety. You are basically creating a huge rocket, pumping it full of fuel, putting guys at the top and then exploding it to get the velocity you need. It's literally a bomb with a semi-controlled explosion. Realistic estimates are that there is a 1/30 chance that you won't come back, even with all the safety checks. NASA has a much much better record than that.

 

[archie mac]

This thread seems to have a fair bit of activity, and as it's not worth creating a thread for: 'What time is stumps supposed to be at MCG tests?, I need to know for booking a train'

6 for a long long time, but last season it was 5.30, but I would still go 6 because they usually go over anyway

 

[Dick Rockett]

Whoa! The space program has an enviable record for safety. You are basically creating a huge rocket, pumping it full of fuel, putting guys at the top and then exploding it to get the velocity you need. It's literally a bomb with a semi-controlled explosion. Realistic estimates are that there is a 1/30 chance that you won't come back, even with all the safety checks. NASA has a much much better record than that.

I said in relative terms. I'm not saying that Nasa are bad at what they do - they aren't - but if you're gonna use an example of technology getting it mostly right, space travel's not it. Commercial air travel is a much better example.

For comparison: commercial air travel has a rate of .01 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled. 5% of all people who have been in space have been killed doing it, or 2% of all individual space flights have resulted in a fatality. I know that I'm technically comparing apples with oranges in terms of the rates quoted, but I can't find both rates quoted in the same terms, and it's pretty obvious that one of those figures represents a far higher risk of death than the other.

Anyway, this is pretty OT so I'll shut up now

 

[Speersy]

whats next? Batsmen with sensors in their bat and bowlers with them in there feet for no balls.

I say keep it like it is.