That's the most frustrating point of it all. I'm still undecided regarding technology, but how the hell can we justify spending so long deciding whether a shot deserves 3 runs or 4, yet we can't use it to tell us if Sangakkara is out in a series deciding test match on the 5th day when he's on 192?
James! Basically I'll stick with Wasim Akram's statement that keep cricket as humanly natural as possible . I know that for a common viewer (the one whose team is at the receiving end) feels bad if there are a few decisions which would have been different if the decision was technologically assisted . For me and Wasim Akram there should be a limit till which the technology should be taken under consideration cuz too much technology will eliminate the human factor and excitement out of the game . I have no problem with Bucknor's occasional mistakes or lets say Bird's little mistakes cuz these are the few petty mistakes which keep the viewer at the edge of his/her seat and all these discussions on the discussion boards are alive due to such things . And this "what if" factor is what makes cricket a little more exciting . But yes "Hair" like elements shouldn't be there but any other human mistake is welcomed atleast by me ....
And also it doesn't necessarily mean that my major was "marketing" a few years ago . And also it doesn't necessarily mean that I see the thing's profitabilty or I am soooo different than the ordinary human beings ! Thank you !
Well, yeah, I can read y'know, just wondered where he got the idea from.
Oooh, yeah, need an edit there...
They can't, though. If Harper had been watching with such slo-mos, mats, and all the things TV cameras have, he'd never, ever have given that out. Never. Equally, no-one would have been able to give a certain decision just by watching on TV in normal speed. No chance.
In tennis it's more simple, the ball travels unhindered to it's destination and is either in or out and there's no room for argument. If you start referring LBW's you're still using quess work as to where the ball would travel after it hits the pad. If Hawk Eye shows it clipping the top of a bail there's still doubt as to whether it would have done so and you still have the "benefit of the doubt" argument.Agreed, seems fairly simple to me. Tennis rules isn't it, I don't follow the game that much? I also like the idea that if the appeal is substantiated you keep your referrals, after all England would be on their third by now
Isnt that what an umpire has to do, 22 yard away with 2 eyes. hawkeye makes its pedection using 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.
Yeah, that's why I said it's still quess work whether you use Hawk Eye or the umpires naked eye. Hawk Eye may be more accurate but it's still guess work and therefore still has an element of doubt.
An alarm that makes a noise...? Well I'm just stunned no-one had thought of it before...
What are you talking about? No-one's suggesting umpires only use cameras at full speed.
The cyclops isn't quite so easy to impliment in cricket as it is in tennis. It has a button which has to be held down only as the ball approaches the line and then released, otherwise it could go off at anytime. A job done by the linesman. In tennis there is also nothing else infringing the line, in cricket the non-striker could just as easily set it off.
Whatever rules you bring in to justify using cyclops are irrelevant as it still needs to be manually operated, ie switched on and off between deliveries to prevent it going off every time something crosses the line. The operater would also have to switch it off before the rest of the bowlers body crosses it after his front foot, which would be impossible.
Anything crossing the line will set it off. He'd have to switch if off the instant the front foot lands and before any other part of the body crosses the line. Even if he was that quick - which is unlikely - it's not removing him from having to watch the front foot, which negates it's use altogether.