*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[silentstriker]

No, it improves decisions. You're asking for perfection, demanding such is effectively 'opposition to all technology'.

Some old dude with dubious vision is not better than replays, hawk eye, etc.

 

[Sanz]

Uh, no. Their opposition to it is they got burned in Sydney by bad decisions so they threw a hissy fit and brought in the technology. Which was great except the limiting factor in its effectiveness was that the Indian team was too damn stupid to use it right and so promptly threw a second hissy fit.

So if a team is not intelligent enough to use, UDRS will be pretty damn useless, right ?

 

[Sanz]

No, it improves decisions. You're asking for perfection, demanding such is effectively 'opposition to all technology'.

Some old dude with dubious vision is not better than replays, hawk eye, etc.

No one is asking for perfection, I think people are asking for consistency and removing the limit on the no. of referrals.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No, it improves decisions. You're asking for perfection, demanding such is effectively 'opposition to all technology'.

Some old dude with dubious vision is not better than replays, hawk eye, etc.

How is asking for applying it to all deliveries 'opposition to all technology'? Selectively applying it with the added element of chance is not better than applying it all deliveries.

 

[silentstriker]

How is asking for applying it to all deliveries 'opposition to all technology'? Selectively applying it with the added element of chance is not better than applying it all deliveries.

That's not the two choices. The choices is not applying it at all, vs. applying it to improve decisions.

If the Indian team were embracing the improved decision making, and then asking for further implementation, you could argue that point. But they're not. After their stupidity in Sri Lanka where they lost almost all the decisions, they convinced themselves that it was a lottery instead of recognizing their own failures in using it properly.

 

[Jono]

Hang on, you've gone from arguing you believe hawkeye is inaccurate in India to now saying it should apply to all deliveries.

Which is it? Do you oppose hawkeye or not?

 

[Sanz]

That's not the two choices. The choices is not applying it at all, vs. applying it to improve decisions.

If the Indian team were embracing the improved decision making, and then asking for further implementation, you could argue that point. But they're not. After their stupidity in Sri Lanka where they lost almost all the decisions, they convinced themselves that it was a lottery instead of recognizing their own failures in using it properly.

Didn't know Indian team was opposed to technology, dont they support the use of it for run outs ?

I am tired of you exaggerating stuff at every given opportunity.

 

[G.I.Joe]

That's not the two choices. The choices is not applying it at all, vs. applying it to improve decisions.

If the Indian team were embracing the improved decision making, and then asking for further implementation, you could argue that point. But they're not. After their stupidity in Sri Lanka where they lost almost all the decisions, they convinced themselves that it was a lottery instead of recognizing their own failures in using it properly.

What are you, the quizmaster? There's a much better option to be considered, consider it on the same principle you want the current UDRS to be implemented.

The Indians haven't had the chance of embracing improved decision making, because it hasn't been shown why the element of chance benefiting one team more than the other is any better than the status quo. You keep arguing stupidity. What is stupid about a batsman from either side referring lbws that are indistinguishable in real time by the batsman himself, only for one to be upheld and the other overturned? That's a lottery. Yes, edges in lbw's are different, but thats what hot spot is for, which they aren't opposed to.

Hang on, you've gone from arguing you believe hawkeye is inaccurate in India to now saying it should apply to all deliveries.

Which is it? Do you oppose hawkeye or not?

I've never argued about hawkeye being innacurate. I don't know enough about it to decide either way on its reliability. What I've argued is that the Indians have a valid case for opposing it if what they believe about it is true. If they're wrong in their assessment of hawkeye, it is upto the ICC to conclusively show them so. Or take the middle approach and implement hot spot for now. Really, do something instead of sitting on their asses and letting the Indians take all the blame for so long.

 

[Jono]

Lol they don't have to do anything. They're presented technology, the BCCI are choosing not to use it. That's their right. But it makes them complaining about decisions look silly when there is a method which reduces them.

It's like rejecting someone giving you $100 because you want $500

 

[G.I.Joe]

Lol they don't have to do anything. They're presented technology, the BCCI are choosing not to use it. That's their right. But it makes them complaining about decisions look silly when there is a method which reduces them.

It's like rejecting someone giving you $100 because you want $500

No, its not. It's like rejecting someone randomly giving you $100 and the other team $300 when the game is about the bigger stash at the end of five days. Even more rankling if you believe that the guy making those financial decisions happens to have graduated from the PCB school of business.

 

[Jono]

How is like that?

 

[G.I.Joe]

How is like that?

I've explained why in the post before yours!!!!!!! I used a pretty nifty lbw example and all that shizz too

 

[Sanz]

Lol they don't have to do anything. They're presented technology, the BCCI are choosing not to use it. That's their right. But it makes them complaining about decisions look silly when there is a method which reduces them.

It's like rejecting someone giving you $100 because you want $500

No it is like someone is giving two chances at 100 Dollars for looking up in the sky and seeing clouds.

If you looked up and there were clouds you will get 100 bucks. If you looked up and didn't see clouds, you are stupid to look up. You should have looked up only if there were clouds.

 

[vcs]

Some surreal posts here.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No it is like someone is giving two chances at 100 Dollars for looking up in the sky and seeing clouds.

If you looked up and there were clouds you will get 100 bucks. If you looked up and didn't see clouds, you are stupid to look up. You should have looked up only if there were clouds.

That's pretty much spot on.

 

[silentstriker]

Hilarious that the Indian team, of stand-by-jet-to-leave-Australia-fame, is so concerned that this technolgoy makes it a lottery instead of the status quo that caused them to.....you know, effectively end the career of an umpire and almost call of the tour.

That's a lottery.

If it was a lottery, then the overall number of bad decisions would not have been reduced. The fact that it has shows it's better than the status quo.

 

[Sanz]

The Indians haven't had the chance of embracing improved decision making, because it hasn't been shown why the element of chance benefiting one team more than the other is any better than the status quo. You keep arguing stupidity. What is stupid about a batsman from either side referring lbws that are indistinguishable in real time by the batsman himself, only for one to be upheld and the other overturned? That's a lottery. Yes, edges in lbw's are different, but thats what hot spot is for, which they aren't opposed to.

Yeah, Referrals system in its present form is simply shifting the responsibility or blame from the umpires to the team asking for the review.

If you don't get the referrals right, you are just being stupid.

 

[Daemon]

The UDRS will reduce the number of wrong decisions per game. If you argue that luck then plays a factor in who uses the decisions correctly and it is a 'lottery', all I can say is, we don't call players unlucky when they get out on a wrong decision for nothing. Some sides may get more bad decisions then others, what determines that? Luck. Bad decisions themselves are in a sense a lottery and implementing the UDRS makes the 'lottery' situation no different from what it is right now.



Does that even make sense? I kind of got lost in my own train of though :S

 

[G.I.Joe]

If it was a lottery, then the overall number of bad decisions would not have been reduced. The fact that it has shows it's better than the status quo.

It's a lottery because even though the overall number of bad decisions have been reduced, the improved decision making doesn't necessarily benefit each team equally, which matters a lot in a sport where two teams compete against each other. In order for it to not be a lottery, you need to ensure that its reliable, and that it doesn't alleviate the injustices to one team more than the other, excepting for factors that are under their direct control to a reasonable extent.

 

[silentstriker]

Thats why every other team other than the team who was too stupid to use it right the first time is in favor of the system?