*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

And i would request likes of you and social not to pollute the thread about flexions and its judgement/guaging without having an iota of knowledge on what physics principles are involved and what the correct methodology is. Its a bit like me telling Picasso how to paint. Which would be preposterous.

Unfortunately, C_C you wont be satisfied until cricket is totally administered by technology.

That might satisfy the boffins amongst us, but it will drive the crowds and advertisers away in droves and result in a game that is barely recognisable to those of us that have watched it for more than 2 minutes.

BTW, dont tell me what I do or dont know about science. From where I sit, your lack of knowledge of the real world and your continual adherence to faulty logic/unsubstantiated assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence is a far greater weakness than any Kaz or I might have exhibited.

 

[C_C]

Unfortunately, C_C you wont be satisfied until cricket is totally administered by technology.

That might satisfy the boffins amongst us, but it will drive the crowds and advertisers away in droves and result in a game that is barely recognisable to those of us that have watched it for more than 2 minutes.

BTW, dont tell me what I do or dont know about science. From where I sit, your lack of knowledge of the real world and your continual adherence to faulty logic/unsubstantiated assertions in the face of overwhelming evidence is a far greater weakness than any Kaz or I might have exhibited.

You are quite correct on one regard- i wont be satisfied unless technology is the key deterministic factor, not incompetent people in incompetent field.
And the biggest notch against cricket is the relative fuzzyness in assessing rule transgressions which leads to so much controversy.

And btw- i can tell you what you know/don't know about science. You can deal with the monetary part- which is what real world tends to be but you are neither qualified nor knowledgable to determine which is faulty logic and what is unsubstantiated and what isnt given that you are incompetent in the relevant fields you seek to talk about.
I dont seek to instruct you in whatever it is you do. So dont seek to use BS reasoning and defend them vehemently when your scientific methodology is wrong and determining angle of elbow flex in real time *IS* a scientific endavour. Not your couch-potato expertise field.
Stick to who you think is a better hooker or puller of the ball please.

 

[Top_Cat]

That might satisfy the boffins amongst us, but it will drive the crowds and advertisers away in droves and result in a game that is barely recognisable to those of us that have watched it for more than 2 minutes.

I'm really interested to know why you have such a doomsday attitude in this instance when just about every other technological enhancement, in the face of similar attitudes to the above, has been looked upon with hindsight as more of an enhancement than anything else. For example, I remember the uproar when the 3rd umpire came into existance; everyone said it would interrupt the 'flow of the game' (whatever that means) but instead, it builds tension and excites people and now most can't even remember the game without it. Not withstanding that cricket's popularity continues to increase, not decrease. So why the overwhelming negativity?

 

[social]

You are quite correct on one regard- i wont be satisfied unless technology is the key deterministic factor, not incompetent people in incompetent field.
And the biggest notch against cricket is the relative fuzzyness in assessing rule transgressions which leads to so much controversy.

And btw- i can tell you what you know/don't know about science. You can deal with the monetary part- which is what real world tends to be but you are neither qualified nor knowledgable to determine which is faulty logic and what is unsubstantiated and what isnt given that you are incompetent in the relevant fields you seek to talk about.

Unsubstantiated assertions

Example a: Murali is a better fieldsman than Warne

Your evidence: None, nada, zilch. You havent even seen Murali play recently.

Faulty logic

Example a: Arm speed equates to internal humerus rotation

"Arm speed" equates to the time it takes for a bowler to complete his action NOT the pace at which only one of the parts utilised in the bowling action moves.

Lesson in reality 1

The very same scientists that you quote so fervently have determined that more than 94% of all bowlers in history would be declared legal if flexion tolerance levels were set at 13 degrees.

And those very same scientists have determined that more than 99% of all bowlers in history would be declared legal if tolerance levels were set at 14 degrees.

So why, oh why, did the ICC choose to set the level at 15 degrees?

Wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that a certain high profile bowler had recently been tested at an average of 14.2 degrees, would it?

Finally, the cynic in me (taught by the harsh real world) tells me that anyone that compares his ability in a given field to Picasso in painting, hasnt got a clue. Fortunately, youre doing your best to confirm that belief.

 

[social]

I'm really interested to know why you have such a doomsday attitude in this instance when just about every other technological enhancement, in the face of similar attitudes to the above, has been looked upon with hindsight as more of an enhancement than anything else. For example, I remember the uproar when the 3rd umpire came into existance; everyone said it would interrupt the 'flow of the game' (whatever that means) but instead, it builds tension and excites people and now most can't even remember the game without it. Not withstanding that cricket's popularity continues to increase, not decrease. So why the overwhelming negativity?

Look at the failed Super Test technology experiment for proof.

Players, umpires and a fair proportion of the viewers hated it.

 

[andyc]

Look at the failed Super Test technology experiment for proof.

Players, umpires and a fair proportion of the viewers hated it.

Players and umpires hated the LBW mode of dismissal when it was introduced too. I don't see why technology shouldn't be used as much as possible really.

 

[social]

One question for you, C_C.

Do you think that it was fair to England that Shabbir was allowed to produce a pivotal performance in the recent first test vs Eng whilst bowling with an action that was thought by all 3 umpires (and virtually every person watching) to be illegal?

 

[C_C]

Unsubstantiated assertions

Example a: Murali is a better fieldsman than Warne

Your evidence: None, nada, zilch. You havent even seen Murali play recently.

Faulty logic

Which is why i qualified my statement with 'when they were at their peak'. You have presented ZERO evidence to suggest that Warne is a better fielder than Murali and the only thing you have to go by is catching prowess, which is a minor part of the equation.

Example a: Arm speed equates to internal humerus rotation

"Arm speed" equates to the time it takes for a bowler to complete his action NOT the pace at which only one of the parts utilised in the bowling action moves.

Which is exactly what i said- arm speed is the time it takes you to complete your action and Murali takes less time to complete his action from when the arm goes in the final delivery swing. Pay more attention.

Lesson in reality 1

The very same scientists that you quote so fervently have determined that more than 94% of all bowlers in history would be declared legal if flexion tolerance levels were set at 13 degrees.

And those very same scientists have determined that more than 99% of all bowlers in history would be declared legal if tolerance levels were set at 14 degrees.

So why, oh why, did the ICC choose to set the level at 15 degrees?

Wouldnt have anything to do with the fact that a certain high profile bowler had recently been tested at an average of 14.2 degrees, would it?

The 15 degrees were set,for the UMPTEENTH time, because the margin of error for the study was 1 degree. The 14.2 degrees is the mathematical average, which is discarded because the margin of error doesnt permit measuing anything less than a degree. You'd ofcourse, know that if you know basic experimental methodology, which you don't.

Finally, the cynic in me (taught by the harsh real world) tells me that anyone that compares his ability in a given field to Picasso in painting, hasnt got a clue. Fortunately, youre doing your best to confirm that belief.

Perhaps if you paid a bit more attention, you'd realise sarcasm from reality. I have absolutely no basis in instructing picasso in painting, which is why i mentioned it as a ludicrous sarcastic example. About as ludicrous as you seeking to instruct me or Top_Cat in what is a valid way of determining angle of flex in the arm.

 

[C_C]

One question for you, C_C.

Do you think that it was fair to England that Shabbir was allowed to produce a pivotal performance in the recent first test vs Eng whilst bowling with an action that was thought by all 3 umpires (and virtually every person watching) to be illegal?

No. But it is far more fairer and accurate than letting the umpires, who are NOT qualified even remotely to make real-time decisions about chucking in the middle of the game.
Its a bit like choosing the lesser of two evils. Umpires making the call and having the authority is far more flimsy than the occasional bowler getting away with it in real-time.

 

[social]

Players and umpires hated the LBW mode of dismissal when it was introduced too. I don't see why technology shouldn't be used as much as possible really.

Just what is possible?

Hawk-eye's not 100% accurate.

Snick-o and slow motion replays are subject to human error - see 3rd umpire ****-up in Eng Pak series as an example.

In the super test, we had the ludicrous situation where the 3rd umpire, depite having reference to countless replays etc, couldnt be sure that Michael Clarke was out. Having wasted a couple of minutes, the decision then reverted to the man in the middle who mistakenly gave the batsmen out.

Subjecting the game to ever-increasing amounts of technology might attract more fans in the US but will do little to endear the game to it's existing fan base IMO.

 

[social]

No. But it is far more fairer and accurate than letting the umpires, who are NOT qualified even remotely to make real-time decisions about chucking in the middle of the game.
Its a bit like choosing the lesser of two evils. Umpires making the call and having the authority is far more flimsy than the occasional bowler getting away with it in real-time.

And possibly costing a team a test match, which is the sole reason the game is played.

Whilst that is an extreme example, and despite the fact that the new laws are definitely an improvement, the facts are that:

a. they are open to exploitation by the players concerned; and

b. the umpires have definitely "passed the buck" and the game is poorer and less "fair" as a result.

 

[C_C]

And possibly costing a team a test match, which is the sole reason the game is played.

Whilst that is an extreme example, and despite the fact that the new laws are definitely an improvement, the facts are that:

a. they are open to exploitation by the players concerned; and

b. the umpires have definitely "passed the buck" and the game is poorer and less "fair" as a result.

A player can be cost his career with far more alarming regularity, if incompetent people were made in charge of the decisions ( such as umpires when it comes to chucking).
What you traditionalists dont realise is that EVERYTHING becomes obsolete after a point of time and umpires are fast becomming obsolete in terms of performance.

The fact that the umpires have passed the buck is because they are NOT competent to make decisions in the said field and enforce it and as such, should have no authority in the said field.

And i would rather put up with the occasional test match lost because of an imperfect but superior system rather than have the careers of legitimate players be curtailed because of old school prejudice, ignorance and defence of meaningless traditions.

 

[C_C]

Just what is possible?

Hawk-eye's not 100% accurate.

Snick-o and slow motion replays are subject to human error - see 3rd umpire ****-up in Eng Pak series as an example.

In the super test, we had the ludicrous situation where the 3rd umpire, depite having reference to countless replays etc, couldnt be sure that Michael Clarke was out. Having wasted a couple of minutes, the decision then reverted to the man in the middle who mistakenly gave the batsmen out.

Subjecting the game to ever-increasing amounts of technology might attract more fans in the US but will do little to endear the game to it's existing fan base IMO.

Hawk-eye is more accurate than the umpires IMO.
Nothing is 100% accurate- you pick the best option.
And while traditionalists like you will resist any change as fiercely as they can, it serves to the detriment of the game, not improvement- the game is not meant to remain stagnatory. Nothing lasts in stagnation.
Pity most humans with so-called 'real life' experience dont realise that.

 

[social]

A team can be cost a test match, with far more alarming regularity, if incompetent people were made in charge of the decisions ( such as umpires when it comes to chucking).
What you traditionalists dont realise is that EVERYTHING becomes obsolete after a point of time and umpires are fast becomming obsolete in terms of performance.

The fact that the umpires have passed the buck is because they are NOT competent to make decisions in the said field and enforce it and as such, should have no authority in the said field.

With all due respect, they've passed the buck because no-one wants to be put through the wringer like Hair was for making the correct decision.

 

[social]

Hawk-eye is more accurate than the umpires IMO.
Nothing is 100% accurate- you pick the best option.
And while traditionalists like you will resist any change as fiercely as they can, it serves to the detriment of the game, not improvement- the game is not meant to remain stagnatory. Nothing lasts in stagnation.
Pity most humans with so-called 'real life' experience dont realise that.

Given the no. of mistakes made in that test match with the aid of technology, I think were some way off from proving that the existing techology is the way to go.

 

[C_C]

With all due respect, they've passed the buck because no-one wants to be put through the wringer like Hair was for making the correct decision.

Hair's decision was wrong. Simple as that.
He was a victim of a faulty system and the system was changed. Again, just as simple.
Hair's decision is no more correct than simply following a flawed system and rule-set, which is replaced by a superior system and rulebook. Which ofcourse, makes umpires largely redundant in matters of chucking and IMO they should take almost evyerthing out of the hands of the umpires and consign it to technology.

 

[C_C]

Given the no. of mistakes made in that test match with the aid of technology, I think were some way off from proving that the existing techology is the way to go.

Mistakes made with technology can be regulated and perfected with time- because technology provides the option of replay and re-asesssing the merit of the said decision along with active readjustments and refinements of the technological tool. One can make the hawkeye twice as efficient and accurate by researching on it for a few seasons. I would like to hear your proposal on how to make the human eye twice as efficient in such a short span of time.

But mistakes made by umpires without the aid of technology cannot be regulated or corrected, simply because they are victim to perception ( there is absolutely no way of determining how many mistakes an umpire makes and how to regulate them without the aid of replays and technology).
What technology does is bring consistency to the game. Something the game is sadly lacking.
A faulty option, which is always faulty, is better than an unreliable one.
THe objective of decision-making is to make it a plain playing field where decisions are given with consistency -even when consistently wrong- something technology can provide.
Inconsistency is the biggest enemy of a judiciary method and a bigger problem than faulty but consistent judgements.

 

[social]

Hair's decision was wrong. Simple as that.
He was a victim of a faulty system and the system was changed. Again, just as simple.
Hair's decision is no more correct than simply following a flawed system and rule-set, which is replaced by a superior system and rulebook. Which ofcourse, makes umpires largely redundant in matters of chucking and IMO they should take almost evyerthing out of the hands of the umpires and consign it to technology.

Which is exactly why we have a stream of players coming through the ranks with dodgy actions.

I mean, what coach is going to pull any youngster up with a dodgy action when he knows that the worse that can ever happen to him (in the unlikely event the youngster makes test cricket) is that he'll receive an all expenses paid trip to sunny WA where he'll finally get the coaching he should've received as a schoolboy.

(BTW, I wont get into the Hair issue other than to say he called someone for chucking and that person was subsequently proven as such. For that, he was villified.)

 

[C_C]

Which is exactly why we have a stream of players coming through the ranks with dodgy actions.

I mean, what coach is going to pull any youngster up with a dodgy action when he knows that the worse that can ever happen to him (in the unlikely event the youngster makes test cricket) is that he'll receive an all expenses paid trip to sunny WA where he'll finally get the coaching he should've received as a schoolboy.

(BTW, I wont get into the Hair issue other than to say he called someone for chucking and that person was subsequently proven as such. For that, he was villified.)

Dodgy actions ? hardly. Unconventional ones ? definately. Until one has been tested, others cannot say if the said action is dodgy or not.

As for Hair, he called someone for chucking and that person was subsequently proven as such. He was vilified however, for picking the said person, based on inferior technology(the human eye) and inset prejudices common amongst the old farts ( who stagnate and tend to petrify rather than evolve) which led him to miss the dozens of other chuckers out there.
Ofcourse he wasnt alone in this and was picked as a target much the same way the first person to be proven inconsistent gets the majority of the blame. But that is why umpires dont have the power to call a chuck in real time and should not have that power- simply because they are hopelessly incompetent in guaging such a thing.

 

[social]

Mistakes made with technology can be regulated and perfected with time- because technology provides the option of replay and re-asesssing the merit of the said decision along with active readjustments and refinements of the technological tool.

But mistakes made by umpires without the aid of technology cannot be regulated or corrected, simply because they are victim to perception ( there is absolutely no way of determining how many mistakes an umpire makes and how to regulate them without the aid of replays and technology).
What technology does is bring consistency to the game. Something the game is sadly lacking.
A faulty option, which is always faulty, is better than an unreliable one.
THe objective of decision-making is to make it a plain playing field where decisions are given with consistency -even when consistently wrong- something technology can provide.
Inconsistency is the biggest enemy of a judiciary method and a bigger problem than faulty but consistent judgements.

Decision making in the hands of the umpire is part of the game's attraction.

Fortunately, history has proven time and again, that mistakes even themselves out.

Taken to the extreme, without umpires, we end up with no appealing and a bunch of drones pushing a button on a hand-set for a decision's adjudication.