*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

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.

Mistakes evening themselves out is something that is a media myth- it could be true, it could be false but there is no reason to believe in it without corroborrating data to show such is the case. And if you have data please present it. I would like to see some evidence of how many mistakes are made by the umpire for say when OZ are bowling and compare it to how many mistakes they've made when ENG are bowling over a consistent timeframe ( atleast a few series or a decade). Failure to provide such data dismisses the claim that 'mistakes even out' as merely anecdotal.

And what is part of the game's attraction and what isnt has changed and evolved massively in the last 100 years. From the days when batsmen whined at a wrong'un being unfair to the modern era when just about everything within the letter of the law is. And the moment it stops, it will stagnate and thus petrify, which will lead to its demise.

I would rather have a bunch of drones pushing buttons with consistent results than keeping up with an inconsistent and inferior tradition for tradition's sake alone.
Umpires are dispensable and the inferior way, being stuck with solely for the reasons of tradition by people who are averse to change. Simple as that.

 

[social]

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.

Nonsense.

Hair was villified for calling a person from the sub-continent, pure and simple. It was nothing more than a cricket-related race issue.

Knowledge of degrees of flexion, etc was unheard of.

As for dodgy actions, have a look at the no. of people being reported, the no. of people undergoing remediation, the scathing criticism of actions now appearing at junior tournaments - it's at an all-time high

 

[social]

Mistakes evening themselves out is something that is a media myth- it could be true, it could be false but there is no reason to believe in it without corroborrating data to show such is the case. And if you have data please present it. I would like to see some evidence of how many mistakes are made by the umpire for say when OZ are bowling and compare it to how many mistakes they've made when ENG are bowling over a consistent timeframe ( atleast a few series or a decade). Failure to provide such data dismisses the claim that 'mistakes even out' as merely anecdotal.

And what is part of the game's attraction and what isnt has changed and evolved massively in the last 100 years. From the days when batsmen whined at a wrong'un being unfair to the modern era when just about everything within the letter of the law is. And the moment it stops, it will stagnate and thus petrify, which will lead to its demise.

I would rather have a bunch of drones pushing buttons with consistent results than keeping up with an inconsistent and inferior tradition for tradition's sake alone.
Umpires are dispensable and the inferior way, being stuck with solely for the reasons of tradition by people who are averse to change. Simple as that.

C_C, this is where you show your ignorance of the game.

You obviously like it, I suggest that you play it some time.

 

[C_C]

C_C, this is where you show your ignorance of the game.

You obviously like it, I suggest that you play it some time.

From where i stand, this is where you show your ignorance of the game. You may know a lot of how it is played but seem to know precious little on how it must change to keep up with the continously evolving human societies.

PS: Never confuse the difference between playing the game well and understanding the game well. For they are not one and the same. And if they were, top coaches would invariably be former top players. Which is not the case.

 

[C_C]

Nonsense.

Hair was villified for calling a person from the sub-continent, pure and simple. It was nothing more than a cricket-related race issue.

Knowledge of degrees of flexion, etc was unheard of.

As for dodgy actions, have a look at the no. of people being reported, the no. of people undergoing remediation, the scathing criticism of actions now appearing at junior tournaments - it's at an all-time high

Well given the historic position of OZ and the generation Hair belongs to, skepticism of ulterior motives from Hair is a justified one ( though i personally dont think so myself of him).

And dodgy actions are being reported only because the technology exists to aid them in that determination. It went unreported in the past because in the past the determination ( ie whether an action is dodgy or not) was based purely on semantics and cultural notions rather than factual ones.
As they say its 'one for your side' if you support the scientific cause.

 

[luckyeddie]

And dodgy actions are being reported only because the technology exists to aid them in that determination. It went unreported in the past because in the past the determination ( ie whether an action is dodgy or not) was based purely on semantics and cultural notions rather than factual ones.
As they say its 'one for your side' if you support the scientific cause.

C_C, sometimes you make valid points.

This, however, is not one of those occasions. This is one of those occasions when what you are stating is so crazy, it reduces your overall credibility.

Your assertion that bowlers were reported (actually they weren't - they were called for throwing) because of semantics and cultural notions is quite pathetic - one of the more ridiculous statements I have ever read.

 

[social]

From where i stand, this is where you show your ignorance of the game. You may know a lot of how it is played but seem to know precious little on how it must change to keep up with the continously evolving human societies.

C_C

you may know something of the scientific world but if you truly believe that umpires are dispensable then you know absolutely bugger-all about marketing of the game.

People want to see Warne jump up and down like a lunatic when he appeals to an umpire.

People want to see people like Ponting abuse an umpire.

People want to see situations where imbeciles like Ranatunga leads his team off the field because he disagrees with an umpire's decision.

They may not admit care to admit it, but those incidents keep the turnstiles clicking and the tvs tuned in.

Remove the potential for such incidents and the game might be more efficient but will it be worth watching?

 

[C_C]

C_C, sometimes you make valid points.

This, however, is not one of those occasions. This is one of those occasions when what you are stating is so crazy, it reduces your overall credibility.

Your assertion that bowlers were reported (actually they weren't - they were called for throwing) because of semantics and cultural notions is quite pathetic - one of the more ridiculous statements I have ever read.

It is purely a cultural notion- cricketing culture that is - that was used to determine whether a player chucked or not. Not evidence or facts. All culture is, is behaviour patterns developed and followed by the majority of a said community based mostly on opinions. Since facts blew apart the old notion of what is a chuck and what isnt, the previous methodology is irrelevant and flawed.
Its a bit like saying there was less crime in pre-WWII Nazi Germany than post WWII Germany so therefore the former methodology is right.

 

[C_C]

C_C

you may know something of the scientific world but if you truly believe that umpires are dispensable then you know absolutely bugger-all about marketing of the game.

People want to see Warne jump up and down like a lunatic when he appeals to an umpire.

People want to see people like Ponting abuse an umpire.

People want to see situations where imbeciles like Ranatunga leads his team off the field because he disagrees with an umpire's decision.

They may not admit care to admit it, but those incidents keep the turnstiles clicking and the tvs tuned in.

Remove the potential for such incidents and the game might be more efficient but will it be worth watching?

I don't give a toss what makes the turnstiles click. I detest finance and economy really. Atleast capitalistic versions of them along with several others. But that is irrelevant as changing the judiciary would not change the economy. People come to see Tendulkar bat or McGrath bowl. Not Bowden's near-gay semantics on field or dickie bird wave a bye. Those are the crumbs, not the main course.

And what you said is still within the scope of how i see things - Ponting can jump up and down as much as he wants, Warne can scream at the umpires as much as he wants, Ranatunga can lead the players off the field as much as he wants. The only difference is, the umpire would delegate authority to techonology in most cases, similar to how they delegate authority to the third umpire. The players still go up in arms appealing a run-out to the field umpire and the field umpire merely delegates authority to the third umpire when it comes to run outs.
Same is what i seek when it comes to catches and lbws.


PS: By people wanting to see abuse being hurled around, i gather you are speaking from an Australian sports perspective. That is not the subcontinental perspective for the major part and in this instance, i agree with the subcontinental perspective rather than the ultra-machismo aggression of the Aussies. Not to mention, the subcontinental perspective is the overwhelming majority of the cricketing perspective, given that 90% of cricket fans are subcontinetal. So i dont think you have much of a clue what the average cricket follower wants to see. You merely base it from a small minority of the fanbase ( aka Australia).

 

[luckyeddie]

It is purely a cultural notion- cricketing culture that is - that was used to determine whether a player chucked or not. Not evidence or facts. All culture is, is behaviour patterns developed and followed by the majority of a said community based mostly on opinions. Since facts blew apart the old notion of what is a chuck and what isnt, the previous methodology is irrelevant and flawed.
Its a bit like saying there was less crime in pre-WWII Nazi Germany than post WWII Germany so therefore the former methodology is right.

You have Godwinned the thread, so automatically lose.

 

[C_C]

You have Godwinned the thread, so automatically lose.

???
Godwinned ? I cannot find a dictionary reference to that term.

 

[social]

I don't give a toss what makes the turnstiles click. I detest finance and economy really. Atleast capitalistic versions of them along with several others. But that is irrelevant as changing the judiciary would not change the economy. People come to see Tendulkar bat or McGrath bowl. Not Bowden's near-gay semantics on field or dickie bird wave a bye. Those are the crumbs, not the main course.

And what you said is still within the scope of how i see things - Ponting can jump up and down as much as he wants, Warne can scream at the umpires as much as he wants, Ranatunga can lead the players off the field as much as he wants. The only difference is, the umpire would delegate authority to techonology in most cases, similar to how they delegate authority to the third umpire. The players still go up in arms appealing a run-out to the field umpire and the field umpire merely delegates authority to the third umpire when it comes to run outs.
Same is what i seek when it comes to catches and lbws.

If the recent success of 20/20 and a plethora of other fast-tracked versions of established activities has shown us anything, the public wants, and will pay for, instant gratification (LE- settle).

If you can retain the emotion and improve accuracy whilst not disadvantaging anybody, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, why change as it will only cost revenue and, like it or not, without money the sport dies.

As an aside, the Australian Rugby League (our version of NFL) recently did away with the 3rd umpire for some decisions as their research showed that people were more interested in action than waiting for definitive decisions.

 

[C_C]

If the recent success of 20/20 and a plethora of other fast-tracked versions of established activities has shown us anything, the public wants, and will pay for, instant gratification (LE- settle).

If you can retain the emotion and improve accuracy whilst not disadvantaging anybody, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, why change as it will only cost revenue and, like it or not, without money the sport dies.

As an aside, the Australian Rugby League (our version of NFL) recently did away with the 3rd umpire for some decisions as their research showed that people were more interested in action than waiting for definitive decisions.

Whether it is 20/20, ODI cricket, 3-day cricket, Test cricket or backyard street cricket, the spectators are interested in the performers and their performance, not the umpires. The umpires are a tool in cricket, not the central attraction. As such, i see no reason for any spectator drop related to entertainment solely- the only drop i can see is due to an arrogant and narrowminded culturalistic perspective that wants things to remain the same, even when there is a superior solution.

And if Aussie Rugby League did away with 3rd umpire decisions, it is to the detriment of the sport. I cant see anything being taken seriously if the judiciary is not of the highest callibre available and if thats what the public wants, then fine. But it would reduce the sport to mere entertainment - perhaps its time cricket took a few lessons from WWF wrestling ?
BTW- what the cricket public wants, again, is not what you speak of, since most of the cricket watchers are subcontinental and there is a distinct cultural gap between the west and the subcontinent in regards to umpires and cricketing tradition.
Ofcourse, that is not meant to be taken as a blanket statement but a perspective on how the majority of the respective field sways in this.
And the majority decision lies with the subcontinent when it comes to cricket so if any changes are to be made on purely cultural terms, it would be prudent to keep track of the cultural leanings of the subcontinent, not the west in regards to cricket.
Or else there could be a divide in cricket much along the lines of boxing, that may very well see the subcontinent cut ties with the west when it comes to cricket. And if it comes to that, the loser would be the west, not the subcontinent.


PS: I am not concerned about increasing emotional response in sports. If anything, i would prefer if all this chest-beating and arguments along nationalistic lines were toned down. I watch cricket to see who whacks the ball the best or who disturbs the three sticks the best. Emotions like everything, need to be kept in moderation.

 

[social]

Whether it is 20/20, ODI cricket, 3-day cricket, Test cricket or backyard street cricket, the spectators are interested in the performers and their performance, not the umpires. The umpires are a tool in cricket, not the central attraction. As such, i see no reason for any spectator drop related to entertainment solely- the only drop i can see is due to an arrogant and narrowminded culturalistic perspective that wants things to remain the same, even when there is a superior solution.

And if Aussie Rugby League did away with 3rd umpire decisions, it is to the detriment of the sport. I cant see anything being taken seriously if the judiciary is not of the highest callibre available and if thats what the public wants, then fine. But it would reduce the sport to mere entertainment - perhaps its time cricket took a few lessons from WWF wrestling ?
BTW- what the cricket public wants, again, is not what you speak of, since most of the cricket watchers are subcontinental and there is a distinct cultural gap between the west and the subcontinent in regards to umpires and cricketing tradition.
Ofcourse, that is not meant to be taken as a blanket statement but a perspective on how the majority of the respective field sways in this.
And the majority decision lies with the subcontinent when it comes to cricket so if any changes are to be made on purely cultural terms, it would be prudent to keep track of the cultural leanings of the subcontinent, not the west in regards to cricket.
Or else there could be a divide in cricket much along the lines of boxing, that may very well see the subcontinent cut ties with the west when it comes to cricket. And if it comes to that, the loser would be the west, not the subcontinent.


PS: I am not concerned about increasing emotional response in sports. If anything, i would prefer if all this chest-beating and arguments along nationalistic lines were toned down. I watch cricket to see who whacks the ball the best or who disturbs the three sticks the best. Emotions like everything, need to be kept in moderation.

The sub-continent, until recently, had largely abandoned test cricket in favour of shortened versions of the game, so I'm not sure how that helps your argument.

In any event, sub-continent crowds, in my experience want to see their team win and their heroes excel. Be it by way of good decision, bad decision, it's all irrelevant as long as those parameters are met.

 

[C_C]

The sub-continent, until recently, had largely abandoned test cricket in favour of shortened versions of the game, so I'm not sure how that helps your argument.

In any event, sub-continent crowds, in my experience want to see their team win and their heroes excel. Be it by way of good decision, bad decision, it's all irrelevant.

The subcontinent represent the majority of cricket watchers. If any trend in cricket is to be analysed, the subcontinent dwarfs the rest in terms of trends.

And every crowd wants to see their team win by hook or by crook - including the Aussies ( some may say more so than any other team historically,given their propensity of using questionable mental degradation tactics). But the overwhelming majority of the subcontinental populace doesnt want to see a player abuse another or abuse the umpire. And as such, it flies in the face of your statement that the average cricket watcher wants to see Ponting holler, Ranatunga stomp off or Warne abuse an umpire.
The average cricket watcher is far more in tune with the subcontinental perspective than the western one, even though the latter gets to call the shots for various historical reasons.
The subcontinent in general has lost faith in the neutrality of umpires and unless the situation is rectified immediately ( and with perspective to the majority demands, instead of hollow cultural and quasi-colonialist mentalities) cricket can be split right down the middle, much to the detriment of cricket in the west.

 

[social]

The subcontinent represent the majority of cricket watchers. If any trend in cricket is to be analysed, the subcontinent dwarfs the rest in terms of trends.

And every crowd wants to see their team win by hook or by crook - including the Aussies ( some may say more so than any other team historically,given their propensity of using questionable mental degradation tactics). But the overwhelming majority of the subcontinental populace doesnt want to see a player abuse another or abuse the umpire. And as such, it flies in the face of your statement that the average cricket watcher wants to see Ponting holler, Ranatunga stomp off or Warne abuse an umpire.
The average cricket watcher is far more in tune with the subcontinental perspective than the western one, even though the latter gets to call the shots for various historical reasons.
The subcontinent in general has lost faith in the neutrality of umpires and unless the situation is rectified immediately ( and with perspective to the majority demands, instead of hollow cultural and quasi-colonialist mentalities) cricket can be split right down the middle, much to the detriment of cricket in the west.

I repeat, people on the sub-continent only want to win and see their heroes do well.

Blaming the umpires is simply a crutch for inadequate performances.

If they change the way the game is adjudicated and still lose, they'll blame the politicians or the weather or whatever.

Failing that, they'll torch the stadiums or pelt the opposition with fruit and worse.

Then they'll demand home umpires (and the circle continues)

In the meantime, the Ashes will still be played and the majors in the west still wont be reliant on sub-continent money.

 

[C_C]

I repeat, people on the sub-continent only want to win and see their heroes do well.

Blaming the umpires is simply a crutch for inadequate performances.

If they change the way the game is adjudicated and still lose, they'll blame the politicians or the weather or whatever.

Failing that, they'll torch the stadiums or pelt the opposition with fruit and worse.

Then they'll demand home umpires (and the circle continues)

In the meantime, the Ashes will still be played and the majors in the west still wont be reliant on sub-continent money.

1. The majority of the west IS reliant on subcontinent money and following. Ashes are irrelevant compared to IND-PAK for example.

2. If there is a team that cant take losing well, its the Aussies. Which is why the OZ team was a team of goons in the 80s to early/mid 90s. The best analogy i can draw are Toronto Maple Leafs to the OZ of the 80s/early 90s- a mediocre team of goons hell bent on pushing the rules to its absolute limit.

3. The doubts cast on umpires are very valid and genuine,with good reason. Notwithstanding the fact that they are incompetent at large, there is a distinct feeling that the umpires are pro-west, which is how things were really until very recently. Whether it has changed for the better or just become more covert is something time will tell. And incase you forget, it was the subcontinent which led the charge( mainly Imran Khan) for wanting neutral umpires, given how horribly one-sided the umpiring was in places like Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, etc.

4. Technology is neutral in absolution- of that there is no dispute ( and the ones who seek to dispute it tend not to know their **** from their heads when it comes to technology). It can be imperfect or wrong but it is extremely consistent. Sure, hawkeye can be wrong in regards to the ball going over the stumps or reverse swing but still overall superior to the umpires. But most importantly, it is neutral. Hawkeye doesnt care who is batting or who is bowling or which nation(s) are involved and it will give exactly the same result in every single situation of same nature ( ie, ball going over the stumps or not). And ironically, the biggest resistance to introduction of the hawkeye/snick-o is comming from the western quarters. Perhaps the culture crutch is a good cover story to preserve the status-quo ?
If not, there is absolutely no harm but overall much more good to be done from a completely neutral ( if faulty) judiciary. Australia relies heavily on influencing the umpire for decision-making, something OZ openly admits. Perhaps this is their greatest asset and this is something they don't want to compromise, despite it making the field more consistent ? Things to mull over but i dont expect you to take it in stride.

5. Crowd violence is not a subcontinental trait. I personally would prefer a few dozen banana peels being thrown on me than my entire race/genepool being denegrated by drunken goons with puffed up sense of machismo( generally to compensate for lacking something profound or important). Again, something to mull over but i dont expect people with a very limited perspective on culture and ways of life to grasp that.

 

[luckyeddie]

???
Godwinned ? I cannot find a dictionary reference to that term.

Good grief. You're kidding me, right?

Godwin's Law

 

[C_C]

Good grief. You're kidding me, right?

Godwin's Law

I didnt know of this phenomenon, simply because i don't take the internet that seriously. Thanks for broadening my horizon. However, i agree with criticism of this law, given that an analogy must be deemed appropriate ( or otherwise) based on its analytic value, rather than the cultural symbolism associated with it. I have absolutely no problem displaying the swastika for example and my doorknob is a swastika. And i tend to have a different perspective on the world than most people ( which is why i can recognise the good Hitler caused along with the evil, instead of focussing solely on the latter). But throwing the 'godwin's law' is missing the analogy. The point i was driving at, is order is not paramount and even though order prevailed in pre-WWII Hitlerite Germany to a greater extent than the decades following WWII, it was based on a wrong methodology. The end doesnt justify the means and in this case, stating that there are more bowlers with unconventional actions today than in the past is missing the point that in the past the system was hopelessly devoid of fact and purely based on perceptions.

 

[social]

1. The majority of the west IS reliant on subcontinent money and following. Ashes are irrelevant compared to IND-PAK for example.

2. If there is a team that cant take losing well, its the Aussies. Which is why the OZ team was a team of goons in the 80s to early/mid 90s.

3. The doubts cast on umpires are very valid and genuine,with good reason. Notwithstanding the fact that they are incompetent at large, there is a distinct feeling that the umpires are pro-west, which is how things were really until very recently. Whether it has changed for the better or just become more covert is something time will tell. And incase you forget, it was the subcontinent which led the charge( mainly Imran Khan) for wanting neutral umpires, given how horribly one-sided the umpiring was in places like Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, etc.

4. Technology is neutral in absolution- of that there is no dispute ( and the ones who seek to dispute it tend not to know their **** from their heads when it comes to technology). It can be imperfect or wrong but it is extremely consistent. Sure, hawkeye can be wrong in regards to the ball going over the stumps or reverse swing but still overall superior to the umpires. But most importantly, it is neutral. Hawkeye doesnt care who is batting or who is bowling or which nation(s) are involved and it will give exactly the same result in every single situation of same nature ( ie, ball going over the stumps or not). And ironically, the biggest resistance to introduction of the hawkeye/snick-o is comming from the western quarters. Perhaps the culture crutch is a good cover story to preserve the status-quo ?
If not, there is absolutely no harm but overall much more good to be done from a completely neutral ( if faulty) judiciary. Australia relies heavily on influencing the umpire for decision-making, something OZ openly admits. Perhaps this is their greatest asset and this is something they don't want to compromise, despite it making the field more consistent ? Things to mull over but i dont expect you to take it in stride.

Mulled it over, and once again you dont disappoint - absolute crap.

When it comes right down to it C_C, youre racist.

Pathetic and intolerable, so I bid you goodnight and sweet dreams on your lonely Fantasy Island