Should we use technology for better decisions?

[Sanz]

TBH, I dont have a problem with technology, but I have said I would like to see consistency. Today's case of Tendulkar's decision, forum members who saw the dismissal say that it was crystal clear that it was not out, whereas Cricinfo (which is a pretty powerful source) claims that replays were inconlusive.

Another case of Technology not being good enough to get a consesus about the dismissal.

 

[Richard]

Or maybe it was just that CricInfo's people were incompetent and couldn't see the blazingly obvious?

 

[Jono]

Sanz, dead set I know you didn't watch the game, and I know Cricinfo are a bloody huge and reputable source (hence why for the life of me I can't understand how they didn't see that Sachin did not glove that ball), but it wasn't just the members that believed Sachin wasn't out. Immediately Botham suggested it looked dodgy, and replays/hot spot CONFIRMED.

There's no Tendulkar bias or want for him to ton up when it comes to what the eye clearly sees really. I just don't understand how Cricinfo think its inconclusive.

 

[Sanz]

Or maybe it was just that CricInfo's people were incompetent and couldn't see the blazingly obvious?

It is possible that Cricinfo folks were incompetent but you can not argue that they are a powerful source and majority of fans all over the world take their cricket commentary seriously.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, dead set I know you didn't watch the game, and I know Cricinfo are a bloody huge and reputable source (hence why for the life of me I can't understand how they didn't see that Sachin did not glove that ball), but it wasn't just the members that believed Sachin wasn't out. Immediately Botham suggested it looked dodgy, and replays/hot spot CONFIRMED.

There's no Tendulkar bias or want for him to ton up when it comes to what the eye clearly sees really. I just don't understand how Cricinfo think its inconclusive.

Yes, I didn't watch the game(was at work) and I am not saying that you are wrong. Infact I watched the highlights later on and agree with you.

I am not trying to argue that Sachin was Out/NotOut, but just pointing out the interpretation of technology by two different groups, for one group it was quite clearly not out( and I am one of them) while for the other it was inconclusive.

 

[Richard]

It is possible that Cricinfo folks were incompetent but you can not argue that they are a powerful source and majority of fans all over the world take their cricket commentary seriously.

And the same applies to Sky - simple fact is, Sky were clearly right and CricInfo were clearly wrong. It was as obvious as anything ever is, without even using either HotSpot or a Snicko, that the ball hit Tendulkar's elbow, not glove.

If you argue that that case was inconclusive you can argue that any decision in history was inconclusive. This Tendulkar one was as obvious as a nick to third-slip or a flick to square-leg.

 

[archie mac]

Yes, I didn't watch the game(was at work) and I am not saying that you are wrong. Infact I watched the highlights later on and agree with you.

I am not trying to argue that Sachin was Out/NotOut, but just pointing out the interpretation of technology by two different groups, for one group it was quite clearly not out( and I am one of them) while for the other it was inconclusive.

Still you would think over time that technology would get more of these right than the human eye

 

[Sanz]

Still you would think over time that technology would get more of these right than the human eye

Maybe in the future, but as it stands now, NO.

IMO you dont need technology for obvious dismissals, Technology is required when there is fair amount of doubt about the dismissal and it has been proved that it didn't help much except for wasting time.

Second point(and the most important one ) is about the human interpretation of technology, i.e. 3rd umpire looking at the replays and making a decision. This has been fairly inconsistent too and If we want to accept techology as of today, I would remove the human intervention and interpretation completly and let the techology make the decision instead of the 3rd umpire.

IMO That is the only way to bring consistency with the help of technology.

 

[Sanz]

And the same applies to Sky - simple fact is, Sky were clearly right and CricInfo were clearly wrong. It was as obvious as anything ever is, without even using either HotSpot or a Snicko, that the ball hit Tendulkar's elbow, not glove.

If you argue that that case was inconclusive you can argue that any decision in history was inconclusive. This Tendulkar one was as obvious as a nick to third-slip or a flick to square-leg.

As I said before I wasn't talking about this particular decision only, neither did I disagree with those who said Tendulkar's was an obvious not-out, it was just an example.

I am not opposed to using the technology either, as long as we take the human tervention out of the picture i.e. Let the on field umpire refer the decision to the Computer(instead of the 3rd umpire) , Let the computer decide, using the technology and programs fed.

 

[archie mac]

Maybe in the future, but as it stands now, NO.

IMO you dont need technology for obvious dismissals, Technology is required when there is fair amount of doubt about the dismissal and it has been proved that it didn't help much except for wasting time.

Second point(and the most important one ) is about the human interpretation of technology, i.e. 3rd umpire looking at the replays and making a decision. This has been fairly inconsistent too and If we want to accept techology as of today, I would remove the human intervention and interpretation completly and let the techology make the decision instead of the 3rd umpire.

IMO That is the only way to bring consistency with the help of technology.

You don't think that technology is good enough now for edges? Snickometer and the hot spot?

 

[Richard]

As I said before I wasn't talking about this particular decision only, neither did I disagree with those who said Tendulkar's was an obvious not-out, it was just an example.

I am not opposed to using the technology either, as long as we take the human tervention out of the picture i.e. Let the on field umpire refer the decision to the Computer(instead of the 3rd umpire) , Let the computer decide, using the technology and programs fed.

Technology is nothing without human interpretation.

 

[Sanz]

Technology is nothing without human interpretation.

Well If we are not going to allow the technology to make the decision and rely on the Human eye to interpret what the technology shows and then allowing him to make the decision then yes, I dont think it is very useful because different people will have different interpretation of the same thing and hence room for inconsistency.

 

[Sanz]

You don't think that technology is good enough now for edges? Snickometer and the hot spot?

Unfortunately no, I dont think it is good enough, eg Dinesh Karthik dismissal in test series.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well If we are not going to allow the technology to make the decision and rely on the Human eye to interpret what the technology shows and then allowing him to make the decision then yes, I dont think it is very useful because different people will have different interpretation of the same thing and hence room for inconsistency.

That's quite possibly the most contradictory thing ever. Doesn't the human eye judge the decisions at the moment - you know, the ones that happen without warning, from one angle, at full speed, from 20 yards away?

No-one is arguing that technology is perfect. But it's quite obviously closer to perfect than the current system. To argue that it isn't because different people will have different interpretations is farcical, as the same applies with the current system. Human eye with help > human eye without help.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unfortunately no, I dont think it is good enough, eg Dinesh Karthik dismissal in test series.

Again, that is one decision. The umpires get a lot more wrong than one per series.

 

[biased indian]

Again, that is one decision. The umpires get a lot more wrong than one per series.

like yesterday

 

[Sanz]

That's quite possibly the most contradictory thing ever. Doesn't the human eye judge the decisions at the moment - you know, the ones that happen without warning, from one angle, at full speed, from 20 yards away?

It is not contradictory, I am only trying to suggest that its not the technology that is making the decision and hence it is no different from the current system of two field umpires making those decision. If it is a human who is making the decision with the help of technology which IMO is not good enough for close calls. This human (aka 3rd umpire) watches the replays and draws his conclusions and then gives the decision and hence creating the same inconsistency based on individual interpretation.

No-one is arguing that technology is perfect. But it's quite obviously closer to perfect than the current system. To argue that it isn't because different people will have different interpretations is farcical, as the same applies with the current system. Human eye with help > human eye without help.

I am not worried about the technology being perfect but the inconsistency in the human interpretation which IMO will create the same confusion and problem that exists today. I would rather have technology make the decision rather than human making the decision with the help of it.

As for Human eye with help > Human eye without help, I dont agree. Technology fails massively for close cals.

 

[Sanz]

Again, that is one decision. The umpires get a lot more wrong than one per series.

It doesn't matter if it is one decision or 10 decisions, one poor decision is enough to change the outcome of a match.

 

[adharcric]

As for Human eye with help > Human eye without help, I dont agree.

Good one.

 

[Richard]

It is not contradictory, I am only trying to suggest that its not the technology that is making the decision and hence it is no different from the current system of two field umpires making those decision. If it is a human who is making the decision with the help of technology which IMO is not good enough for close calls. This human (aka 3rd umpire) watches the replays and draws his conclusions and then gives the decision and hence creating the same inconsistency based on individual interpretation.



I am not worried about the technology being perfect but the inconsistency in the human interpretation which IMO will create the same confusion and problem that exists today. I would rather have technology make the decision rather than human making the decision with the help of it.

As for Human eye with help > Human eye without help, I dont agree. Technology fails massively for close cals.

How is it so difficult to understand that technology does nothing without human interpretation?

HotSpot cannot make a decision - it needs someone to watch it, understand what HotSpot is showing, and realise "ah, that hit bat".