Technology - What's Your Verdict?

[Shounak]

So why dont we take that attitude and apply it everywhere ? Why do we have robots make microcircuitry and not some guy sitting with a silicon cast, sand, tin and a soldering tip ?

Because humans are much more fallible then robots. In other words, robots are less likely to make mistakes..

I'd say that the technology currently present is less likely to make a mistake then a human who is given a fraction of a second to judge an outcome..

 

[archie mac]

I was dead against this idea, but I have to say I thought it worked well. My concern is that soon umpire will refer more and more to the third umpire, and make the game to slow.

 

[C_C]

Because humans are much more fallible then robots. In other words, robots are less likely to make mistakes..

I'd say that the technology currently present is less likely to make a mistake then a human who is given a fraction of a second to judge an outcome..

Quite correct. Automated technology is also capable of far more precision than a human being ( i would challenge any artisan on this planet to hand-etch a semiconductor)
So if robots are less likely to make mistakes ( or a control system) and are much more precise, apart from a couple of million dollars introduction bill and pure sentimental traditionalism, what exactly is the complaint against a completely automated decision-making process for umpiring ?

 

[marc71178]

Please tell the relevance of your post compared to what I was talking about (ie the selection of International sides)

 

[Shounak]

I was dead against this idea, but I have to say I thought it worked well. My concern is that soon umpire will refer more and more to the third umpire, and make the game to slow.

Don't worry about that.. They'll improve the technology a lot.. And a lot the Hawkeye and stuff we see on TV is a glammed up version of the real thing. The real thing does not take as long to display and check..

But the game will speed up.. Hell any stoppage times may even be offset by batsmen missing out on the benefit of the doubt. That's following the lines of the arguments people make that the game will slow down and test matches will only last 3 days if technology was introduced..

Makes you ask why umpires are making that many bad decisions if that actually was the case..

 

[C_C]

I was dead against this idea, but I have to say I thought it worked well. My concern is that soon umpire will refer more and more to the third umpire, and make the game to slow.

It would slow the game down if the umpire refers to the third umpire for every single appeal.
It would however, be a matter of a few extra milliseconds if the decision-making was done by technology ( multiple angle zoom cameras to provide 3-d analysis, trajectory calculation based on rotational inertia and linear inertia and a rather simple cricketing rules based decision-making software uploaded to a PC - in this scenario, the umpire merely stands around holding a wireless 'button', which he/she depresses when an appeal is made and the computer announces the verdict with green/red lights).

 

[C_C]

Please tell the relevance of your post compared to what I was talking about (ie the selection of International sides)

I thought you were talking about technology-based decision making, as the name of this thread implies, given that you gave no indication of talking about selection of international players and seemed to back up the view of 'human umpires = best umpires'.

 

[Richard]

It's completely irrelevant to this thread. The fact is that Warne did get to 99, despite his dropped catches. We're not debating whether or not he should be credited for the runs after his first chance..

We're simply discussing the use of technology..

If you want to draw members into an argument about this, just start another thread.. It has NOTHING at all to do with technology..

You were the one who brought-up that Warne innings, and said that it was (the lack of) technology's fault that he didn't get a century.
I showed that it wouldn't have been had he not had luck previously.

 

[Shounak]

You were the one who brought-up that Warne innings, and said that it was (the lack of) technology's fault that he didn't get a century.
I showed that it wouldn't have been had he not had luck previously.

This is a thread about technology. I said that if it was present he would've made his maiden test century, to make the point that Warney got short changed by a bad decision (or lack of a good one)..

Through no fault of Warne's he was denied the century. It really has nothing to do with luck. Except perhaps he was unlucky to receive a bad decision. Technology or no technology, he would've given those chances anyway and the outcome would've been the same (until he hit 99)..

We're not discussing luck here mate, not WRT giving chances anyway. Why not start a thread dedicated to it?

 

[Richard]

You are discussing luck - that Warne was supposedly unlucky not to get a century, as the result of the missed no-ball.
And I was continuing that discussion to point-out that Warne was exceptionally lucky (IIRR it was 3 dropped catches) to even get 99.

 

[C_C]

You are discussing luck - that Warne was supposedly unlucky not to get a century, as the result of the missed no-ball.
And I was continuing that discussion to point-out that Warne was exceptionally lucky (IIRR it was 3 dropped catches) to even get 99.

That has nothing to do with technology.
Whether you get dropped 10 times or none is not dictated by technology, which can improve the decision-making process in the case of an appeal - not the proficiency of players.

 

[Richard]

Where, exactly, did I say it had to do with technology?

 

[Shounak]

You are discussing luck - that Warne was supposedly unlucky not to get a century, as the result of the missed no-ball.
And I was continuing that discussion to point-out that Warne was exceptionally lucky (IIRR it was 3 dropped catches) to even get 99.

I'm talking about technology reducing the luck aspect. Your discussion of luck has NOTHING to do with technology..

You could have all the technology in the world and Warne would've still given the same chances. But all the technology in the world may have ensured that a correct decision was made..

Your argument only has relevance in this thread if you're going to contend that he wouldn't have been dropped three times if technology had been in place, or something along those lines..

Otherwise, I don't see how your arguments have anything to with technology..

 

[Shounak]

Where, exactly, did I say it had to do with technology?

THAT'S THE POINT.. It has nothing at all to do with technology.. So don't discuss it here..

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about technology reducing the luck aspect. Your discussion of luck has NOTHING to do with technology..

You could have all the technology in the world and Warne would've still given the same chances. But all the technology in the world may have ensured that a correct decision was made..

Your argument only has relevance in this thread if you're going to contend that he wouldn't have been dropped three times if technology had been in place, or something along those lines..

Otherwise, I don't see how your arguments have anything to with technology..

They don't - they have to do with Warne's luck.
Which you brought-up.

 

[Richard]

THAT'S THE POINT.. It has nothing at all to do with technology.. So don't discuss it here..

Why not?
Wouldn't want lots of new threads to push all the current ones off the top page...

 

[Shounak]

Why not?
Wouldn't want lots of new threads to push all the current ones off the top page...

Not a lot mate.. Just one..I doubt the moderators would mind one new thread if it stopped other threads from going crazily OT..

But I've made one for you.. Less pis$ed off people I'd imagine.. Being able to discuss the topic of their thread without going too OT..

 

[Richard]

Go through long threads in CW history (excluding, obviously, *Official* threads).
See how many have continued throughout their course on title-topic.
There aren't many.

 

[Sanz]

A great thread ruined and clearly hijacked by some people (who are there in almost every thread doing same thing).

Anyways, I didn't get a chance to see the game but If it helps the field umpire in reaching the correct decision then I am all for it. All it requires is consistency in referring it to the 3rd umpire. I hear that Ponting was out too but the umpire didn't refer it to the 3rd umpire.

 

[Richard]

A great thread ruined and clearly hijacked by some people (who are there in almost every thread doing same thing).

Nope, I haven't seen shounak deliberately or inadvertantly change the topic of a thread anywhere else.