Technology - What's Your Verdict?

[archie mac]

I think it would help if they rotated the 3 umpires throughout the game, this would give them equal status.

 

[Sanz]

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

Post #10 enuff said. That is my last post on this matter.

 

[Pratters]

Post #10 enuff said. That is my last post on this matter.

Regarding putting my quote in your signature which I noticed right now - do you understand the meaning of being consistent? It is some one with the least standard deviation.

So Walsh was more consistent than Bradman. Only consistently poor. I see you have purposefully left out that part from my earlier statement to try and paint me wrongly.

I didnt say Walsh was a better batsman than bradman and you know it as well. So dont try to solve a personal agenda with me with stupid personal attacks.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Yes because this thread had a whole 9 posts before you hijacked to force on everyone yet again something which nobody but you have any time for...

 

[marc71178]

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

He's not the one who's come in and changed this topic though

 

[marc71178]

I think it would help if they rotated the 3 umpires throughout the game, this would give them equal status.

I don't think that would necessarily work - the umpires do tend to set some form of consistency over what they're going to ie call wides.

Add a 3rd and that becomes more tricky to maintain.

 

[Richard]

He's not the one who's come in and changed this topic though

Yes, he is, it was him that mentioned the Warne innings, as anyone with 2 eyes can quite clearly see.
And there's precisely nothing wrong with that, as there isn't with Dennis Lillee's pedigree being discussed in a thread titled "Pathan has come of age!" or several hundred other things dicussed in threads that have no relation to the title.

 

[Richard]

I think it would help if they rotated the 3 umpires throughout the game, this would give them equal status.

It's something which has been discussed, and there's certainly some merit in the idea IMO, but it'd take some implementation.
Things like wides are not a problem because almost all Umpires call the same stuff wides these days, with guidelines in place on the off and anything missing leg-stump on the leg.

 

[Shounak]

Yes, he is, it was him that mentioned the Warne innings, as anyone with 2 eyes can quite clearly see.
And there's precisely nothing wrong with that, as there isn't with Dennis Lillee's pedigree being discussed in a thread titled "Pathan has come of age!" or several hundred other things dicussed in threads that have no relation to the title.

Warne's innings had a lot to do with technology. Your first chance average ramblings have nothing to do with technology..

I'll make my point crystal clear for you Richard.

A third umpire should be able to make decisions regarding no-balls and similar phenomena

I gave an example of where the lack of a third umpire was not present and it severely impacted on an individuals significant milestone.

SO, if the technology was in place, the correct decision would have occured. That relates directly to the title of this thread, unlike your comments..

 

[Richard]

And my comments relate to your comments, even if not to the title of the thread.
Which is why I made them.

 

[archie mac]

I don't think that would necessarily work - the umpires do tend to set some form of consistency over what they're going to ie call wides.

Add a 3rd and that becomes more tricky to maintain.

In Aussie Rules which I imagine you know little? But if you do know about it this example will make more sense. They use to have just one field umpire, as the game became faster they decided to add a 2nd umpire on the field at the same time. The main complaint against the idea was the lack of consistency, but now we have 3 and this has been a minor problem. Different games I know, but I still think it would work.

 

[Shounak]

And my comments relate to your comments, even if not to the title of the thread.
Which is why I made them.

Fair call.. Just as long as you aren't saying that I'm the one who started to hijack the thread and take it in another direction as your comments clearly suggest..

Ala

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

and

Yes, he is, it was him that mentioned the Warne innings, as anyone with 2 eyes can quite clearly see. And there's precisely nothing wrong with that, as there isn't with Dennis Lillee's pedigree being discussed in a thread titled "Pathan has come of age!" or several hundred other things dicussed in threads that have no relation to the title.

So either I'm the one hijacking the thread, or I'm not.. Which one?

 

[Richard]

You're making perfectly valid comments. So am I.
No-one is hijacking the thread.
Because, really, it's not possible to "hijack" a thread.

 

[Sanz]

Regarding putting my quote in your signature which I noticed right now - do you understand the meaning of being consistent? It is some one with the least standard deviation.

So Walsh was more consistent than Bradman. Only consistently poor. I see you have purposefully left out that part from my earlier statement to try and paint me wrongly.

I didnt say Walsh was a better batsman than bradman and you know it as well. So dont try to solve a personal agenda with me with stupid personal attacks.

Pratyush,

I dont have any personal agenda against anyone, neither have attacked you in any way. I just left the discussion after I thought that we were not going anywhere. I didn't leave out the part you mentioned and infat quoted the full sentence you wrote, here it is for you and for everyone else to see :-

When you say consistent - you discuss exactly that. Walsh would have been more consistent than Bradman indeed.

 

[Pratters]

Pratyush,

Okay not in that post but in a different post some one said about consistency and I explained consistently poor a few posts later. You ignored that and your signature is an attempt to show a half truth.

If you want I will dig out that post for you.

If you want to put half truths in your signature, despite knowing what I meant and it was a logical explanation, it shows very poorly on you as you attempt to paint me wrongly.

 

[Pratters]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=613673&postcount=1808

Here is the exact post where I said consistently poor. So I think the meaning of the statement would have been quite clear to you unless you either deliberately ignored the post or over looked it even if you did not understand what I meant in the first instance.

Consistency is around a particular run, so the player with the least standard deviation would have the most consistency.

Whether that consistency is good enough or not is to be questioned later.

On another point, your point of Sehwag being less consistent than Gayle is likely to be untrue exactly for this reason (which I stated) which you did not pay any heed to and retorded later again that it is clear Sehwag is less consistent than Gayle (despite Gayle being the player who has scored the bigger centuries in odis)

 

[nick-o]

TWO threadjacks and we're only on the fourth page!!!

I will concede that Richard is not the only threadjacker on the forum...

Anyway, it seems that no one who watched the matches has voiced any objection to the use of the technology, and surely that's the relevant point.

The abstract objections, about the potential for abuse in terms of time wasting, or altering the character of the game, are one thing, but when it actually comes to using the technology, I doubt anyone could object to any specific instance.

 

[Sanz]

Okay not in that post but in a different post some one said about consistency and I explained consistently poor a few posts later. You ignored that and your signature is an attempt to show a half truth.

If you want I will dig out that post for you.

If you want to put half truths in your signature, despite knowing what I meant and it was a logical explanation, it shows very poorly on you as you attempt to paint me wrongly.

Pratyush, the difference between those two posts is (1808-1743) is 65 which is not really 'A FEW POSTS AFTER'. Besides my post was made atleast 11 hours earlier than your response to marc, by then I had already changed the signature and left the discussion.

I have not put any half truth, you just like to clutch @ straws and accuse others . When I said that 'Gayle has more 100s, more 50s in less matches than VS, how does he become more inconsistent than VS' , you came up with "Inconsistency and consistency would be derived by s.d and not by 100s and 50s" and then I showed you that S.D. means nothing when it comes to Cricket scores and it is basically "higher consistency to convert his 10s, 20s & 30s into bigger scores(read 100s or 50s)" was what I was talking about. But despite that you cam up in support of your S.D. theory and posted this :- "When you say consistent - you discuss exactly that. Walsh would have been more consistent than Bradman indeed.". Well Okay - I did just that, I put that in my signature, right then.

How would I know that you were going to an about-turn about 11 hours later ? Did you not know that when we discuss the consistency of a batsman, it's basically his consistency to make higher scores and not by Standard Deviation as you put it in your thread and defended.

Anyways I dont wish to hijack this thread and let this drag and this is the last you will hear from me on this issue. I am not going to change my signature either.

 

[Richard]

TWO threadjacks and we're only on the fourth page!!!

I will concede that Richard is not the only threadjacker on the forum...

Maybe you might do better to concede that "threadjacking" is a stupid term and one best not used, and that evolution-of-discussion is much more appropriate.
And maybe you'd also do well to realise that two people, or even fifteen people, discussing one thing does not preclude others from discussing something else in the same thread.

 

[Jamee999]

Maybe you might do better to concede that "threadjacking" is a stupid term and one best not used, and that evolution-of-discussion is much more appropriate.
And maybe you'd also do well to realise that two people, or even fifteen people, discussing one thing does not preclude others from discussing something else in the same thread.

As much as Richard does tend to post some rubbish, listen to the man here, threadjacking, or whatever you wanna call it, is not a bad thing, and it can turn discussions round interesting corners and into interesting avenues (anyone see what I did there?).