Technology - What's Your Verdict?

[Scaly piscine]

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?).

Okay folks, hands up who thinks Motson turns on-topic threads into off-topic rambling that's remotely interesting? Anyone?

 

[archie mac]

Okay folks, hands up who thinks Motson turns on-topic threads into off-topic rambling that's remotely interesting? Anyone?

I don't mind him, at least he posts, and keeps things moving.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, he is, it was him that mentioned the Warne innings, as anyone with 2 eyes can quite clearly see.

Indeed he did - he mentioned it in the context of the technology.

 

[marc71178]

You're making perfectly valid comments. So am I.

Except one of the set of comments relate to the subject matter - the other is being forced onto us yet again.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Except there's a difference between evolution of discussion and you repeating the same tripe in several threads.

 

[Shounak]

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.

There's a difference between thread evolution and thread devolution mate.. What has ensued is most definitely the latter..

I'm suprised more people don't have something to say about the use of technology. Maybe scared of by all the fluff?

Come on people.. Let's hear from some "traditionalists"..

 

[nick-o]

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?).

I don't agree.

If I open a thread about the uses of technology, I don't want to read about crackpot theories about manipulating statistics, or re-runs of private arguments from some other thread. I want to read about the uses of technology.

If these other topics related to the uses of technology then there wouldn't be a problem; but they don't.

Personal arguments and crackpot theories should not be posted in threads that might be of interest to other people. People that post such stuff are letting their ego take control, trying to make the dialogue focus on themselves not the issue under discussion. This is known as trolling, and normally is not tolerated.

So, did anyone have a specific objection to the use of technology in the ODI series?

 

[Macka]

The only thing that really gets on my nerves is people having a go at technology when they have no idea how it works. Now, a few past players have had a go at hawkeye and such, with nothing more to say than "It's not accurate enough." At the risk of generalising, I doubt very much there are many present or past players who have the requisite background to make such comments. Commentators are the worst: We have 40- to 60-year-old men, who, again I'm going to generalise, have no idea about technology.

I don't really care if they think it's not accurate enough; I want the proof. It may be out there, I don't know. I have not heard a single intelligent comment about technology from a cricket player or commentator.

 

[Isolator]

What would you consider intelligent?

 

[Macka]

Anyone who actually knows how the technology works would do.

 

[Slow Love™]

Wow, I'm surprised at the positive reaction so far, though I presume as far as this forum goes, dissenters are maybe holding their tongues - or there's just a lot of people here that didn't see the ODI Super Series.

I have been in favor of increased usage of technology for quite some time - I wasn't completely sure how the LBW stuff would go over on a time level - from what I've seen so far, it's been pretty good, although I'd like to see it in a little more action before I make a call on that. So far, so good, though.

I was reading an article at cricinfo by Peter English the other day, where he was criticising the adoption of these tech tools as being "too clinical and taking the romance out of the game.". While he has a right to his opinion, I feel that:

a) we've been watching this stuff on the coverage for years now, and I don't think it's taken romance, drama or grandness out of the game (and certainly, in the case of actual in-game use such as runouts, I think in some ways it's added to it) - it's just made seeing clear mistakes so frustrating. There's more than enough romance in a cricket game where the players of the game are concerned (particularly Hayden and Langer).

b) obviously the atmosphere during the Super Series wasn't that great, given people's reactions to the roof and the small crowds, and I'd be cautious about carrying that feeling into a judgement of these new abilities for umpires.

Nevertheless, traditionalists who feel that way are entitled to their point of view - my main point of argument has always been with those that choose to fight this concept on the basis of accuracy, 'cause it's an irrational and ridiculous debate to be having. One of the interesting things in English's article was his own admission that, in terms of getting better decisions - it worked. Not a surprise to me, but good to see that's the impression everybody's gotten, even some who were a little unenthusiastic about the merits of using the replays etc, some of whom have expressed a far more favourable opinion towards it since seeing it in practice.

 

[Pratters]

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..

Fact 1: I did not make any about turn. I said Walsh was more consistent than Bradman and it is a reality.

Fact 2: Even after I have spelled out to you what consistency means (it would have been clear by my initial statement or my statement consistently poor I thought) in the super series and this thread - least standard deviation, I thought you would have better sense to understand you are not ridiculing me but yourself.

Fact 3: Even after understanding the meaning, by maintaining the signature, you show you do have some silly agenda with me over the super series thread - kiddish in every way.

 

[Slow Love™]

Fact 1: I did not make any about turn. I said Walsh was more consistent than Bradman and it is a reality.

Fact 2: Even after I have spelled out to you what consistency means (it would have been clear by my initial statement or my statement consistently poor I thought) in the super series and this thread - least standard deviation, I thought you would have better sense to understand you are not ridiculing me but yourself.

Fact 3: Even after understanding the meaning, by maintaining the signature, you show you do have some silly agenda with me over the super series thread - kiddish in every way.

Why are you so worried about this, Pratyush? People are often quoted out of context in people's signatures (I have a habit of doing it myself) - it's just a laugh, and it's meaningless.

If Sanz misquoted you, that might be something, but as far as I can understand it's a direct quote, right? (I don't really understand the context as you've defined it, but I've got no real desire to go round and round on it in this thread.) Don't sweat it so much, mate, it ain't that serious.

 

[marc71178]

Wow, I'm surprised at the positive reaction so far, though I presume as far as this forum goes, dissenters are maybe holding their tongues - or there's just a lot of people here that didn't see the ODI Super Series.

I'm in favour of minor additions that leave the main decisions in the hands of the umpire, but not of the major things like Snicko and Hawkeye because I don't trust them enough.

 

[Pothas]

I'm in favour of minor additions that leave the main decisions in the hands of the umpire, but not of the major things like Snicko and Hawkeye because I don't trust them enough.

especialy hawkeye, there is really no way of telling how acurate it is

 

[Jamee999]

I don't agree.

If I open a thread about the uses of technology, I don't want to read about crackpot theories about manipulating statistics, or re-runs of private arguments from some other thread. I want to read about the uses of technology.

If these other topics related to the uses of technology then there wouldn't be a problem; but they don't.

Personal arguments and crackpot theories should not be posted in threads that might be of interest to other people. People that post such stuff are letting their ego take control, trying to make the dialogue focus on themselves not the issue under discussion. This is known as trolling, and normally is not tolerated.

So, did anyone have a specific objection to the use of technology in the ODI series?

It can be good though.

But it's not good if every thread turns into the same, agreed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

especialy hawkeye, there is really no way of telling how acurate it is

Rubbish.

 

[Pothas]

Rubbish.

well how do you know it is 100% fullproof? there have often been ocasions when everyone thinks one thing and hawkeye says no. im just not totaly convined it is fullproof

 

[Scaly piscine]

well how do you know it is 100% fullproof? there have often been ocasions when everyone thinks one thing and hawkeye says no. im just not totaly convined it is fullproof

We're on about "there is really no way of telling how acurate it is" here, margin of error can be measured by testing and you can be sure hawkeye was rigorously tested before it ever got near a TV screen. It probably will throw up a completely bizarre result once in a blue moon, but there'll be checks in place to weed these out.

 

[marc71178]

This is the same hawkeye that actually couldn't cope with Warne in the summer then?