Arthur Crabtree wrote:The umpire's choice makes absolute sense. I don't think the system is practical without it. The system is a pragmatic combination of wo/man and machine and although borderline decisions remainfrustrating, they always will People will always fantasise about that if-only, and bemoan their ill fortune. Quite often I think the commentators dont get what is going on, and they just spread ignorance.
agree even smart people like Athers and Hussain were speaking like idiots on this subject today.
Really it isn't that hard to understand that the Hawkeye isn't 100 percent true if it says it is hitting 49percent of the stump it doesn't mean it is hitting 49 percent of the stump and because it is a model/prediction it has a error built in and in this case it is more or less 50 percent of the stump or 1.5 inches if you caught the wording in the article.
basically bairstow dismissal could have been out or not out.
ok the chance of not out was 0.1-1% but the fact remains they was no conclusive evidence from hawk eye that it was out.
it really isn't rocket science, quite baffling how many people think what the hawkeye show has no error what so ever.
TBH Hawkeye people don't help either, no one ever says anything is 99 percent Accurate, anyway not sure they can claim hawkeye being 99 percent accurate, don't see them measuring where the ball hit the stump to 5-9 decimal points.
it might be reliable and give consistent data but no way can they claim to be 99 percent accurate.
Anyway if the umpire call has to be 50 percent of the stump you do have to start questioning if it actually reliable as it claims to be, especially if MIT did find it to have an error of 1.5 inches.
Really hard to take any model seriously when it doesn't even release or tell the world it error margin.
even changing to 25% doesn't change anything an arbitrary line will still exist and something like 24% one way will make people feel they been unlucky.
What is ridiculous is if the arbitary line isn't set from the Error margin considering it will be wrong if 25% been set but it been shown 50% should be the fiqure because of the uncertainty of whether it is out or not when it clips the first or third stump.
Would far prefer a human making a wrong decision rather than a computer model guessing the outcome, since anything over 25-49% is since their small or sizeable chance it might not be out or it could be out.
Quite baffling how smart people like Athers failed to grasp this, can understand botham being stupid but athers come on the guy must know about errors/uncertainty etc.
Also it should be noted it was 25 percent originally but ICC had to change it when they found out Hawkeye not that great then they thought it would be.
It is actually more of a joke ICC brings technology without fully testing everything and then without getting independent testing.
MIT results should be interesting 2-3 yrs of data with loads of in depth analysis to try and get india in board and it could turn out india might not like it even more if the results don't look great.
will be ironic getting MIT involved to persuade BCCI to use DRS and then it turns out it persuade other boards not to use the system.
Anyway I am a fan of DRS but not on the way the technology or ICC run it.
like I said on another forum I am a fan of them releasing min/max/average path on umpires call so stupid people like botham can actually understand the system.
it could even be dumbed down by percentage saying 20% of hawkeye says out and 80% not out.
if it between 50-75% out or not out it is umpires call and people can see the system isn't certain of the result.
I really hope it isn't moved to 25% without a physicist or mathematician looking at the data since I can really see them moving it down because of the bad press and that bring the computer guessing the outcome of the dismissal.
Human making mistakes is far better than a computer making a mistake.
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:02 pm