Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by dechuck » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:49:23


Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game 2
seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as 50/50
cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of the
game )

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by Rats » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:18:24


Quote:
> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game 2
> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as 50/50
> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of the
> game )

OZ were ***. Black Craps (TM) were pansies. You did not miss out
on much.

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by max. » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:07:52

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:18:24 -0800 (PST), Rats

Quote:


>> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
>> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
>> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
>> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

>> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game 2
>> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
>> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as 50/50
>> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of the
>> game )

>OZ were ***. Black Craps (TM) were pansies. You did not miss out
>on much.

The Eng Sri test and the Ind Pak test and the 20/20 were on tv this
morning. I managed to doze off watching the Eng Sri match.

max.it

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:14:46


Quote:
> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game 2
> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as 50/50
> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of the
> game )

Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
could do.
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by dechuck » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:22:35


Quote:

>> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
>> BUT
>> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell
>> if
>> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
>> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

>> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game
>> 2
>> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
>> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
>> 50/50
>> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
>> the
>> game )

> Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> could do.

 think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a technology
which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe the
technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology as
it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more difficult
like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the same
time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are trying
to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:30:38


Quote:



> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
> >> BUT
> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell
> >> if
> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the game
> >> 2
> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed an
> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
> >> 50/50
> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
> >> the
> >> game )

> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> > could do.

>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a technology
> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe the
> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology as
> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more difficult
> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the same
> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are trying
> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
accurate than the method it is going to replace.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> - Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by Rats » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:48:27


Quote:
> This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> accurate than the method it is going to replace.

Which is yet to be determined.
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by dechuck » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:51:09


Quote:




>> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
>> >> BUT
>> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't
>> >> tell
>> >> if
>> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is
>> >> the
>> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

>> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the
>> >> game
>> >> 2
>> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed
>> >> an
>> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
>> >> 50/50
>> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
>> >> the
>> >> game )

>> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
>> > could do.

>>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a
>> technology
>> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
>> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe
>> the
>> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology
>> as
>> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more
>> difficult
>> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the
>> same
>> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are
>> trying
>> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

> This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> accurate than the method it is going to replace.

Totally agree and I am all for the use of cameras for run outs and stumping
but even in this simplest situation the system is fallible. What is going to
happen if we move on to more complicated situations?
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:14:22


Quote:

> > This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> > results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> > which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> > resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> > accurate than the method it is going to replace.

> Which is yet to be determined.

I don't know at what rate the cameras under question were working but
taking a nominal TV camera at 30 frames is going to beat the *** eye
results. Your eye is already fooled into thinking the motion is
continuous.
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by subi.. » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:22:15


Quote:






> >> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
> >> >> BUT
> >> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't
> >> >> tell
> >> >> if
> >> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is
> >> >> the
> >> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> >> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the
> >> >> game
> >> >> 2
> >> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed
> >> >> an
> >> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
> >> >> 50/50
> >> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
> >> >> the
> >> >> game )

> >> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> >> > could do.

> >>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a
> >> technology
> >> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
> >> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe
> >> the
> >> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology
> >> as
> >> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more
> >> difficult
> >> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the
> >> same
> >> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are
> >> trying
> >> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

> > This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> > results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> > which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> > resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> > accurate than the method it is going to replace.

> Totally agree and I am all for the use of cameras for run outs and stumping
> but even in this simplest situation the system is fallible. What is going to
> happen if we move on to more complicated situations?

what about for lbw: has the ball pitched and hit within the stumps,
inside edge etc. trajectory and height cd still be the umpires' call.
 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:23:35


Quote:






> >> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
> >> >> BUT
> >> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't
> >> >> tell
> >> >> if
> >> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is
> >> >> the
> >> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> >> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the
> >> >> game
> >> >> 2
> >> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed
> >> >> an
> >> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
> >> >> 50/50
> >> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
> >> >> the
> >> >> game )

> >> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> >> > could do.

> >>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a
> >> technology
> >> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
> >> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe
> >> the
> >> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology
> >> as
> >> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more
> >> difficult
> >> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the
> >> same
> >> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are
> >> trying
> >> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

> > This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> > results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> > which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> > resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> > accurate than the method it is going to replace.

> Totally agree and I am all for the use of cameras for run outs and stumping
> but even in this simplest situation the system is fallible. What is going to
> happen if we move on to more complicated situations?

All you have to do is to beat the *** eye. It is contradictory to
say that you agree and the system is fallible:) Sure it has a margin
of error. As in many cases we now know "technology" can beat the ***
eye hands down. A very interesting thing was how the artists used to
draw legs of running horses before sufficiently fast cameras captured
how they really were. The artists kept drawing the old way because
when drawn how they really were the viewers kept complaining there was
something wrong.

A much better understanding of even normal rather slow human motion
has been achieved through photography.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> - Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:29:04


Quote:







> > >> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
> > >> >> BUT
> > >> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't
> > >> >> tell
> > >> >> if
> > >> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> > >> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the
> > >> >> game
> > >> >> 2
> > >> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
> > >> >> 50/50
> > >> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> game )

> > >> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> > >> > could do.

> > >>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a
> > >> technology
> > >> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
> > >> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe
> > >> the
> > >> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology
> > >> as
> > >> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more
> > >> difficult
> > >> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the
> > >> same
> > >> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are
> > >> trying
> > >> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

> > > This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> > > results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> > > which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> > > resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> > > accurate than the method it is going to replace.

> > Totally agree and I am all for the use of cameras for run outs and stumping
> > but even in this simplest situation the system is fallible. What is going to
> > happen if we move on to more complicated situations?

> what about for lbw: has the ball pitched and hit within the stumps,
> inside edge etc. trajectory and height cd still be the umpires' call.

Actually even height of the ball at the point of impact even if one is
leary of the predictive nature of the technology. The history (what
ever is captured on film) is no doubt better resolved through
"technology" rather than the *** eye. As to predictive ability of
HawkEye and other technologies I have not seen the studies if any have
been done to determine their accuracy. Remember all they have to do is
be able to predict better than the umpire not perfectly.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> - Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by arahi » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:37:06


Quote:






> >> >> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close
> >> >> BUT
> >> >> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't
> >> >> tell
> >> >> if
> >> >> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is
> >> >> the
> >> >> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

> >> >> On another matter Ch 9 and the Aus cricketers didn't really take the
> >> >> game
> >> >> 2
> >> >> seriously with players wired up to give interviews. Whole thing seemed
> >> >> an
> >> >> overhyped slog fest ( loved it when the pommy bloke referred to ODO as
> >> >> 50/50
> >> >> cricket ) glad I only saw 5 or 6 overs ( well I suppose that is 15% of
> >> >> the
> >> >> game )

> >> > Hardly a shortfall. Probably much better than the eye of the umpire
> >> > could do.

> >>  think it is. People keep going on about snicko and Hawkeye ( a
> >> technology
> >> which doesn't ever seem to have been proved to work ) and yet in the
> >> simplest situation:-  did the bail come off before the batsman was safe
> >> the
> >> technology didn't work. This is the simplest situation to use technology
> >> as
> >> it is basically a 2D situation, when you move onto something more
> >> difficult
> >> like was a catch taken or not or was the "snicko" sound exactly at the
> >> same
> >> time as the ball passed the bat it becomes more difficult as you are
> >> trying
> >> to decide what happened in a 3D situation using a 2D medium

> > This is a common misperception that technology should give "perfect"
> > results. Every technology has some resolution (margin of error) within
> > which it operates. The question that needs to be asked is whether the
> > resolution provided by the technology under consideration more
> > accurate than the method it is going to replace.

> Totally agree and I am all for the use of cameras for run outs and stumping
> but even in this simplest situation the system is fallible. What is going to
> happen if we move on to more complicated situations?

It is ok as long as it is less fallible than the umpire. besides
variance between two machines (of the same model) will give you a lot
less variance (in the kind of cases we are talking here) than between
two umpires. So you come to the law:
All machines are created equal but some umpires are more equal than
others.
"

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> - Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by gerri » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:01:56


Quote:
> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

Do they use the same equipment Ch 9 uses for the super slo mo shots?

Gerrit

 
 
 

Shortfall of technology shown in the aus/NZ 20/20

Post by Bob Duber » Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:24:10


Quote:
> Symonds throws from square of the wicket batsman dive it is very close BUT
> the breaking of the wicket takes place between frames so one can't tell if
> the batsman is actually out or not. Batsman is given not out which is the
> correct decision as the technology failed to provided an answer.

Which is right.

The technology is not perfect - and that should be understood. It can
sometimes help to get the correct decision when things are too close
for an on-field umpire to call, but it can never do this unerringly.
And in cases such as the one you describe it's right that the benefit
of any remaining doubt go to the batsman.