Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai
4 views
Skip to first unread message
FreedomOfThought
Jan 19, 2012, 6:20:25 AM1/19/12
to
DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/match/531628.html
4.5
Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
This DRS debate will continue
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/match/531628.html
115.6
Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/match/531628.html
4.5
Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
This DRS debate will continue
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/match/531628.html
115.6
Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
jzfredricks
Jan 19, 2012, 6:30:14 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 9:20 pm, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
field call.
Some might say that no clear evidence either way should result in a
not out call, regardless of the on field call.
I'm happy either way.
However, I read somewhere there was a hot spot on Strauss's pants.
Perhaps this should've been enough to save him. It's hard to comment
as I've not seen the footage.
wrote:
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
In both cases there was no clear evidence, so it stayed with the on
field call.
Some might say that no clear evidence either way should result in a
not out call, regardless of the on field call.
I'm happy either way.
However, I read somewhere there was a hot spot on Strauss's pants.
Perhaps this should've been enough to save him. It's hard to comment
as I've not seen the footage.
Richard Dixon
Jan 19, 2012, 6:55:03 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 11:20 am, "FreedomOfThought"
that it's closer to perfect than umpires alone and no referrals and
you have to pretty tunnel-visioned not to see that.
Richard
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
> This DRS debate will continue
Who has ever said it was going to be perfect? The important thing is
that it's closer to perfect than umpires alone and no referrals and
you have to pretty tunnel-visioned not to see that.
Richard
g.ca...@uea.ac.uk
Jan 19, 2012, 7:23:49 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 11:20 am, "FreedomOfThought"
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
<FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote:
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
Whether DRS is a benefit or not depends not on whether it fails (which
of course it will), but on whether fewer errors are made by the
umpires with the help of DRS than without. Where DRS is not able to
give conclusive evidence either way, the decision of the on-field
umpire stands, so it is hard to argue that DRS results in more
incorrect decisions than the on-field umpires on there own. It seems
to me that DRS did what it was expected to do on both occasions, as
explicitly recognised in the regulations under which it is used.
The real problem seems to me that these days every umpiring decision
is minutely examined in repeated slow-motion replays, and every
umpiring decision roundly criticised if there is any hint of an error,
and all umpires make them. It would be better if we all just accepted
the umpires make mistakes occasionally (being only human) and didn't
make so much fuss about it.
Personally I would rather we did without DRS, but the reasons have
nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy or utility of DRS.
mohan Singh
Jan 19, 2012, 8:56:27 AM1/19/12
to
There is a woody sound as the ball passes the bat, hot spot shows no
edge on the bat and also no hot spot on the pants. The give away is
Strauss body language with face down trying to walk off and then
asking Cook before reviewing it, if it was the pant he would not have
asked Cook.This was a hot spot failure as the (woody) sound cannot be
explained by hot spot on the bat pant or anywhere else (along with bat
not hitting the pad).
Ajmal case: The evidence via slow motion replay showed clearly that
the ball came of the pad. 3rd umpire screwed up saying there is no
conclusive evidence. Whole world except the umpires knew it was not
out.
Both were DRS screw ups, one upheld because the ground umpire's
original decision was correct.
The way DRS is being used by the officials, it is getting weierder by
the day.
mohan Singh
Jan 19, 2012, 8:53:24 AM1/19/12
to
David North
Jan 19, 2012, 9:01:54 AM1/19/12
to
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Hotspot can only provide conclusive evidence of contact, not of absence of
contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
--
David North
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
--
David North
g.ca...@uea.ac.uk
Jan 19, 2012, 10:24:45 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 1:56 pm, mohan Singh <singhmohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw the footage.
> There is a woody sound as the ball passes the bat, hot spot shows no
> edge on the bat and also no hot spot on the pants.
In other words, the evidence is inconclusive as some points towards
> I saw the footage.
> There is a woody sound as the ball passes the bat, hot spot shows no
> edge on the bat and also no hot spot on the pants.
"out" and some to "not out", hence under the regulations in which DRS
is used, the decision remains with the on-field umpires.
> The give away is
> Strauss body language with face down trying to walk off and then
> asking Cook before reviewing it, if it was the pant he would not have
> asked Cook.
and in my opinion something that should not be considered by the
umpire either. If the umpire is not sufficiently sure that the ball
hit the bat buy seeing the edge/deflection and hearing or not hearing
the snick, then he should give it not out.
> This was a hot spot failure as the (woody) sound cannot be
> explained by hot spot on the bat pant or anywhere else (along with bat
> not hitting the pad).
than the umpires are, but that doesn't mean they have infinite
sensitivity.
> Ajmal case: The evidence via slow motion replay showed clearly that
> the ball came of the pad. 3rd umpire screwed up saying there is no
> conclusive evidence. Whole world except the umpires knew it was not
> out.
used. DRS can only over-rule the umpire if and only if there is
conclusive evidence that the on-field umpires had made an error. If
the evidence is not conclusive, the umpires decision stands. So in
this case, the third umpires actions were correct.
> Both were DRS screw ups, one upheld because the ground umpire's
> original decision was correct.
> The way DRS is being used by the officials, it is getting weierder by
> the day.
DRS was used exactly as the regulation say that it should.
mike
Jan 19, 2012, 10:47:29 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 2:01 pm, "David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk>
wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
didnt see this one but i thought that misbah was unlucky. if i'd been
the umpire i too would not have given it. no way could an ump be
100% shore that it would hit, but DRS can be. Certainly DRS
does help spinners get LBWs, which they would never get
before from an umpire.
i don't disbelieve the physics behind drs, but i can understand
why some (BCCI..) who do have doubts, dont want it.
mike
wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
> >http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
>
> > 4.5
> > Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and
> > Strauss is reviewing it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side
> > and there was a sound, we have the benefit of a proper Hotspot view this
> > time and there are no visible marks, it seems now that Strauss is safe but
> > the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> > convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything
> > conclusively. I guess it evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> > AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> > This DRS debate will continue
>
> >http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> > 4.5
> > Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and
> > Strauss is reviewing it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side
> > and there was a sound, we have the benefit of a proper Hotspot view this
> > time and there are no visible marks, it seems now that Strauss is safe but
> > the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> > convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything
> > conclusively. I guess it evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> > AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> > This DRS debate will continue
>
>
> > 115.6
> > Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg.
> > Referred immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame
> > apparently...now on the normal replays it looks as if it might have missed
> > Ajmal's glove before coming up off the pad to Cook under the lid but no
> > hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive evidence to overturn
> > Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> > Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
>
> Hotspot can only provide conclusive evidence of contact, not of absence of
> contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
> --
> David North- Hide quoted text -
> > 115.6
> > Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg.
> > Referred immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame
> > apparently...now on the normal replays it looks as if it might have missed
> > Ajmal's glove before coming up off the pad to Cook under the lid but no
> > hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive evidence to overturn
> > Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> > Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
>
> Hotspot can only provide conclusive evidence of contact, not of absence of
> contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
didnt see this one but i thought that misbah was unlucky. if i'd been
the umpire i too would not have given it. no way could an ump be
100% shore that it would hit, but DRS can be. Certainly DRS
does help spinners get LBWs, which they would never get
before from an umpire.
i don't disbelieve the physics behind drs, but i can understand
why some (BCCI..) who do have doubts, dont want it.
mike
Vijay Sharma
Jan 19, 2012, 11:42:21 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 4:20 pm, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
across as someone who really had the passion to get it right. And it
looked like he genuinely wanted the tech to be unquestionably good
that it truly helps with coming to the right decision. The fact that
HotSpot isn't living upto expectations (maybe his own too) is a little
painful and disappointing.
During the Ind-Eng series itself they were supposed to use more
cameras. Did they? Any idea?
Would it be right to say that HotSpot is not exactly foolproof i.e. if
an alleged nick does not show on HotSpot then the Ump should not
immediately feel that there was no nick?
wrote:
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
>
>
> 4.5
> Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
> it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
> benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
> that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
> evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> This DRS debate will continue
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> 4.5
> Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
> it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
> benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
> that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
> evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> This DRS debate will continue
>
>
> 115.6
> Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
> immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
> normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
> pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
> evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
I feel bad for HotSpot actually. Their CEO (is his name William?) came
> 115.6
> Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
> immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
> normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
> pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
> evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
across as someone who really had the passion to get it right. And it
looked like he genuinely wanted the tech to be unquestionably good
that it truly helps with coming to the right decision. The fact that
HotSpot isn't living upto expectations (maybe his own too) is a little
painful and disappointing.
During the Ind-Eng series itself they were supposed to use more
cameras. Did they? Any idea?
Would it be right to say that HotSpot is not exactly foolproof i.e. if
an alleged nick does not show on HotSpot then the Ump should not
immediately feel that there was no nick?
Vijay Sharma
Jan 19, 2012, 11:45:33 AM1/19/12
to
On Jan 19, 7:01 pm, "David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk>
wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
showing up necessarily means there was contact. So at least the false
positives are ruled out. However, does it show the spot everytime
there is a nick? It doesn't seem to. So when do we trust it when it
dunn show the nick? And does it make sense to use it as the only
device in such cases?
wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
> >http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
>
> > 4.5
> > Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and
> > Strauss is reviewing it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side
> > and there was a sound, we have the benefit of a proper Hotspot view this
> > time and there are no visible marks, it seems now that Strauss is safe but
> > the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> > convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything
> > conclusively. I guess it evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> > AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> > This DRS debate will continue
>
> >http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> > 4.5
> > Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and
> > Strauss is reviewing it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side
> > and there was a sound, we have the benefit of a proper Hotspot view this
> > time and there are no visible marks, it seems now that Strauss is safe but
> > the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> > convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything
> > conclusively. I guess it evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> > AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> > This DRS debate will continue
>
>
> > 115.6
> > Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg.
> > Referred immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame
> > apparently...now on the normal replays it looks as if it might have missed
> > Ajmal's glove before coming up off the pad to Cook under the lid but no
> > hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive evidence to overturn
> > Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> > Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
>
> Hotspot can only provide conclusive evidence of contact, not of absence of
> contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
> --
> David North
The question is how much must we trust it. Let us assume that the spot
> > 115.6
> > Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg.
> > Referred immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame
> > apparently...now on the normal replays it looks as if it might have missed
> > Ajmal's glove before coming up off the pad to Cook under the lid but no
> > hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive evidence to overturn
> > Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> > Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
>
> Hotspot can only provide conclusive evidence of contact, not of absence of
> contact. There is bound to be a limit to what will show up.
> --
> David North
showing up necessarily means there was contact. So at least the false
positives are ruled out. However, does it show the spot everytime
there is a nick? It doesn't seem to. So when do we trust it when it
dunn show the nick? And does it make sense to use it as the only
device in such cases?
99.94
Jan 19, 2012, 4:59:33 PM1/19/12
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddd2171d-2b1d-4fb7...@4g2000pbw.googlegroups.com...
on-field umpire.
Cases like Hussey and Cowan in Melbourne are classic cases for DRS as they
were horrific howlers and same if Donhi caught Ponting in Sydney.
Wotawonderfulworld
Jan 19, 2012, 7:35:24 PM1/19/12
to
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
Is this a DRS failure, or a failure of the ref looking at the
information provided ?
I can see no problem at all with technology like DRS. Just not sure the
ref is always making the correct call on the info provided.
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
information provided ?
I can see no problem at all with technology like DRS. Just not sure the
ref is always making the correct call on the info provided.
99.94
Jan 19, 2012, 7:55:33 PM1/19/12
to
If the highly corrupt BCCI comes out tomorrow and says DRS is the future of
the game like a true puppet you will support it :)
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
the game like a true puppet you will support it :)
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
news:jf8u9u$iko$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
CaraMia
Jan 19, 2012, 10:03:40 PM1/19/12
to
Vijay Sharma
Jan 20, 2012, 2:02:40 AM1/20/12
to
On Jan 20, 5:55 am, "99.94" <brad...@ownstendulkar.com> wrote:
> If the highly corrupt BCCI comes out tomorrow and says DRS is the future of
> the game like a true puppet you will support it :)
>
What's with the "highly corrupt"? What corruption have BCCI done to
> If the highly corrupt BCCI comes out tomorrow and says DRS is the future of
> the game like a true puppet you will support it :)
>
your country?
will_s
Jan 20, 2012, 2:16:08 AM1/20/12
to
g.ca...@uea.ac.uk
Jan 20, 2012, 4:38:27 AM1/20/12
to
On Jan 19, 4:45 pm, Vijay Sharma <viz.nirvanam.sha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
you could say the same thing about the umpire on the field, they have
false-positve and false-negative errors as well! ;o)
wrote:
false-positve and false-negative errors as well! ;o)
FreedomOfThought
Jan 21, 2012, 10:31:42 PM1/21/12
to
"mohan Singh" <singhm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9c2e76b-878b-4d66...@e8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
interpretations and rules have to be put in place PLUS the HotSpot
and Hawkeye technology has to be improved before implementing
the DRS system.
The "current" DRS system has too many uncertain variables that
affect decisions which in the end does not make it better than Umpires
officiating by themselves.
Majority of rsc'ers just dont get understand "slightly" complex issues.
FreedomOfThought
Jan 21, 2012, 10:32:42 PM1/21/12
to
"99.94" <bra...@ownstendulkar.com> wrote in message news:4f18bb8c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> If the highly corrupt BCCI comes out tomorrow and says DRS is the future of the game
> like a true puppet you will support it :)
You must be a direct descendant of "Joseph Goebbels".
> like a true puppet you will support it :)
Call Centre
Jan 22, 2012, 2:58:43 AM1/22/12
to
On Jan 19, 4:20 pm, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
in the rare occassion not have been able to provide the answer
(because in one case the fielder was standing in the way and the X RAY
could not show us the hotspot) that we should avoid it altogether.
That even though it is superior to having only decisions by the on
field umpire (when it has proven to be helpful to even the on field
umpires) even then because it could be argued that at rare times it
may not be able to give the answer (like in the above example) so we
must chuck it away. So, idiots like you would I guess throw out all
the laws that do not convict people or our entire justice system
because at times even innocent people do get prosecuted. I guess in
that tiny thing you call a brain which is actually brainless you would
simply throw out the baby with the bathwater. So, since our entire
justice system cannot give us 100 percent justice we must chuck it all
away.
Your logic or should I say illogic is that "Even though DRS is
superior to having just on field umpires, we must chuck it away since
we don't have perfection."
Is that what you are trying to say. Or you just enjoy writing your
useless drivel which has no point. Which is like you. A person (term
loosely mentioned here) with no reason to exist in life.
wrote:
> DRS failed twice in England vs Pakistan Test in Dubai - 2012
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
>
>
> 4.5
> Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
> it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
> benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
> that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
> evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> This DRS debate will continue
>
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/engine/current/ma...
> 4.5
> Umar Gul to Strauss, OUT, 84.3 mph, caught down the leg side and Strauss is reviewing
> it. Strauss tried to run it down to to the leg side and there was a sound, we have the
> benefit of a proper Hotspot view this time and there are no visible marks, it seems now
> that Strauss is safe but the verdict is awaited. He's given him out. Well I'm not totally
> convinced. There was a sound but Hotpsot didn't reveal anything conclusively. I guess it
> evens out a bit now with the Ajmal dismissal
>
> AJ Strauss c ?Adnan Akmal b Umar Gul 6 (16b 0x4 0x6) SR: 37.50
>
> This DRS debate will continue
>
>
> 115.6
> Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
> immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
> normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
> pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
> evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
And your point being what Mr. free of any thought. That since DRS may
> 115.6
> Swann to Saeed Ajmal, OUT, 50.2 mph, given out caught at short leg. Referred
> immediately but we can't use hotspot because it's out a frame apparently...now on the
> normal replays it looks as if it might have missed Ajmal's glove before coming up off the
> pad to Cook under the lid but no hotspot means that the third umpire has no conclusive
> evidence to overturn Billy Bowden's out decision so Ajmal has to go...
>
> Saeed Ajmal c Cook b Swann 12 (42m 22b 1x4 0x6) SR: 54.54
in the rare occassion not have been able to provide the answer
(because in one case the fielder was standing in the way and the X RAY
could not show us the hotspot) that we should avoid it altogether.
That even though it is superior to having only decisions by the on
field umpire (when it has proven to be helpful to even the on field
umpires) even then because it could be argued that at rare times it
may not be able to give the answer (like in the above example) so we
must chuck it away. So, idiots like you would I guess throw out all
the laws that do not convict people or our entire justice system
because at times even innocent people do get prosecuted. I guess in
that tiny thing you call a brain which is actually brainless you would
simply throw out the baby with the bathwater. So, since our entire
justice system cannot give us 100 percent justice we must chuck it all
away.
Your logic or should I say illogic is that "Even though DRS is
superior to having just on field umpires, we must chuck it away since
we don't have perfection."
Is that what you are trying to say. Or you just enjoy writing your
useless drivel which has no point. Which is like you. A person (term
loosely mentioned here) with no reason to exist in life.
Call Centre
Jan 22, 2012, 3:00:08 AM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 8:31 am, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
> "mohan Singh" <singhmohan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Majority of rsc'ers just dont get understand "slightly" complex issues.- Hide quoted text -
We understand them far better than an idiot like you whose name now
should really be free of any thought. Since you have no thought
(certainly no original thought) and simply either parrot things or
write things which others have said way before you.
wrote:
> "mohan Singh" <singhmohan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
We understand them far better than an idiot like you whose name now
should really be free of any thought. Since you have no thought
(certainly no original thought) and simply either parrot things or
write things which others have said way before you.
FreedomOfThought
Jan 22, 2012, 3:08:21 AM1/22/12
to
"Call Centre" <outsourci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fd929d5-7e84-4845...@p3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Your molecule brain is NOT capable of seeing the big picture and
understand the "slightly complex" issues of the current DRS system.
Call Centre
Jan 22, 2012, 3:18:41 AM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 1:08 pm, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
> "Call Centre" <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> understand the "slightly complex" issues of the current DRS system.- Hide quoted text -
You are not just an idiot. Some idiots know how idiotic they are. In
your case you lack any understanding of how stupid you are and how
superior others are to you. That is your biggest failing. Since some
idiots know they are idiots and respect others who are superior to
them. You are an idiot who lacks that basic understanding. That is why
you bray like the donkey you are. I have posted to you something and
go and find my earlier posts which I have said. Read them and then
hopefully you will shut up. But knowing you, you probably won't even
understand them and will continue to bray like the donkey you are and
post your useless drivel which you try to pass off as something
meaningful. More like meaningless which is your entire existence.
wrote:
> "Call Centre" <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You are not just an idiot. Some idiots know how idiotic they are. In
your case you lack any understanding of how stupid you are and how
superior others are to you. That is your biggest failing. Since some
idiots know they are idiots and respect others who are superior to
them. You are an idiot who lacks that basic understanding. That is why
you bray like the donkey you are. I have posted to you something and
go and find my earlier posts which I have said. Read them and then
hopefully you will shut up. But knowing you, you probably won't even
understand them and will continue to bray like the donkey you are and
post your useless drivel which you try to pass off as something
meaningful. More like meaningless which is your entire existence.
David North
Jan 22, 2012, 4:56:33 AM1/22/12
to
"Vijay Sharma" <viz.nirva...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d50052b6-1d0f-4e33...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...
for instance, if the umpire gives the batsman out based on a sound, the
decision should not be overturned simply because of a lack of a spot on
Hotspot; if there is other evidence, such as a spot showing contact between
bat and pad or ball and pad, which would explain the sound, then that is a
different matter. It also doesn't mean that Hotspot should not be used to
overturn a decision when it does show contact.
--
David North
news:d50052b6-1d0f-4e33...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...
"The question is how much must we trust it. Let us assume that the spot
showing up necessarily means there was contact. So at least the false
positives are ruled out. However, does it show the spot everytime
there is a nick? It doesn't seem to. So when do we trust it when it
dunn show the nick?"
That's exactly what I'm saying: no spot does not mean no contact. Therefore,
showing up necessarily means there was contact. So at least the false
positives are ruled out. However, does it show the spot everytime
there is a nick? It doesn't seem to. So when do we trust it when it
dunn show the nick?"
for instance, if the umpire gives the batsman out based on a sound, the
decision should not be overturned simply because of a lack of a spot on
Hotspot; if there is other evidence, such as a spot showing contact between
bat and pad or ball and pad, which would explain the sound, then that is a
different matter. It also doesn't mean that Hotspot should not be used to
overturn a decision when it does show contact.
--
David North
FreedomOfThought
Jan 23, 2012, 12:17:13 AM1/23/12
to
news:235096e9-05a4-4741...@s8g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
You have a 2 yrd old's brain in your 40+ yr old body.
You are the "most immature Indian poster on rsc".
You are the "most immature Indian poster on rsc".
FreedomOfThought
Jan 23, 2012, 12:17:46 AM1/23/12
to
news:4948f125-335f-466e...@nf9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
mick
Jan 23, 2012, 11:27:26 AM1/23/12
to
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
0 new messages