Technology Wont Help Umpiring
Will Spencer
Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the bails
broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was either
cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
again.
By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
-ws
prakmel
> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the bails
> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was either
> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
> again.
I think that you have misunderstood the system.
He clearly has shown that he has the pre-requisites of being an Elite
umpire, especially since he has aided the Aussies.
>
> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
Wrong again. Anybody who criticises these blatantly wrong decisions is
biased and wishing to prevent Australia from getting their record-
equalling win.
Surely you don't want them to be stopped at 15 :-)
>
> -ws
Wog George
"Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
show his foot hovering above its shadow until the foot never met the shadow
once planted on the ground. The shadow was actually a bowlers footmark and
Symond's foot was actually grounded sooner than it appeared. You must also
consider that the boot made contact on its toe and then compressed as
pressure was applied.
The view from square leg was also inconclusive but suggested that he may
have been out. There probably needs to be some kind of sensors to detect
when the bails are removed because seeing one end of the bail rise from the
stump is not sufficient for the batsman to be given out. The bail must be
completely removed, and I can only extrapolate what I saw to determine from
that replay whether it was out because the critical moment was between
frames. It could have gone either way.
The view from long off seemed to be the best one although there was a slight
hill obscuring the actual point of contact with the ground.
At what point do you say the bails broke? Did you see both ends removed
from the top of the stumps? I saw the bail start to lift in one frame and
then the stumps were in disarray in the next. He wasn't out in the first
frame of which I speak, and he was probably home in the second. In between,
he was probably out. The term "probably" implies doubt, and the benefit of
the doubt goes with the batsman. The foot may or may not have been grounded
in the second frame but it was difficult to tell.
Note that I didn't simply watch Nein's slo-mo's as they were broadcast. I
watched each one about a dozen times. I half expected him to be given not
out, but I wouldn't have grumbled a bit if Bruce had gone for the red
button.
--
George
"I just wonder if I could get a baby real quick?" - Hat McCullough - 10 July
2002
Will Spencer
I guess I should be rooting for our Aussie bro's accross the ditch but to
be honest, when NZ is not playing I couldn't really give a rats arse who
wins. But I do enjoy watching good fair cricket, and both these teams have
world class players.
-ws
JPD
wrote:
> It wasn't as cut and dried as all that.
Super slow-mo required for third umpire referrals? It's not being
used for much at the moment, just as a backdrop for some licensed
elevator music inserted in lieu of actual analysis of the game.
--
JPD
Rodney Hampson
"Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
Yeah no kiwi has any bias against Australia at all....
There was doubt, there was a difference between his foot fully planted and
it touching the ground, it was very hard to tell when it came into contact
with the ground..
Will Spencer
Get a grip, even all three Aussie TV commentators said it was out. His foot
was clearly not grounded when the bails broke.
-ws
Wog George
"JPD" <john_p...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:806cbcb0-4547-4b5d...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
and use the good stuff for the third umpire. We need super slo-mo square of
the wicket on both sides and at each end (as a minimum), and sensors to
detect when a bail has been completely removed. Maybe a bell in the ball so
the umpire knows which direction to look.
--
George
"Kyle, I swear, if I didn't have a guy's hand up my asshole right now, I'd
leap across the room and kick you in the nuts" - Eric Cartman - 19 March
2003
Rodney Hampson
"Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
Easy for the coms to be certain, the decision isn't on their heads. The
umpire couldn't conclusively say he was out, benefit of the doubt, its not a
new concept.
Fran
> "Will Spencer" <w...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
>
> news:145od68xell50.1wqx3bka3p46v$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:31:36 GMT, Rodney Hampson wrote:
>
> >>news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> >>> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the
> >>> bails
> >>> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
> >>> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was
> >>> either
> >>> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
> >>> again.
>
> >>> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
>
> >> Yeah no kiwi has any bias against Australia at all....
>
> >> There was doubt, there was a difference between his foot fully planted
> >> and
> >> it touching the ground, it was very hard to tell when it came into
> >> contact
> >> with the ground..
>
> > Get a grip, even all three Aussie TV commentators said it was out. His
> > foot
> > was clearly not grounded when the bails broke.
>
> Easy for the coms to be certain, the decision isn't on their heads. The
> umpire couldn't conclusively say he was out, benefit of the doubt, its not a
> new concept
I've never seen 'benefit of the doubt' written into any version of the
Laws of Cricket or playing condition.
Fran
alvey
Nothing there at all in fact.
alvey
dechucka
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b220ecd4-e917-42da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
you are right no " benefit of the doubt" he was not out.
Fran
Wog George
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b220ecd4-e917-42da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Laws of Cricket or playing condition.
>
Law 27.6 is close. It specifically mention consultation with the other
umpire, but says that if there is any doubt then the decision will be Not
Out.
27.6: Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own
jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire
may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on
this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation,
there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not out.
--
George
"I wish I could have tomorrow all over again" - Rick Kelly - 16 September
2007
Will_S
"Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the bails
> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was either
> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
> again.
"Clearly" that one word reduces you post to worthless and the orhers just
show your bias
>
> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
You are a fuckin Kiwi and in the whole world there is nothing more biased
against Australia
prakmel
> "Will Spencer" <w...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
Amazing how Will S is trying to pretend he is not Will Spencer by
taking up both sides of the dispute. Must have a lot of spare time.
Market Theory
wrote:
> There probably needs to be some kind of sensors to detect
> when the bails are removed because seeing one end of the bail rise from the
> stump is not sufficient for the batsman to be given out. The bail must be
Maybe it would be easier to change the law so that when the bails are
dislodged in a stumping the wicket is deemed to have been broken when
the ball (or glove holding the ball) makes contact with the stumps/
bail. In fact why not ditch all this silly business about bails (did
the wind dislodge it? what if it jumps up and falls back? what if it
jumps up and lands crosswise on the top of a stump and stays there?
etc) and just make the test for stumpings, runouts and bowleds the
balls contact with the stumps? much easier to instrument the stumps to
detect contact than to instrument the bails in a way that meets all
the requirements of making a determination under the current rules.
--mt.
Rodney Hampson
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b220ecd4-e917-42da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Fran
Yep I clearly made that up :|
Rodney Ulyate
I was going to ask you (again) in a separate post to prove your manic
accusations against me, but, now that I've seen this, the
convenience-value of shooting two fowls with one bullet is rather too
great to ignore.
You really are a funny sort, Pratmel, relentlessly taking up the
pseudonym-slating cudgels on nothing more than the suspicions of your
obviously guilt-laden mind, before running cravenly for the hills
whenever your claims are questioned. Now, though, would be as good a
time as any to alter the incriminating trend.
--
Rodney Ulyate
Interviewer: "What's your favourite animal?"
Steve Waugh: "Merv Hughes."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Will Spencer
> "Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
> news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the bails
>> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
>> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was either
>> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
>> again.
>
> "Clearly" that one word reduces you post to worthless and the orhers just
> show your bias
His foot wasn't planted when the bails broke. Watch the replay, it's
clearly out.
>> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
>
> You are a fuckin Kiwi and in the whole world there is nothing more biased
> against Australia
Bullshit. The only thing I'm biased for is correct umpiring decisions.
-ws
Will Spencer
Excuse me but he is not me and I am not him. Please don't insult me,
because that other Will is a complete Goose.
-ws
alvey
>
> I was going to ask you (again) in a separate post to prove your manic
> accusations against me, but, now that I've seen this, the
> convenience-value of shooting two fowls with one bullet is rather too
> great to ignore.
>
> You really are a funny sort, Pratmel, relentlessly taking up the
> pseudonym-slating cudgels on nothing more than the suspicions of your
> obviously guilt-laden mind, before running cravenly for the hills
> whenever your claims are questioned. Now, though, would be as good a
> time as any to alter the incriminating trend.
Latest odds on PM response:
$1.10 - The Ignore
$1.10 - Sameold sameold. "lol. You're really persistent Colin :-)"
$1.75 - Craven hill-running
$75 - Admission of stoopidity.
alvey
dechucka
"Wog George" <wog-NotThi...@amd-p.com> wrote in message
news:XGKej.11592$2S2....@fe095.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b220ecd4-e917-42da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I've never seen 'benefit of the doubt' written into any version of the
>> Laws of Cricket or playing condition.
>>
>
> Law 27.6 is close. It specifically mention consultation with the other
> umpire, but says that if there is any doubt then the decision will be Not
> Out.
>
> 27.6: Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own
> jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other
> umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the
> latter on this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after
> consultation, there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not
> out.
drawing a long bow here because it is not referring to a decision by AN
umpire
dechucka
"Rodney Hampson" <r_ha...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:k7Nej.30729$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
seems you did
>
>
Fran
wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b220ecd4-e917-42da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I've never seen 'benefit of the doubt' written into any version of the
> > Laws of Cricket or playing condition.
>
> Law 27.6 is close. It specifically mention consultation with the other
> umpire, but says that if there is any doubt then the decision will be Not
> Out.
>
> 27.6: Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own
> jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire
> may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on
> this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation,
> there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not out.
>
OK, fair enough, but that that doesn't amount to a condition giving
batsmen the 'benefit of the doubt'. This maxim is something invented
by the Channel 9 commentary cabal.
When you think about it, it's an absurd contention. In criminal
matters, it's plain why the maxim of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the
evidentiary standard, but in a game of cricket, what is being
allocated are playing advantages in a zero sum game. The 'balance of
probability' is a much better fit.
If there's an argument that it's a greater distortion of the flow of a
cricket game to dismiss a batsman in circumstances where some people
might reasonably doubt the requirements for dismissal had been met
than to allow him to continue when most reasonable people (including
those who were doubtful) thought on balance that they probably had,
then I'd like to hear it.
Fran
Will_S
"Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:34:50 +1100, Will_S wrote:
>
>> "Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
>> news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the
>>> bails
>>> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
>>> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was
>>> either
>>> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
>>> again.
>>
>> "Clearly" that one word reduces you post to worthless and the orhers
>> just
>> show your bias
>
> His foot wasn't planted when the bails broke. Watch the replay, it's
> clearly out.
It doesnt have to be planted moron.......just brushing the ground is good
enough and a "2D" picture doesnt show it clearly
>
>>> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
>>
>> You are a fuckin Kiwi and in the whole world there is nothing more biased
>> against Australia
>
> Bullshit. The only thing I'm biased for is correct umpiring decisions.
oh bullshit, read your posts you moron and it sticks out more then Johhny
Holmes
driz
Technology can say "yes he is out", "no he is notout", or "i cant say
it for sure". Why cant we listen to tech in the first two cases?
Btw, I dont think Hawkeye is that reliable.
Rodney Ulyate
All of R510.94 in this country. Look for your R6.82 in the post.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"All you Aussies are a bunch of hicks who don't know the first thing
about cricket."
Ian Botham
prakmel
I know that you are not him. I was just being sarcastic to the
'complete Goose' as I am well aware of his bias. On the other hand,
you are a sensible poster.
Hope this clears it up. Apologies for having lumped you with the other
Will.
prakmel
Colin, don't be such an idiot. Anybody knows that the two Wills are
different since Will Spencer is far too sensible to be lumped with the
Will S Aussie.
On the other hand, you are a liar out and out. HTH.
Regards to Vanessa and the kids.
Wog George
"Market Theory" <qem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:022a6cc9-9f9c-4e7d...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
In answer to one of your questions, if a bail leaps up, pirouettes, tumbles,
whatever, and lands back on the stumps, it is not out.
--
George
"Dude, you don't understand. I.. I'm a Jew. I have a few hangups about
killing Jesus!" - Kyle Broflofski - 4 April 2007
Wog George
"dechucka" <dech...@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477bf7cc$0$25516$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
connection with a Not Out resulting directly from the doubt. "doubtful"
appears twice as well, one of those also appearing in 27.6 while the other
was in reference to the accuracy of scoring. It was worth a shot.
Wog George
>
> OK, fair enough, but that that doesn't amount to a condition giving
> batsmen the 'benefit of the doubt'. This maxim is something invented
> by the Channel 9 commentary cabal.
>
Channel 9 has cabal TV?
Presumably you've only watched the game since WSC and never watched any
other telecast. They used the expression on the ABC prior to Packer buying
the rights and they use it around the world.
The expression has been associated with cricket for at least 160 years going
by this quote from http://bob.barber.en.euroterra.com.pl/ ... "and even then
the Laws had to be reinforced in 1845 by removing the benefit of the doubt
from the bowler in the matter of his hand's height when delivering the
ball". The expression itself may not have actually been used in 1845 (I
have no reason to "doubt" it though) but it would seem that the concept
certainly did.
--
George
"Dolphins, Eskimos, who cares?! It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie
crap!" - Eric Cartman - 20 August 1997
alvey
Sensational effort! It just can't get any stoopider than this. Well done
Prakash Melwani!
alvey
Will Spencer
> "Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
> news:1dk6y2rb8mxd2$.7e103c64z6sa.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:34:50 +1100, Will_S wrote:
>>
>>> "Will Spencer" <wi...@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
>>> news:1opfd2v9jv72x$.1ukdpsp1d3dnh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
>>>> Symonds was clearly out stumped - his foot was not planted when the
>>>> bails
>>>> broke NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER but despite the aid of technology Symonds was
>>>> still given Not Out. Therefore the 3rd umpire (A Queenslander) was
>>>> either
>>>> cheating or is blind and incompetent. Either way he should never umpire
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> "Clearly" that one word reduces you post to worthless and the orhers
>>> just
>>> show your bias
>>
>> His foot wasn't planted when the bails broke. Watch the replay, it's
>> clearly out.
>
> It doesnt have to be planted moron.......just brushing the ground is good
> enough
It wasn't planted or brushing the ground.
> and a "2D" picture doesnt show it clearly
Yes it does, the foot was clearly off the ground.
>>
>>>> By the way I'm a Kiwi not an Indian so no bias here.
>>>
>>> You are a fuckin Kiwi and in the whole world there is nothing more biased
>>> against Australia
>>
>> Bullshit. The only thing I'm biased for is correct umpiring decisions.
>
> oh bullshit, read your posts you moron and it sticks out more then Johhny
> Holmes
There is no reason why I would be biased to India or Australia. I'm a
neutral observer.
-ws
Fran
wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:64820de8-27a9-4a41...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > OK, fair enough, but that that doesn't amount to a condition giving
> > batsmen the 'benefit of the doubt'. This maxim is something invented
> > by the Channel 9 commentary cabal.
>
> Channel 9 has cabal TV?
>
They should
> Presumably you've only watched the game since WSC and never watched any
> other telecast. They used the expression on the ABC prior to Packer buying
> the rights and they use it around the world.
>
> The expression has been associated with cricket for at least 160 years going
> by this quote fromhttp://bob.barber.en.euroterra.com.pl/... "and even then
> the Laws had to be reinforced in 1845 by removing the benefit of the doubt
> from the bowler in the matter of his hand's height when delivering the
> ball". The expression itself may not have actually been used in 1845 (I
> have no reason to "doubt" it though) but it would seem that the concept
> certainly did.
>
I've been watching/listening since the late 60s
Fran
Will Spencer
Well it should be easy to test shouldn't it? Bowl a thousand balls with no
batsman and get hawkeye to calculate the path from about one meter from the
crease and compare the calculated results with the actual results of the
ball hitting the stumps or not.
-ws
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> Colin, don't be such an idiot.
That's impossible, Pratmel. You're inimitable.
> Anybody knows that the two Wills are different since Will Spencer
> is far too sensible to be lumped with the Will S Aussie.
Given that I rarely bother with either's posts (much as you rarely
bother with the truth), I'm afraid that that happy generalisation just
ain't right.
> On the other hand, you are a liar out and out. HTH.
Tempting as your craven soul finds hill-running, why not prove it this
time? I have backed up my case amply; it is high time that you reciprocate.
> Regards to Vanessa and the kids.
If you knew CDK as intimately as you pretend to, you would also know
that he has not posted for some time now -- and has very good reasons
for not doing so --, which makes my being him somewhat hard to believe.
The "regards" that you append to your every post to me are frankly sick,
and a clear indicator of what manner of person you are.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Aussies are big and empty, just like their country."
Ian Botham
Ian Galbraith
I've been watching the game since the 74/75 Ashes series and benefit of
the doubt has been used as a general term ever since I can remember.
--
"Read less, more TV" - House
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> Get a grip, even all three Aussie TV commentators said it was out. His foot
> was clearly not grounded when the bails broke.
Not all commentators thought it should have been out, Kerry O'Keefe for
one thought there was enough doubt.
--
"Politicians are a lot like diapers. They should be changed frequently,
and for the same reasons." - Man of the Year
Fran
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:36:42 +1300, Will Spencer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Get a grip, even all three Aussie TV commentators said it was out. His foot
> > was clearly not grounded when the bails broke.
>
> Not all commentators thought it should have been out, Kerry O'Keefe for
> one thought there was enough doubt.
>
tongue-in-cheek. He was sledging Harsha Bogle (sp?)
Fran
Fran
The salient point is whether there is any good foundation for it or is
just an oft-repeated misconception about the Laws of Cricket.
Is there any good policy reason for having such an interpretation of
the laws?
Fran
dechucka
Which is a very interesting interpretation of Law 28 1, which only mentions
the bails being completely removed, not being removed permanently, from the
top of the stumps
dechucka
>
> "Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:64820de8-27a9-4a41...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> OK, fair enough, but that that doesn't amount to a condition giving
>> batsmen the 'benefit of the doubt'. This maxim is something invented
>>
>
> Channel 9 has cabal TV?
only in Afghanistan and original typo fixed
Wog George
"Ian Galbraith" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:183ypain52tud$.1hbo02yrzaqky$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> I've been watching the game since the 74/75 Ashes series and benefit of
> the doubt has been used as a general term ever since I can remember.
>
>
Thommo was an instant hit with me, and I've loved the game ever since.
--
George
"If you lose the big game, that little boy is gonna die faster than Steve
Irwin in a tank full of stingrays" - Cancer Doctor - 14 November 2006
draco664
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are two kinds of reliability questions with Hawkeye, though the
same points could be extended to include all new tech.
1) How accurate is it estimating the flight, which was the point made
by driz.
2) How reliable is the tech itself? Will it run every delivery
accurately, or does it need manual manipulation to get it right. If
so, technical difficulties resulting in the tech not being available
for every delivery means it cannot be used by the umpires.
Draco
Ian Galbraith
It can't be both?
--
"No, I’m a social democrat. I believe in capitalism as the only viable
motivating force to create wealth. But I believe that there have to be
certain social frameworks that allow for a distribution of a share of
that wealth throughout the classes." - David Simon
Rodney Ulyate
> pratmel wrote:
[...]
>> On the other hand, you are a liar out and out. HTH.
> Tempting as your craven soul finds hill-running, why not prove it this
> time? I have backed up my case amply; it is high time that you
> reciprocate.
Oi! Coward! Where's that proof?
<snip>
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Life is hard. After all, it kills you."
Katharine Hepburn
Will Spencer
We'd need to know more about how it works, but I doubt there is manual
manipulation. I believe the ball path is "calculated" based on certain
attributes fed by several camera angles relating to speed and trajectory.
-ws