info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why all DRS obssessed Westerners should be ASHAMED
4 views
Skip to first unread message
FreedomOfThought
Jan 2, 2012, 3:47:05 PM1/2/12
to
DRS, Melbourne Test, Australia vs India, Greg Baum, Hussey, Cowan, Ponting
Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
your closed brains and let it sink in.
==============================================================
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111230-1pfk6.html#ixzz1iIJNBwNj
Playing with controversy
Greg Baum
December 31, 2011
ANY contemplation of the role of the DRS in cricket must firstly be referred to the DSR:
double standards review. On Boxing Day, the anguish could be heard from one shore to the
other as Mike Hussey and Ed Cowan were given out by what appeared to be flawed but
unappealable decisions. On days three and four, scarcely a peep was heard as Ricky Ponting
and Hussey, twice, were given not out, but shown to be out by technology to which India -
by its own choice - had no recourse.
It is important to note that Hussey and Cowan reacted with admirable equanimity. Hussey,
conscious of the attention of television cameras, howled to the heavens twice, but did not
swear. Cowan contented himself with a general observation about the need for a universal
system, a little self-recrimination for playing such a loose shot after such a long vigil,
and the age-old philosophical certainty that it all evens out in the end. Enough wrongs
eventually make a right.
In cricket, everything is seen through prisms of parochialism. India's rejection of the
decision review system is stubborn, even contrary, but it is not simply a reflex to the
fact that almost every other country supports it. It is not India flexing its muscle for
the sake of it. Four years ago, India - more than any other country - had cause to
subscribe to the DRS. Its troubles on that tour began on the first day of the Sydney Test
when Andrew Symonds was plainly caught behind from Ishant Sharma, but was given not out
and went on to make a big century. There were many other aggravated matters in that
notorious match instant retrospectivity might have eased.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Or not. Simply, most in the Indian hierarchy distrust the DRS - with reason. It is not
foolproof. Only on line decisions - run-outs, stumpings, no-balls - is it reasonably
reliable. An adjacent camera should in most instances tell the story. But the more
sophisticated technologies - ball-tracking, Hot Spot, the snickometer - still depend on
degrees of electronic guesswork. Their several developers admit it. Hot Spot can be fooled
when a batsman swings quickly, as Cowan did. It is also flaky when it comes to deflections
from different parts of the glove. In some instances it has shown nothing when a batsman,
knowing he has hit it, has walked.
Ball-tracking is equally dubious. It ought not to be forgotten that it is a
computer-generated graphic re-imagining the delivery, not replaying it. In a recent
incident, ball-tracking and Hot Spot showed the same ball to be pitching in different
places. What ball-tracking shows after the ball pitches is sometimes baffling to the
instincts of all who have played or watched the game. In Sri Lanka in August, Phil Hughes
was condemned by this dodgy evidence, prompting the umpires to make a report to the ICC.
In Hobart last month, New Zealand's Jesse Ryder also was dudded.
Seemingly, the quality - and therefore accuracy - of the DRS technology varies from
telecaster to telecaster and country to country, depending on cost - an inequitable
arrangement. In at least one early incarnation, an operator admitted that ball-tracking
was programmed to make an educated guess about things it had failed to ''see''. Still the
several current forms of the DRS have been shown often to be inconclusive, occasionally
contradictory and sometimes incontrovertibly wrong.
Yet in a short time, the DRS has come to be accepted as infallible. This fits a tendency
in all walks of life to devolve responsibility, if possible, to inanimate devices. Fans
dwell on it. For players, to walk or not to walk is no longer an ethical issue; the
technology will decide. Umpires yield to technology, just to be safe. Two of the effects
of the DRS are to show that umpires mostly are right and, at the same time, to shake their
confidence.
At the MCG, one referred a muted run-out appeal. A replay showed that the batsman was past
not just the crease, but the stumps. The convention of the benefit of the doubt has been
trashed. Sometimes, by the very length of the third umpire's deliberations, all know that
there is doubt, yet on fourth, fifth and sixth inspection, the batsman is given out
anyway.
At other times, an out decision is re-referred to the standing umpire on the basis that it
is too close for the third umpire to call, which puts the umpire in the invidious position
of having to stand by his decision when all that has been established for certain is
doubt.
None of this is to assert that there is no place for the DRS in cricket. But it is to
agree with India - to the extent that the world is owed a better explanation than it has
been given about the veracity of the DRS technology, and that it needs to be standardised
if it is to be fair. I would add that cricket needs to wean itself off an almost infantile
dependence. When skilful sportsmen, experienced umpires and impassioned fans are reduced
to dwelling on a computer's imperfect guesstimate about whether more or less than half the
ball would have hit leg stump, cricket becomes a cartoon.
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111230-1pfk6.html#ixzz1iKs9bWYz
Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
your closed brains and let it sink in.
==============================================================
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111230-1pfk6.html#ixzz1iIJNBwNj
Playing with controversy
Greg Baum
December 31, 2011
ANY contemplation of the role of the DRS in cricket must firstly be referred to the DSR:
double standards review. On Boxing Day, the anguish could be heard from one shore to the
other as Mike Hussey and Ed Cowan were given out by what appeared to be flawed but
unappealable decisions. On days three and four, scarcely a peep was heard as Ricky Ponting
and Hussey, twice, were given not out, but shown to be out by technology to which India -
by its own choice - had no recourse.
It is important to note that Hussey and Cowan reacted with admirable equanimity. Hussey,
conscious of the attention of television cameras, howled to the heavens twice, but did not
swear. Cowan contented himself with a general observation about the need for a universal
system, a little self-recrimination for playing such a loose shot after such a long vigil,
and the age-old philosophical certainty that it all evens out in the end. Enough wrongs
eventually make a right.
In cricket, everything is seen through prisms of parochialism. India's rejection of the
decision review system is stubborn, even contrary, but it is not simply a reflex to the
fact that almost every other country supports it. It is not India flexing its muscle for
the sake of it. Four years ago, India - more than any other country - had cause to
subscribe to the DRS. Its troubles on that tour began on the first day of the Sydney Test
when Andrew Symonds was plainly caught behind from Ishant Sharma, but was given not out
and went on to make a big century. There were many other aggravated matters in that
notorious match instant retrospectivity might have eased.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Or not. Simply, most in the Indian hierarchy distrust the DRS - with reason. It is not
foolproof. Only on line decisions - run-outs, stumpings, no-balls - is it reasonably
reliable. An adjacent camera should in most instances tell the story. But the more
sophisticated technologies - ball-tracking, Hot Spot, the snickometer - still depend on
degrees of electronic guesswork. Their several developers admit it. Hot Spot can be fooled
when a batsman swings quickly, as Cowan did. It is also flaky when it comes to deflections
from different parts of the glove. In some instances it has shown nothing when a batsman,
knowing he has hit it, has walked.
Ball-tracking is equally dubious. It ought not to be forgotten that it is a
computer-generated graphic re-imagining the delivery, not replaying it. In a recent
incident, ball-tracking and Hot Spot showed the same ball to be pitching in different
places. What ball-tracking shows after the ball pitches is sometimes baffling to the
instincts of all who have played or watched the game. In Sri Lanka in August, Phil Hughes
was condemned by this dodgy evidence, prompting the umpires to make a report to the ICC.
In Hobart last month, New Zealand's Jesse Ryder also was dudded.
Seemingly, the quality - and therefore accuracy - of the DRS technology varies from
telecaster to telecaster and country to country, depending on cost - an inequitable
arrangement. In at least one early incarnation, an operator admitted that ball-tracking
was programmed to make an educated guess about things it had failed to ''see''. Still the
several current forms of the DRS have been shown often to be inconclusive, occasionally
contradictory and sometimes incontrovertibly wrong.
Yet in a short time, the DRS has come to be accepted as infallible. This fits a tendency
in all walks of life to devolve responsibility, if possible, to inanimate devices. Fans
dwell on it. For players, to walk or not to walk is no longer an ethical issue; the
technology will decide. Umpires yield to technology, just to be safe. Two of the effects
of the DRS are to show that umpires mostly are right and, at the same time, to shake their
confidence.
At the MCG, one referred a muted run-out appeal. A replay showed that the batsman was past
not just the crease, but the stumps. The convention of the benefit of the doubt has been
trashed. Sometimes, by the very length of the third umpire's deliberations, all know that
there is doubt, yet on fourth, fifth and sixth inspection, the batsman is given out
anyway.
At other times, an out decision is re-referred to the standing umpire on the basis that it
is too close for the third umpire to call, which puts the umpire in the invidious position
of having to stand by his decision when all that has been established for certain is
doubt.
None of this is to assert that there is no place for the DRS in cricket. But it is to
agree with India - to the extent that the world is owed a better explanation than it has
been given about the veracity of the DRS technology, and that it needs to be standardised
if it is to be fair. I would add that cricket needs to wean itself off an almost infantile
dependence. When skilful sportsmen, experienced umpires and impassioned fans are reduced
to dwelling on a computer's imperfect guesstimate about whether more or less than half the
ball would have hit leg stump, cricket becomes a cartoon.
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111230-1pfk6.html#ixzz1iKs9bWYz
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 2, 2012, 3:58:33 PM1/2/12
to
"FreedomOfThought" <FreedomO...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
news:jdt54c$6g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
the DRS issue.
You westerners should somehow find "shame" and re-inject it into
your DNA.
RH
Jan 2, 2012, 4:38:57 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 8:58 pm, "FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer"
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayerdeletet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
> >http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111...
out because the umpire made a wrong decision and they could not refer
it because there is no DRS... RH
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayerdeletet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jdt54c$6g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS, Melbourne Test, Australia vs India, Greg Baum, Hussey, Cowan, Ponting
>
> > Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
>
> > This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
> > analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
>
> > This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
> > your closed brains and let it sink in.
>
> > ==============================================================
>
> >http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111...
> news:jdt54c$6g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DRS, Melbourne Test, Australia vs India, Greg Baum, Hussey, Cowan, Ponting
>
> > Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
>
> > This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
> > analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
>
> > This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
> > your closed brains and let it sink in.
>
> > ==============================================================
>
>
> Not one western cunt on rsc came up with this simple dissection of
> the DRS issue.
Except the "western cunt" who wrote it you mean? RH
> Not one western cunt on rsc came up with this simple dissection of
> the DRS issue.
>
> You westerners should somehow find "shame" and re-inject it into
> your DNA.
I would be more impressed if IndiaBlubber did not whine when they lost
> You westerners should somehow find "shame" and re-inject it into
> your DNA.
out because the umpire made a wrong decision and they could not refer
it because there is no DRS... RH
FreedomOfThought
Jan 3, 2012, 3:57:09 AM1/3/12
to
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95143cda-d2cf-40c7...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
English is your native language. You should be ASHAMED.
> You westerners should somehow find "shame" and re-inject it into
> your DNA.
>>I would be more impressed if IndiaBlubber did not whine when they lost
>>out because the umpire made a wrong decision and they could not refer
>>it because there is no DRS... RH
be objective.
Frampy
Jan 3, 2012, 6:34:39 AM1/3/12
to
On Jan 3, 6:47 am, "FreedomOfThought" <FreedomOfThou...@Humanity.com>
wrote:
> Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111...
What the fuck do westerners have to do with it?
India is the ONLY COUNTRY that doesn't believe in DRS..... Maybe I'm
out of date, but last time I checked Pakistan was located next to
India and they accept DRS.
wrote:
> DRS, Melbourne Test, Australia vs India, Greg Baum, Hussey, Cowan, Ponting
>
> Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
>
> This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
> analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
>
> This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
> your closed brains and let it sink in.
>
> ==============================================================
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/playing-with-controversy-20111...
>
> Why all DRS obssessed Western cricket fans should be ASHAMED of themselves.
>
> This column by Greg Baum is a perfect example of how an issue should be
> analysed to perfection without any preconceived notions and biases.
>
> This column will educate you more than any college degree if you open
> your closed brains and let it sink in.
>
> ==============================================================
>
What the fuck do westerners have to do with it?
India is the ONLY COUNTRY that doesn't believe in DRS..... Maybe I'm
out of date, but last time I checked Pakistan was located next to
India and they accept DRS.
mick
Jan 3, 2012, 8:12:27 AM1/3/12
to
"Frampy" <fram...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:639b70cc-7035-43d2...@u15g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
will_s
Jan 3, 2012, 8:38:17 PM1/3/12
to
0 new messages