Of the referral system, etc.

taipan wrote:

Josh Carney wrote:I am not saying that Hawkeye is more accurate only that it is more consistent and that it will get more accurate as things evolve.

More consistent than what?

A singular computer program is more consistent than an multi-personnelled elite umpiring panel

but then again

A stopped clock is more consistently correct than a working clock

Bollinger getting Umar Akmal sowed what referrals should be saved for. It was absolutely plum, and should have been given instantly.

Zat wrote:Bollinger getting Umar Akmal sowed what referrals should be saved for. It was absolutely plum, and should have been given instantly.

We'll win you across yet Zat. It's an improvement. (psssst - it's a good system).

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Zat wrote:Bollinger getting Umar Akmal sowed what referrals should be saved for. It was absolutely plum, and should have been given instantly.

We'll win you across yet Zat. It's an improvement. (psssst - it's a good system).

All along I've said I have no problem with the system being used for glaring mmistakes. That was one. The problem I have is the using of 'definitive' technology to enshrine 'doubt'. That's ludicrous. It makes no sense that a decision from the technology can go different ways, depending on who's asking the question. If you're asking technology to make a decision and remove doubt, then live with the decision, don't create artificial doubt.

It makes no sense that a decision from the technology can go different ways, depending on who's asking the question. If you're asking technology to make a decision and remove doubt, then live with the decision, don't create artificial doubt

.

You'd be a supporter of the model applied in tennis. You know what, I think it works with tennis. If a challenge comes then Hawkeye rules - it's accepted and everyone lives with it.

Cricket is different. The concept of "doubt" is funamental to the game - many would say that the game is better for that. We agree that Hawkeye isn't perfect. We know that umpires aren't perfect. We'd probably agree that better decisions are better for the game. We know that the game at all levels requires umpires so it's probably not a good idea to be consisently implying that they are wrong and dickheads because hawkeye says (in your tennis style manner) so. I honestly prefer it whereby we say that there must be more than marginal evidence from Hawkeye (or whatever) for the umpire to change the decision that has been made.

Zat wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Zat wrote:Bollinger getting Umar Akmal sowed what referrals should be saved for. It was absolutely plum, and should have been given instantly.

We'll win you across yet Zat. It's an improvement. (psssst - it's a good system).

All along I've said I have no problem with the system being used for glaring mmistakes. That was one. The problem I have is the using of 'definitive' technology to enshrine 'doubt'. That's ludicrous. It makes no sense that a decision from the technology can go different ways, depending on who's asking the question. If you're asking technology to make a decision and remove doubt, then live with the decision, don't create artificial doubt.

You know just between friends that really stupid.