tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8645282373545856222.post3584485972618172234..comments2023-10-11T20:32:38.912+05:30Comments on CRIC - SIS: THE DRAVID DISMISSAL DEBATEAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16733104559445244259noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8645282373545856222.post-76064138543270492382011-08-22T20:54:49.047+05:302011-08-22T20:54:49.047+05:30Russ, Davis may not be able to say directly that i...Russ, Davis may not be able to say directly that it was out / not out, but he is allowed to say that there is / isn't an edge. That is an objective factual information being transmitted, just like all the other examples you have given.<br /><br />The third umpires have to decide whether, in their opinion, there is an edge or not. In Tikolo's case, there Oxenford didn't find conclusive evidence to call it an edge. In Dravid's decision, Davis found the evidence conclusive enough to relay to Tucker that there was a slight deflection that could have been the edge!<br /><br />I know that comparing these two decisions in different situations by different umpires is no scientific way of deducing things. I stated in my piece that there is no real "parallel" case that I could find to compare it with. So comparisons may well be futile!<br /><br />But I still went ahead with the exercise because these decisions need to start looking consistent if DRS has to gain credibility around the world. Every now and again, someone flings mud at it, and it's not just in India. Just because VVS Laxman was ruled not out, the English team suggested that they don't think Hot Spot is a good enough tool!<br /><br />Yes, no tool is perfect as it will never be. But consistency, like in run out / stumping decisions where we have the age-old saying that the line belongs to the umpire, will help in a big way to garner some credibility for a still developing system.<br /><br />Run outs and stumpings where the bat is on the crease are marginal calls too. Yet, they are never (or hardly ever) debated today! The DRS needs to take a step in that direction!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733104559445244259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8645282373545856222.post-38362485186391313982011-08-22T18:13:18.467+05:302011-08-22T18:13:18.467+05:30Shridhar, Davis cannot say whether there was an ed...Shridhar, Davis cannot say whether there was an edge, or if it was out either, only what he sees on the various pieces of vision, including anything important not being asked by the on-field umpire. Hence all he could say was: there was/wasn't a deflection, the hot-spot is/isn't inconclusive/blocked, the sound is isn't there and is or isn't certainly bat. <br /><br />It isn't inconsistent if the central umpire in the Tikolo case held a strong opinion (rightly or wrongly) that there was no edge, and concluded (rightly or wrongly) that the further evidence was insufficient. It is a problem of Bayesian reasoning, with two stages, not an independent review. The ICC is very clear about the process, even if it doesn't quite match the supposed motivations for the implementation.<br /><br />As to whether it should look consistent, perhaps. As you know I wouldn't have a review system, because marginal calls will always be marginal. But if there is to be a review, then most decisions will be made on marginal calls, and there is reasonable grounds for making the highest probability decision, rather than merely over-turning howlers.Russhttp://idlesummers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8645282373545856222.post-48829946939356036392011-08-22T14:09:45.816+05:302011-08-22T14:09:45.816+05:30Russ, I know that the third umpire can only relay ...Russ, I know that the third umpire can only relay answers in objective terms to the on-field umpire's questions.<br /><br />That is exactly why I blamed Billy Bowden (the on-field umpire) for Ian Bell's LBW review in the World Cup. But here, the responsibility lies with the third umpire for a bat-pad call.<br /><br />What will the on-field umpire ask the third umpire? He'll most definitely ask if there was an edge. So the judgement of whether there was an edge or not was entirely Steve Davis', and not Rod Tucker's.<br /><br />I admit that the latter part of what you say might well be true. Tucker's original belief in his not out decision must have been weak. That is why he overturned it.<br /><br />So like I said in the post, I don't dispute the decision. The right one has been made, and the batsman himself admitted to an edge. But the question on umpires' consistency still remains, and is I have tried to highlight it with the help of Steve Tikolo's dismissal.<br /><br />You say that the procedure "is to outside eyes viewing only the tv footage, a mess of contradictions and inconsistencies." That may be so! But if the DRS has to become a daily exercise in cricket, it has to sort out that mess for the outside eyes too, for it is these outside eyes that ultimately run the game, don't they?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733104559445244259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8645282373545856222.post-439749612743041452011-08-22T10:20:46.102+05:302011-08-22T10:20:46.102+05:30Shridhar, your premise is false, which makes your ...Shridhar, your premise is false, which makes your questions irrelevant. The third umpire does not make the decision. The third umpire answers questions and relays information to the central umpire regarding the decision. <br /><br />Hence, the person who over-turned it was not Davis, but Tucker: his original belief in the decision was sufficiently weakly held that the evidence Davis provided, even if that was only evidence of a deflection, was sufficient for him to over-turn his decision.<br /><br />Once you move into the correct realm of who made the decision, then there is no way to argue the review was right or wrong to over-turn, without knowledge of what Tucker thought prior to the review. Because the review is derived from existing beliefs, the umpires can be inconsistent with the tv evidence and remain consistent with the DRS procedure. Even if that procedure, is to outside eyes viewing only the tv footage, a mess of contradictions and inconsistencies.Russhttp://idlesummers.comnoreply@blogger.com