Malcolm, who are you Conning?

Reading an interesting article by News Limited's Senior Cricket Correspondent, Malcolm Conn in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of Sat, 6-Aug-11, just confirmed a few things I already know. Since this article is unavailable on-line, it is given below verbatim, in full, including two pictures.
_________________________________________________________________________
 Why India doesn't want to know about the technology that Australia can bring to Umpiring decisions: Malcolm Conn

These photos prove why India has been using third rate technology as an excuse to stop video umpires ruling on the leg before wicket decisions.

The photos (left) with the spars red dots highlights the cheap and inaccurate system the International Cricket Council used during the recent World cup, which raised India's ire.


The tightly packed white dots in the photo (right) shows the space age technology Channel Nine began using last season and will use again for the New Zealand and India series this summer.

The system used by the ICC through normal television cameras tracked the ball 26 times on its journey from bowler to batsman. Channel Nine's new technology, using six high speed cameras and fibre optic cable, tracks the ball 130 times on the same path, offering far greater accuracy. Nine now uses Eagle Eye, which is twice as good as the previous Hawk Eye and far superior to ICC's third rate system.

Executive producer of Nine's cricket coverage, Brad McNamara, fears confusion this summer because the full system will be used in two Tests against New Zealand but lbws will be excluded for the following series against India. "It will be interesting to see what happens," McNamara said.

Ricky Ponting is baffled as the rest of the cricket world by India's refusal to use technology that improves the accuracy of umpiring decisions.

END OF THE ARTICLE
_________________________________________________________________________

There you go...I am sure you will be surprised as much as I am to read some oxy-morons in above writing. By calling ICC's current technology (or Hawk Eye) as third rate and THEN saying India is using it as an EXCUSE to prevent UDRS is a typical jaundiced-eye, chip-on-the-shoulder, holier-than-thou western writing born out of immensely undiluted acidic reflux, that simple people like me call "jealousy". If the Hawk Eye is third rate (he has used that qualification twice in the article), then isn't India's stand on refusing to use it vindicated? D'uh?? Probably, Malcolm, that is what you also want to say, but something prevents you from saying? If the so-called high-profile writers are really keen to assess truth, won't you expect them to ask that question to the businesses commercializing the technology or its inventors? Won't it be logical to ask why Hawk Eye has NOW agreed to do more tests and generate data before ICC can accept it, only after BCCI and Indian team refused to accept it? I will tell you why. Because that would simply vindicate what Indian players and BCCI all along have been saying; that technology is still not fool-proof and they are correct in going with the on-field umpire's decision!! Instead of calling that as the real spirit of cricket, Indians are being pole-axed, in writings and TV commentaries. If claims in Malcolm's article are correct about Hawk Eye being third rate, it makes me wonder why all Pommy commentators on Sky commentary team in the current India-England series, are so keen to incessantly blame BCCI for not accepting that.



Let me be very clear; I am seriously impressed with all the "space-age" technical mambo-jumbo about high fps (frames per second) pictures delivered by fiber optic cable and ball tracking capability increasing by 130/26 = 5 times!! Wow! That's awesome, isn't it? So Malcolm, could you please tell me what fps is required now, to make the on-field umpire redundant??


I am yet to see hard core evidence that DRS of any kind, Hawk or Eagle, is fool-proof. And if not fool-proof, why not wait till more evidence is available? I will tell you why. Inventors need money to perform their experiments to generate data. By clever marketing gimmicks like these, all they are trying to do is get ICC and individual cricket boards to cough up the money to fine tune their "third rate" technology. What they do with that technology after it is developed sufficiently to be commercialized for other uses, is no concern of cricket boards or ICC. The commercial exploitation will line up the business's pockets. Hey, here is a gravy train. Let us jump on it; poor old cricketers who are now writers or commentators of some reputation, and those who have missed the gravy train, just can't resist this, now can they? And who would blame them? Of course for poor, all believing simpleton cricket fans like me (don't know about you), it is all in the interest of improving the game....oh yeah??

Don't get me wrong; I am no techno-phoebe. Quite the contrary; for a person who had not seen a computer, let alone use it, till the age of 37, I am pretty good at taking up technology. (if this blog is any evidence). I love the idea of incorporating new technologies to improve the game. However, being a scientist, I like to see experimental data under controlled conditions. Malcolm doesn't give any proof to his claim in this article, that "Channel Nine's Eagle Eye is TWICE as good as the Hawk Eye, and far superior to ICC's third rate system". I am sorry, mate, I can't understand. If the ball tracking along the path is 5 times more (130 to 26) than ICC's third rate Hawk Eye, isn't it 5 times more efficient? Modest Malcolm, certainly sounds oxy-moronic! Perhaps Eagle Eye has some data somewhere, but they are not comfortable in releasing/publishing that as yet. Perhaps by utilizing the big guns of the fourth estate (and fifth, being TV) they are aiming to obtain sufficient funding for their project? Cash for Comments? Those of us who live in Australia and are avid fans of yak-back radio, would surely recognise the syndrome, won't we??

If I was a Hawk or Eagle Eye inventor, first thing I would do is to publish that data to get confidence of players, officials and fans like me. I am yet to see that.

You know what, Malcolm, you have still missed the most important point in all this. Improving the ball tracking efficiency is great. What I fail to understand, is how does it improve PREDICTIVE PATH of the ball AFTER it has been intercepted by the batsman? What algorithms are used to extrapolate that path? Try and pitch the ball with the same energy (or pace) on same spot on day one and day five wicket, and I am sure it will travel differently; bounce and carry will vary significantly. Even when the ball hits either seam or the leather sides, it travels differently, from the same spot on the same wicket. That is one reason why top quality cricket is played on turf and not synthetic wicket. That is why we have been lamenting so much in recent times that cricket has become so much of a batsman's game, as wickets are now covered. That is why labels like "Flat track bullies" are applied to recent high scoring, record breaking batsmen when compared to past greats like Bradman, Hobbs or Hadley. Also, if a bowler bowls with a loose or cocked wrist, the ball travels at different pace after hitting the wicket. Often the ball swings after pitching in certain conditions. How will the so-claimed space age Hawk or Eagle Eye totally dependent upon the software algorithms, be able to pick up all of that?

At the end of all these arguments, I believe a well trained/experienced umpire's brain is the best available technology......still! Yes, they can be helped to some extent, by some technology to take the pressure off them. I like the ball pitch map, that tells an umpire without any doubts whether the ball pitched within the critical area or not. I am not convinced that an umpire's decision about the predictive path of the ball after it has been intercepted by the batsman, will be any less accurate than a set of high tech, high fps camera feeding the optic fibre and a computer. If all the technology was better than a well trained human brain which can re-calibrate it self after every ball, using the available information (as compared to a static software that needs input from data interpreted by a human), then why do we need human umpires??? No balls, number of balls bowled in an over, bowler or a batsman transgressing on playing area; all that can be done better by a machine. So umpires will be required only to listen to the quality of sledging and enforce what is bandied around these days as the spirit of cricket? So human umpires will become Cricket Cops? You, all of those who seriously swear by DRS, can you imagine how robotic the game will be? OK, you may argue, as long as correct decisions are made. Fair enough. However, is there a guarantee that even with the best available technology, 100% correct decisions will be made? That is why I still prefer Rauf Eye or a Taufel Eye over a Hawk Eye or an Eagle Eye.

You know what, being humans, we will forgive a human error, some times, eventually; but not a machine. Believe you me, if we have machines controlling games, it will become far more acrimonious because there will be claims that machines are more easy to manipulate than humans. With the kind of high tech mambo-jumbo, not every one's cup of tea to understand and control, the power of controlling the outcome of a game will shift into the hands of a handful of technicians, who instead of representing ICC and game, will be representing the commercial businesses owning/operating the technology. We saw how DRS was either manipulated or erroneously used in recently concluded  India V West Indies series, when the technician could not (or did not) produce correct replay frame to confirm that Dhoni was out of a no-ball!! How did the so called space-age technology help there? If you ask me, machine-run system in totality, is far more susceptible to manipulations than a human umpire.

Dickie Bird, the best ever umpire who stood in international cricket, in my opinion, is not fond of the UDRS. There has been a war of words between Ravi Shastri and Nassar Hussain in recent India-England series about the use of DRS, that clearly indicates to me, that not every one is enamoured by this, as yet. However, many Indian journos and fans have opined that Shastri's use of word "jealousy" was a "tantrum"; some going to the length of calling Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar, BCCI "chamchas" or "pitthus". Fact of the matter is, a majority of fans (prominently Indian fans) are sold on the marketing gimmick by Hawk Eye or Eagle Eye, without realising that there is not enough data presented to us; if it has been done to players, umpires and cricket boards, I haven't heard about that yet. Hot Spot (Infra-red camera), the so-called fool-proof technology has proved to be not necessarily so, if we are to believe numerous comments made by the English past players and commentators on various media including tweets, that VVS Laxman survived a clear caught behind as hot spot failed to show up. And what about a totally unnecessary controversy that Vaseline can be used on the bat to create a cool-spot to cheat the Hot-Spot camera? The inventors have, since, confirmed that this is not possible. Hopefully, their inference is not driven by economical factors. Interesting thing, though, is that the reason why the whole of the Pommy Land was convinced that there was a nick, was due to a noise caught on the Snickometer. Wow! The same snicko, which till then had been considered LESS believable than Hot Spot!! How does that work? Why not, even once, did any Pommy commentator mention that the noise could be a creaking bat handle rather than an actual edge, something that was bandied around at every possible inexplicable "woody" click on the Snickometer, before Hot spot was used ? (If it was and I did not hear, my apologies)

You know what, the answer is simple, that is, if you bloody care to ACCEPT it. Poms and Aussies will always talk about only that evidence that helps their team....PERIOD!! Michael Vaughn even went to the length of calling a gentleman cricketer like VVS, who in these days of gamesmanship is like a long extinct dodo's tail, a cheat. Poms have been so riled for long, by cheat label that was stuck on John Lever in Vaseline affair, that they have been itching to return the serve. To me, that is the real Colonial mentality!!!!

Don't get conned by these senior players, commentators or even so-called writers like Malcolm Conn. They are not one eyed.....they are plain damn blind to any thing that is not in the favour of their team....Don't you remember that cry from our childhood days..."Aapni tukdi Zindabad" (આપણી ટુકડી ઝિંદાબાદ)?? Our team always wins!.......and to talk about the Spirit of Cricket, in the same breath....GIVE ME A BREAK!!