Write & Earn
Notifications

DRS- The comedy of solutions (read errors)

It is a good thing, somewhat flawed, but its here to stay. India can delay it, but that is just madness. DRS should and will prevail.

It is beneficial to everyone. Less pressure on umpires. Somewhat democratic as teams can go for the reviews if they believe that the decision is wrong. Protection from gross errors, which Bucknors make.

On the other side, some rules make it look funny. 2.5-meter rule is right, sensible. But, if umpires start thinking with in a box and start sticking to their original mistakes, that is what Bowden did, that is not sensible. ICC’s defense of decision is even more bizarre than Dhoni’s arrogance.

Bureaucracy, a lot of times, looks disconnected from common sense and infact looks idiotic. Instead of correcting this flaw, so that DRS become more acceptable, ICC is defending its flaw, on a technicality?

Let’s get more technical here. The predictive simulation is probabilistic. What ICC ‘experts’ are saying is that beyond 2.5 meters, the results may not be consistent. So, it should be umpire’s decision. In essence, the ‘experts’ are saying that beyond 2.5 meters, system’s error rate increases. And information can be (stress on can be) inconclusive. So, it should be umpire’s decision.

That, the information can be inconclusive, is a conditional probability, which is based on a lot of factors. It depends. The system may not follow the trajectory with desired precision all the times . However, what we saw, that the ball hit in line, not high enough to go over the stumps, hitting almost middle stump. We had got conclusive information. While the rule is based on independent probability of information will be inconclusive or generalizing it to wrong.

Right, Bowden, or ICC. So, how can that make you to stick to your original mistake? The only point you may have is, that may be the ball will stop midway and will not reach the stumps.

Like Dhoni, I would like to ask them, how they come to 2.5 meters, not 2.6 or 2.4. I believe it is based on empirical evidence, testing. Point is, there would be cases when the simulation will be wrong even at 2 meters.  A very tiny, but still a possibility.

Something has been lost while communication between computer software designers and its users.

The technology is not the problem, implementation is.

Nassim Taleb says, “Mathematics is a way to mediate over the problems, not to compute solutions.”

The geeks, the experts, do not understand this. So, we have a comedy of ‘solutions’ (read errors).

Fetching more content...