Re: Review system: what's the point?

Andrew Dunford wrote:


"Nirvanam" <viz.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:e28ecf8a-9162-4d6a-9154-360171f1216f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 10, 8:26 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:2bce3023-23fe-41b5-8163-c93215dd4ed7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx






> On Dec 8, 8:34 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>>news:86cb9485-fd6e-4223-954d-7c31b3e7466a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


>> > I haven't seen the incident myself, but I'd think that the review
>> > system is designed to operate with a null hypothesis that "on field
>> > umpire's decision is correct". Now, the only way the TV umpire can
>> > reject the null hypothesis is if there is enough conclusive evidence
>> > that the on-field umpire's decision was wrong. The key words here >> > are
>> > 'enough' and conclusive. Conclusive can be interpreted as at least >> > 95%
>> > people would agree with the conclusion...in this case "bat touching
>> > ball". If it is conclusive, then the next step is whether that
>> > particular angle is enough to reject/fail to reject the null
>> > hypothesis. In this case there would probably be only 1 meaningful
>> > angle whereas in a run out or grounded catches, we would need 2 to 3
>> > angles concluding consistently. Also the algorithm for decision >> > making
>> > would follow the sequence of first determining conclusiveness of
>> > evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence.

>> > In other words, conclusion = necessary, enough = sufficient. First >> > ask
>> > if it the necessary thing is ticked, then ask if the sufficiency has
>> > been ticked.. Then you have enough ground to reject the null
>> > hypothesis / over-turn on-field umpire's decision

>> > So, did Rauf have "conclusive" evidence = no. Since the "necessary"
>> > aspect itself is not ticked, there is no point in going to the
>> > sufficiency aspect at all. The null hypothesis stays. Therefore,
>> > Rauf's decision would be a wrong one.

>> > The claim one can make is that Rauf thought it was conclusive. The
>> > important thing is to separate subjective opinion from objective >> > data.
>> > What Rauf "thought" is immaterial now because the decision has been
>> > made. The question to be asked is: Would 95% of the people who saw >> > the
>> > same thing also "think" that the same evidence as "conclusive". As,
>> > logical/rational methods and systems stand today, if it is less than
>> > 95% it makes no sense to reject the null hypothesis. (No need to get
>> > pedantic about taking the alpha-risk and reducing it to less than >> > 95%)

>> > So, was the evidence so conclusive that 95% people would've thought
>> > the same way as Rauf did?

>> Don't know why you think that a certain percentage of people agreeing >> has
>> any relevance - umpiring decisions are not made by polling the general
>> public, who in any case are not trained to interpret what they see in >> the
>> way that an umpire is. The only thing the third umpire need concern
>> himself
>> with is what 'evidence' he personally believes exists.

>> Andrew

> The point is not about certain percentage of people agreeing, it is
> about 95% of the times a particular event happens. The people thing
> comes in only because this particular case relies on people making the
> call. In hypothesis testing what we normally do is to see whether a
> particular thing when done 100 times, is there any evidence to suggest
> that 95 of those 100 times the event will happen in a particular way.
> For ex - suppose you feed some inputs to a financial model and it
> throws up an estimate. You then see the actual, let's say the actual
> and the estimate given by the model are within an acceptable range.
> Now suppose you gave inputs to the financial model 100 different
> times, then you see the difference between actual and estimate for
> each instance. If this difference is acceptable 95% of the time then
> the model is good enough, that'll be the conclusion.

> Similarly, in the umpire case, we are asking if 100 different people/
> umpires see this video, will 95 of them conclusively say it is "out"?

But at the beginning of the previous paragraph you said it was "not about
certain percentage of people agreeing". I wish you'd make up your mind.

I don't actually need a long lecture on your hypothesis theory - I
understood it perfectly well the first time you explained. It doesn't seem
relevant: one umpire is required to make his own decision based on what he
sees. Or more accurately, he is required to convey back to the on-field
umpire what he sees.

<snip>

Andrew

If you understood the hypothesis theory in the first post itself, then
your reference to me saying "...certain percentage of people..." is
pedantic

Also as you mention "one umpire is required to make his own decision
based on what he sees. Or more accurately, he is required to convey
back to the on-field umpire what he sees"...did Asad Rauf actually see
a nick or did he actually conjecture...that is the question. There is
absolutely no evidence to say that Asad Rauf would have "seen" the
edge, because like all of us he has the same human eyes which is not
capable of some super-natural sight. None of us saw an edge, whoever
said it was out conjectured based on the fact that the ball deviated
and they heard a noise.

I can't answer for Asad Rauf but I certainly agree that the evidence was too flimsy for him to overrule safely.

I don't however agree with your contention in a separate post that Hot Spot evidence is required - the ICC guidelines do not state this and I don't think you inventing your own standards for "conclusive evidence" are helpful. Certainly a positive Hot Spot mark would have been very helpful, but in its absence the umpire remains at liberty to make his decision based on the evidence of his eyes.


And ears.

CDK
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Review system: whats the point?
    ... the only way the TV umpire can ... angles concluding consistently. ... evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence. ... of 100 people would also infer, like you/Rauf/whoever, that the ball ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Review system: whats the point?
    ... the only way the TV umpire can ... angles concluding consistently. ... evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence. ... of 100 people would also infer, like you/Rauf/whoever, that the ball ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Review system: whats the point?
    ... the only way the TV umpire can ... angles concluding consistently. ... evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence. ... back to the on-field umpire what he sees"...did Asad Rauf actually see ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Review system: whats the point?
    ... the only way the TV umpire can ... >> angles concluding consistently. ... >> evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence. ... of 100 people would also infer, like you/Rauf/whoever, that the ball ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Review system: whats the point?
    ... the only way the TV umpire can ... angles concluding consistently. ... evidence, and then determining enough-ness of evidence. ... of 100 people would also infer, like you/Rauf/whoever, that the ball ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)