We don’t want technology because it’s not perfect

A quick post about cricket and using technology to help umpires make correct decisions. If you don't follow the game then this post will be a little discombobulating.

Nearly all the commentators say that the umpires get decisions wrong, and agree that we know this because we can check using technology. But some then go onto argue because the technology is not perfect, we ought to not use it to help umpires make decisions? Anyone else see the obvious "does not compute" here? Here's the executive sports producer from Channel Nine (cricket broadcaster):

"I'd hate us to be involved in the judicial system of cricket," Crawley told the Sydney Morning Herald. "We've only got one thing 100% backed up by science and that's Hot Spot; the others aren't 100%.

"Snicko is very well informed but it's not 100%, and Hawk-Eye's not 100%. And also there's the time-frame. Yesterday, with one of the decisions, Snicko, like all computer systems, went down and it had to be rebooted and it was four minutes before we got it up. Mostly, it's only a couple of deliveries but those sorts of things can happen."

Ignoring the fact they are already in the judicial system of cricket (for run outs, stumpings, etc.), if the technology helps by adding more concrete evidence (or more uncertainty, this is a help in that it raises doubt, and doubt means a batter is to be given not out) then it should be used. To say we shouldn't use it because it's not 100% "proven" to work, or it is occasionally unavailable is to invoke the Perfect Solution fallacy. Moreover, human senses are deeply flawed, which is why we invented measuring instruments to overcome this. It's the use of such inventions that has improved everything.

I'll use two apt analogies to finish. It's bizarre to rule out technology to keep the human element (read mistakes); the "mistakes are a part of the game" argument. Who insists their doctor doesn't use technology to improve his/her decision making? That'd be potentially fatal. However, I wouldn't let technology "make" my decisions for me. Anyone blindly drive their car following the instructions of a GPS? Potentially fatal too I'd assume (keep your eyes open). Having a working GPS (and being competent in its use) sure does make navigating easier though.

It’s okay to be a racist…

so long as you are raising a family, says cricket writer Peter Roebuck.

I haven't blogged for who knows how long because A) I was working hard, and B) the cricket's been on.

Now that I can blog about cricket and fallacies, I'm back.

Amongst all the hubbub over the 2^nd test in Sydney, Roebuck has called for the boning of Australian captain, and all-round legend (the best since Bradman), Ricky Ponting. The entire article is a vitriolic diatribe but there's one bit in particular which is worth picking out as a classic Red Herring:

Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon.

Never mind that Harby called Andrew Symonds a "big monkey" after he'd been told, repeatedly, that it was an offensive racist term, and after all the coverage of the incidents in India last year. To Roebuck, Harby is a "Sikh warrior" who is the head of a family with nine children. Wow. It must be tough raising nine children, what, with the millions of dollars he gets from bowling a bit of red leather. (Not to mention not being at home most of the year.)

That's all I'll say regarding a specific fallacy. Just one more point regarding Roebuck's worth as a commentator. He thinks Ponting and Bucknor should be sacked for arrogance and incompetence (respectively), I'd say the same applies to him.

Arrogance: A pom writing a deliberately inflammatory piece calling for the Australian captain to be sacked for arrogance (without any hint of irony).

Incompetence - making this claim:

But ABC cricket commentator Peter Roebuck says there are still serious doubts about next week's Perth Test going ahead.

Roebuck says there is little chance of the two captains being part of any conciliatory talks.

"These two sides are so far apart right now that I think the Perth Test has got no more than a 40 per cent chance of taking place, Bucknor or no Bucknor," he said.

And what do you know, just few hours later:

Indian cricket officials say the tour of Australia will continue, after the sport's governing body stepped in to defuse a crisis over the second Test in Sydney.

The attempted blackmail by the BCCI was obviously a bluff. If you couldn't pick that Peter, your credibility as a commentator is shot. (Who stands to lose the most $$$ if there is no TV coverage of the two remaining tests, let alone the 20-Twenty and One-Day matches?)