Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[WicketView]

I am unsure whether the following are your opinion, sarcasm or you are giving the answers that you believe ICC will use to justify their stand.

No sarcasm involved.

The doubt exists in your mind, not in the umpire's mind. So there is no question of giving the benefit of doubt to anyone.

That was my point (b) in the previous post. There IS such a notion that the umpire cannot be sure within reasonable doubt. If someone from ICC does not agree and feels that the umpire has godly/supernatural capabilities then I consider my case about all of this coming out of ICC folly made.

There is such a notion - but unless we have access to the workings of the umpire's mind, how do we know that he he was in doubt about the decision? Only in the case where it can be conclusively shown that the umpire was never in a position to adjudge anything (by being unsighted) can we say with any certainty that the decision was given without due consideration or possibly with prejudice.

Say X gives a proof to a mathematical theorem. He is absolutely sure his proof is correct, but subsequently someone else points out flaws and thus it turns out to be false. Can you then claim that X was in doubt about his proof, or that he knew all along that his proof was incorrect but had some agenda behind making it?

So, when is a decision wrong. As an umpire, could I always claim that no matter what others think, I have no doubt that my decision is correct? You can't contradict me on whether I have doubt, since you do not know the inner workings of my mind?

No one is discussing agenda here. But yes, the umpire must know what his doubts are. We know that umpires have doubts because they have given clearly incorrect decisions. Obviously there will be a range of the level of doubt depending on the capabilities of the umpire. So, one can ask the question of how sure a particular umpire is in tracing the trajectory of the ball
in a particular situation. A ball width, half a ball width, a tenth of a ball width?

The DRS is meant to overturn howlers. Just because some fancy technology cannot determine with absolute certainty, doesn't automatically imply that there is "doubt".

Lack of abosulte certainty is called doubt. Hence this is self-contradictory.

I am talking about absolute certainty from the ball tracking system's perspective. The doubt or no doubt resides in the umpire's mind who is entrusted with the job of making the decision.
Just because ball tracker has a doubt, doesn't mean that that the umpire was in doubt.

What is the uncertainty of the ball tracking system. How does it compare with umpires? If the uncertainty of the umpire's decision is smaller than the technological one, how can it help?

Btw, there is no such thing as benefit of doubt going to batsmen in the rulebook. It's just a common practice at best.

Patently wrong. Look at the laws of cricket (Law 27) as published by MCC.

Please read it again. It is only in the case where the umpires are both not sure whether they saw it. It does not say in ALL cases benefit of doubt has to go to the batsman. If anything the Law 27.6 strengthens my point: that even if the main umpire is in doubt it doesn't mean the batsman will be let off.
[/quote]
I think this is a boneheaded interpretation.  I agree that the law as written can be thusly twisted.
Quoting from http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-27-appeals,53,AR.html :
"Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out."

The intent is clear: if there is doubt, ask the other other umpire if he can help. If the doubts cannot be cleared, give the benefit to the batsman.

Think about the ICC rules. Had there been DRS. We know what that would have done in this situation. Had the on field umpire given it out, DRS would not overturn the decision, had it been given not out then DRS would not have have overturned the decision. So, the DRS is designed to not interfere with the benefit of doubt awarded by an umpire, but not to correct decisions where the benefit of doubt has not been looked into.

If the job of DRS is to overturn howlers, then this principle is the correct one. What you are suggesting is akin to the overthrow of umpires.

What is a howler? One definition is that if everyone watching a decision is sure that it is wrong then it is a howler.

A howler is when it is conclusively proven that the decision was wrong.

But what is the definition of wrong? Does wrong mean the wrong decision according to the rules of cricket? Or does wrong mean out when it is not really out and vice versa. I am saying a howler is a decision that is clearly wrong according to the rules of cricket.

If everyone watches it and says it is difficult to be sure and therefore the decision should be awarded in favour of the bastman, then the decision of giving it out is a howler.

Totally disagree. It is like saying because the alarm did not ring, the fire did not take place.

repeating: So if the umpire gives a decision and says he is sure his decision is correct by definition? So if a batsman's pad is hit 3 m from the stumps to a spinning ball, the umpire can say he thinks the ball is going to hit the stumps, and he has no doubt about it?

The only way you can argue against it IMO is if you assume that there is no uncertainty in what is seen by Hawkeye. Now, Hawkeye admits that it has no clue when the ball strikes 2.5 m away. Even if the best estimate is like 3 quarters the height of the wicket or more than two "ball" widths (remember Ian Bell?). Actually it says it has no clue whatsoever. So they want me to believe that from there it changes to ~ quarter ball width when the distance is around 1m? I am skeptical?

In my view, the HawkEye is like the unsighted umpire in Law 27.6. Go by the on field umpire who saw it clearly and applied his mind to it and gave the decision.
Just because HawkEye is in doubt doesn't mean the umpire was in doubt and therefore the benefit of this manufactured doubt should go to the batsman.

You are missing the point that I'm making. It is not a matter of wrong decision and right decision.
What is patently terrible in your eyes is correct in Rauf (Chanderpaul) and Davies (Dravid) eyes. That is because as umpires they come with a certain bias and baggage when looking at the evidence. Umpires do tend to go by the 'feel' of things while we as viewers go by the cold hard evidence as seen on tv. Third umpires need to shed that baggage from their on-field job when they are sitting upstairs. Till then there will be more Raufs and Davies.

As, I said, I have no issues with training if that changes things. But how will it change anything if the cricket establishment regards Hawk Eye as perfect?

Yes it is unfortunate that an unproven technology is being fed to the public as truth. A company which instead of allowing it's technology to be peer-reviewed is instead cutting business deals with prominent players to tout it.

So, inconsistentent umpiring is OK because we do not know the inner workings. But accusations which have no basis (except for suppositions of what one may be hired for) are fine.

[Cernunnos]

I am unsure whether the following are your opinion, sarcasm or you are giving the answers that you believe ICC will use to justify their stand.

No sarcasm involved.

The doubt exists in your mind, not in the umpire's mind. So there is no question of giving the benefit of doubt to anyone.

That was my point (b) in the previous post. There IS such a notion that the umpire cannot be sure within reasonable doubt. If someone from ICC does not agree and feels that the umpire has godly/supernatural capabilities then I consider my case about all of this coming out of ICC folly made.

There is such a notion - but unless we have access to the workings of the umpire's mind, how do we know that he he was in doubt about the decision? Only in the case where it can be conclusively shown that the umpire was never in a position to adjudge anything (by being unsighted) can we say with any certainty that the decision was given without due consideration or possibly with prejudice.

Say X gives a proof to a mathematical theorem. He is absolutely sure his proof is correct, but subsequently someone else points out flaws and thus it turns out to be false. Can you then claim that X was in doubt about his proof, or that he knew all along that his proof was incorrect but had some agenda behind making it?

So, when is a decision wrong. As an umpire, could I always claim that no matter what others think, I have no doubt that my decision is correct? You can't contradict me on whether I have doubt, since you do not know the inner workings of my mind?

Of course a decision can be wrong. A decision can be found to be wrong once the admissible evidence conclusively shows that it was wrong. But how can you prove that an umpire dismissed a batsman without being convinced that it was out?
All I'm saying is when an unbiased umpire raises his finger, we will have to assume that he did it after convincing himself. Whether he is inept at his job is a separate question.

No one is discussing agenda here. But yes, the umpire must know what his doubts are. We know that umpires have doubts because they have given clearly incorrect decisions. Obviously there will be a range of the level of doubt depending on the capabilities of the umpire. So, one can ask the question of how sure a particular umpire is in tracing the trajectory of the ball
in a particular situation. A ball width, half a ball width, a tenth of a ball width?

I don't think an umpire every makes such measurements and computations. He would go with the feel of things, banking on his years of experience.

The DRS is meant to overturn howlers. Just because some fancy technology cannot determine with absolute certainty, doesn't automatically imply that there is "doubt".

Lack of abosulte certainty is called doubt. Hence this is self-contradictory.

I am talking about absolute certainty from the ball tracking system's perspective. The doubt or no doubt resides in the umpire's mind who is entrusted with the job of making the decision.
Just because ball tracker has a doubt, doesn't mean that that the umpire was in doubt.

What is the uncertainty of the ball tracking system. How does it compare with umpires? If the uncertainty of the umpire's decision is smaller than the technological one, how can it help?

I have been seeking these answers, but the ball tracking providers aren't interested in an open discussion through peer review.

Btw, there is no such thing as benefit of doubt going to batsmen in the rulebook. It's just a common practice at best.

Patently wrong. Look at the laws of cricket (Law 27) as published by MCC.

Please read it again. It is only in the case where the umpires are both not sure whether they saw it. It does not say in ALL cases benefit of doubt has to go to the batsman. If anything the Law 27.6 strengthens my point: that even if the main umpire is in doubt it doesn't mean the batsman will be let off.

I think this is a boneheaded interpretation.  I agree that the law as written can be thusly twisted.
Quoting from http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-27-appeals,53,AR.html :
"Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out."

Maybe you need to untwist your own way of reading things to see that "in a better position to see," means precisely that - consulting the umpire if in his view he was in a better position to see!

Also, maybe you should read this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/250345.html
In one stroke your contention that benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman is demolished. Btw, this is not something I merely googled. if you care to search the archives, I had pointed it this out here before the ICC made the above clarification. Not every interpretation of mine has been boneheaded...

The intent is clear: if there is doubt, ask the other other umpire if he can help. If the doubts cannot be cleared, give the benefit to the batsman.

In that one line you contradict yourself. If your mantra "if there is even the slightest doubt, give the batsman not out" is true, why would the laws accommodate the doubting umpire to consult the the square leg umpire? Immediately the batsman should be given not out.   

Scenario 1: Main umpire unsure, Square leg umpire sure. Umpire raises finger. It's possible under Law 27.6. You have no misgivings.
Scenario 2: Main umpire sure, HawkEye/HotSpot unsure. Umpire raises finger. You have misgivings.

See the contradiction?

Think about the ICC rules. Had there been DRS. We know what that would have done in this situation. Had the on field umpire given it out, DRS would not overturn the decision, had it been given not out then DRS would not have have overturned the decision. So, the DRS is designed to not interfere with the benefit of doubt awarded by an umpire, but not to correct decisions where the benefit of doubt has not been looked into.

If the job of DRS is to overturn howlers, then this principle is the correct one. What you are suggesting is akin to the overthrow of umpires.

What is a howler? One definition is that if everyone watching a decision is sure that it is wrong then it is a howler.

A howler is when it is conclusively proven that the decision was wrong.

But what is the definition of wrong? Does wrong mean the wrong decision according to the rules of cricket? Or does wrong mean out when it is not really out and vice versa. I am saying a howler is a decision that is clearly wrong according to the rules of cricket.

I am also saying the same.

If everyone watches it and says it is difficult to be sure and therefore the decision should be awarded in favour of the bastman, then the decision of giving it out is a howler.

Totally disagree. It is like saying because the alarm did not ring, the fire did not take place.

repeating: So if the umpire gives a decision and says he is sure his decision is correct by definition?

No. Never said that.

So if a batsman's pad is hit 3 m from the stumps to a spinning ball, the umpire can say he thinks the ball is going to hit the stumps, and he has no doubt about it?

If he gives the decision, and there is no conclusive evidence to prove him wrong, we have to go by his decision.

The only way you can argue against it IMO is if you assume that there is no uncertainty in what is seen by Hawkeye. Now, Hawkeye admits that it has no clue when the ball strikes 2.5 m away. Even if the best estimate is like 3 quarters the height of the wicket or more than two "ball" widths (remember Ian Bell?). Actually it says it has no clue whatsoever. So they want me to believe that from there it changes to ~ quarter ball width when the distance is around 1m? I am skeptical?

In my view, the HawkEye is like the unsighted umpire in Law 27.6. Go by the on field umpire who saw it clearly and applied his mind to it and gave the decision.
Just because HawkEye is in doubt doesn't mean the umpire was in doubt and therefore the benefit of this manufactured doubt should go to the batsman.

You are missing the point that I'm making. It is not a matter of wrong decision and right decision.
What is patently terrible in your eyes is correct in Rauf (Chanderpaul) and Davies (Dravid) eyes. That is because as umpires they come with a certain bias and baggage when looking at the evidence. Umpires do tend to go by the 'feel' of things while we as viewers go by the cold hard evidence as seen on tv. Third umpires need to shed that baggage from their on-field job when they are sitting upstairs. Till then there will be more Raufs and Davies.

As, I said, I have no issues with training if that changes things. But how will it change anything if the cricket establishment regards Hawk Eye as perfect?

Yes it is unfortunate that an unproven technology is being fed to the public as truth. A company which instead of allowing it's technology to be peer-reviewed is instead cutting business deals with prominent players to tout it.

So, inconsistentent umpiring is OK because we do not know the inner workings. But accusations which have no basis (except for suppositions of what one may be hired for) are fine.

I never said it's OK. They should constantly improve. But an umpire cannot be overthrown totally in favour of doubtful technology.
Never made any accusation based on untruth -
a. did they not cut a business deal with a prominent player?
b. Did they not triumphantly say after that the BCCI will come around?
c. Is the BCCI not warming up to HawkEye subsequently: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-20/top-stories/29908696_1_ball-tracking-hawk-eye-drs ?

[WicketView]

I am unsure whether the following are your opinion, sarcasm or you are giving the answers that you believe ICC will use to justify their stand.

No sarcasm involved.

The doubt exists in your mind, not in the umpire's mind. So there is no question of giving the benefit of doubt to anyone.

That was my point (b) in the previous post. There IS such a notion that the umpire cannot be sure within reasonable doubt. If someone from ICC does not agree and feels that the umpire has godly/supernatural capabilities then I consider my case about all of this coming out of ICC folly made.

There is such a notion - but unless we have access to the workings of the umpire's mind, how do we know that he he was in doubt about the decision? Only in the case where it can be conclusively shown that the umpire was never in a position to adjudge anything (by being unsighted) can we say with any certainty that the decision was given without due consideration or possibly with prejudice.

Say X gives a proof to a mathematical theorem. He is absolutely sure his proof is correct, but subsequently someone else points out flaws and thus it turns out to be false. Can you then claim that X was in doubt about his proof, or that he knew all along that his proof was incorrect but had some agenda behind making it?

So, when is a decision wrong. As an umpire, could I always claim that no matter what others think, I have no doubt that my decision is correct? You can't contradict me on whether I have doubt, since you do not know the inner workings of my mind?

Of course a decision can be wrong. A decision can be found to be wrong once the admissible evidence conclusively shows that it was wrong. But how can you prove that an umpire dismissed a batsman without being convinced that it was out?
All I'm saying is when an unbiased umpire raises his finger, we will have to assume that he did it after convincing himself. Whether he is inept at his job is a separate question.

I am not interested in whether he was convinced or not. I am happy to assume that he was convinced, and it was to the best of his ability. I am simply interested in whether the decision is right or wrong.

No one is discussing agenda here. But yes, the umpire must know what his doubts are. We know that umpires have doubts because they have given clearly incorrect decisions. Obviously there will be a range of the level of doubt depending on the capabilities of the umpire. So, one can ask the question of how sure a particular umpire is in tracing the trajectory of the ball
in a particular situation. A ball width, half a ball width, a tenth of a ball width?

I don't think an umpire every makes such measurements and computations. He would go with the feel of things, banking on his years of experience.

I have to admit that I have not known or talked to  any test umpire. But I find this statement hard to believe. I have only the usual experience of umpiring that non-professionals would have. I have spent time as umpire when the other team was bowling ... I have stood in as umpire involving other teams in school level cricket. I have heard commentary and watched and discussed dismissals in cricket with numerous other cricket fans. I always believed that the umpire, using his best judgement and experience tries to exterpolate the trajectory of a delivery in his mind. So, yes, obviously, he does not know what algorithm his brain is using, but he pretty much knows what he is trying to do. He thinks about whether his best guess could be wrong, and if so, what difference it would make. This inviolves questions like could the ball (if not blocked) have actually hit the stumps a bit higher or to the left. How much could my best guess be wrong by? Are you trying to tell me that this is not the thought process that goes on through an umpire's mind? if so, I would like to figure out if this is what most people think.

The DRS is meant to overturn howlers. Just because some fancy technology cannot determine with absolute certainty, doesn't automatically imply that there is "doubt".

Lack of abosulte certainty is called doubt. Hence this is self-contradictory.

I am talking about absolute certainty from the ball tracking system's perspective. The doubt or no doubt resides in the umpire's mind who is entrusted with the job of making the decision.
Just because ball tracker has a doubt, doesn't mean that that the umpire was in doubt.

What is the uncertainty of the ball tracking system. How does it compare with umpires? If the uncertainty of the umpire's decision is smaller than the technological one, how can it help?

I have been seeking these answers, but the ball tracking providers aren't interested in an open discussion through peer review.

Btw, there is no such thing as benefit of doubt going to batsmen in the rulebook. It's just a common practice at best.

Patently wrong. Look at the laws of cricket (Law 27) as published by MCC.

Please read it again. It is only in the case where the umpires are both not sure whether they saw it. It does not say in ALL cases benefit of doubt has to go to the batsman. If anything the Law 27.6 strengthens my point: that even if the main umpire is in doubt it doesn't mean the batsman will be let off.

Actually it says that the main umpire will ask the other umpires only if he is in doubt and if he believes the other umpire can see better. If he has doubt about an lbw, he will not go to a square leg umpire. The batsman is given out only if the square leg umpire is sure he is out.

I think this is a boneheaded interpretation.  I agree that the law as written can be thusly twisted.
Quoting from http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-27-appeals,53,AR.html :
"Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out."

Maybe you need to untwist your own way of reading things to see that "in a better position to see," means precisely that - consulting the umpire if in his view he was in a better position to see!

Also, maybe you should read this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/250345.html
In one stroke your contention that benefit of doubt always goes to the batsman is demolished. Btw, this is not something I merely googled. if you care to search the archives, I had pointed it this out here before the ICC made the above clarification. Not every interpretation of mine has been boneheaded...

we all know that this is an exception which is why this was a controversy. There were two different things .. one the law about benefit of doubt, and a convention about believing a fielder in the case of a four or a six. These two do not necessarily contradict each other, but it could. And the ICC decided to make things the way it is.

The intent is clear: if there is doubt, ask the other other umpire if he can help. If the doubts cannot be cleared, give the benefit to the batsman.

In that one line you contradict yourself. If your mantra "if there is even the slightest doubt, give the batsman not out" is true, why would the laws accommodate the doubting umpire to consult the the square leg umpire? Immediately the batsman should be given not out.   

Because the other umpire may have been in a position to see things that were not to the main umpire. That is the only instance in which he can do this.

Scenario 1: Main umpire unsure, Square leg umpire sure. Umpire raises finger. It's possible under Law 27.6. You have no misgivings.
Scenario 2: Main umpire sure, HawkEye/HotSpot unsure. Umpire raises finger. You have misgivings.

See the contradiction?

No contradiction at all. One is a review of the decision, the other is not. In other words one is instituted to check if the surety of the umpire was valid, the other is to complement his role not as a check.

Think about the ICC rules. Had there been DRS. We know what that would have done in this situation. Had the on field umpire given it out, DRS would not overturn the decision, had it been given not out then DRS would not have have overturned the decision. So, the DRS is designed to not interfere with the benefit of doubt awarded by an umpire, but not to correct decisions where the benefit of doubt has not been looked into.

If the job of DRS is to overturn howlers, then this principle is the correct one. What you are suggesting is akin to the overthrow of umpires.

What is a howler? One definition is that if everyone watching a decision is sure that it is wrong then it is a howler.

A howler is when it is conclusively proven that the decision was wrong.

But what is the definition of wrong? Does wrong mean the wrong decision according to the rules of cricket? Or does wrong mean out when it is not really out and vice versa. I am saying a howler is a decision that is clearly wrong according to the rules of cricket.

I am also saying the same.

If everyone watches it and says it is difficult to be sure and therefore the decision should be awarded in favour of the bastman, then the decision of giving it out is a howler.

Totally disagree. It is like saying because the alarm did not ring, the fire did not take place.

repeating: So if the umpire gives a decision and says he is sure his decision is correct by definition?

No. Never said that.

Well,  you are yet to define what counts as an incorrect decision. What do you need to accuse an umpire of an incorrect decision.

So if a batsman's pad is hit 3 m from the stumps to a spinning ball, the umpire can say he thinks the ball is going to hit the stumps, and he has no doubt about it?

If he gives the decision, and there is no conclusive evidence to prove him wrong, we have to go by his decision.

The only way you can argue against it IMO is if you assume that there is no uncertainty in what is seen by Hawkeye. Now, Hawkeye admits that it has no clue when the ball strikes 2.5 m away. Even if the best estimate is like 3 quarters the height of the wicket or more than two "ball" widths (remember Ian Bell?). Actually it says it has no clue whatsoever. So they want me to believe that from there it changes to ~ quarter ball width when the distance is around 1m? I am skeptical?

In my view, the HawkEye is like the unsighted umpire in Law 27.6. Go by the on field umpire who saw it clearly and applied his mind to it and gave the decision.
Just because HawkEye is in doubt doesn't mean the umpire was in doubt and therefore the benefit of this manufactured doubt should go to the batsman.

You are missing the point that I'm making. It is not a matter of wrong decision and right decision.
What is patently terrible in your eyes is correct in Rauf (Chanderpaul) and Davies (Dravid) eyes. That is because as umpires they come with a certain bias and baggage when looking at the evidence. Umpires do tend to go by the 'feel' of things while we as viewers go by the cold hard evidence as seen on tv. Third umpires need to shed that baggage from their on-field job when they are sitting upstairs. Till then there will be more Raufs and Davies.

As, I said, I have no issues with training if that changes things. But how will it change anything if the cricket establishment regards Hawk Eye as perfect?

Yes it is unfortunate that an unproven technology is being fed to the public as truth. A company which instead of allowing it's technology to be peer-reviewed is instead cutting business deals with prominent players to tout it.

So, inconsistentent umpiring is OK because we do not know the inner workings. But accusations which have no basis (except for suppositions of what one may be hired for) are fine.

I never said it's OK. They should constantly improve. But an umpire cannot be overthrown totally in favour of doubtful technology.
Never made any accusation based on untruth -
a. did they not cut a business deal with a prominent player?
b. Did they not triumphantly say after that the BCCI will come around?
c. Is the BCCI not warming up to HawkEye subsequently: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-20/top-stories/29908696_1_ball-tracking-hawk-eye-drs ?

The company did not make a business deal with a player to tout their technology. You may suspect them of that underhand motive, but that was not the deal.
I don't have any problems with you harbouring such a suspicion ... you have every right to wonder what the company's unstated intention was. But you also said we cannot criticize an umpire saying that he must have had doubt because we have no right to assume the inner workings of his mind. Here you sugegst that I have no right to assume the unstated inner workings of the umpire's mind. Just pointing out the contradiction.

[Cernunnos]

I am not interested in whether he was convinced or not. I am happy to assume that he was convinced, and it was to the best of his ability. I am simply interested in whether the decision is right or wrong.

We begin where we started - when you called a particular decision 'bad' because the umpire didn't give the benefit of doubt to the batsman. How could he have given the batsman the benefit of 'doubt' when, as you'd agree, he had no doubt himself!

we all know that this is an exception which is why this was a controversy. There were two different things .. one the law about benefit of doubt, and a convention about believing a fielder in the case of a four or a six. These two do not necessarily contradict each other, but it could. And the ICC decided to make things the way it is.

This is not a new rule which the ICC made. This has always been the case and they issued a clarification after the incident. Regardless, if your principle of 'benefit of doubt has to always go to the batsman' was in the rule books as you claim, then MSD would have been not out. That didn't happen, and therefore your claim is shown to be erroneous.

Scenario 1: Main umpire unsure, Square leg umpire sure. Umpire raises finger. It's possible under Law 27.6. You have no misgivings.
Scenario 2: Main umpire sure, HawkEye/HotSpot unsure. Umpire raises finger. You have misgivings.

See the contradiction?

No contradiction at all. One is a review of the decision, the other is not. In other words one is instituted to check if the surety of the umpire was valid, the other is to complement his role not as a check

Oh don't take refuge behind semantics and sequence. Whatever the sequence, in both cases there is one sure vs. one doubting authority. If your absolutist position was to be upheld, in both scenarios there would be a veto in favour of the batsman.

Well,  you are yet to define what counts as an incorrect decision. What do you need to accuse an umpire of an incorrect decision. 

Your definition of an incorrect dismissal is "it is difficult to be sure it was out"
My definition of an incorrect dismissal is when it is easy to be sure it was not out.

The company did not make a business deal with a player to tout their technology. You may suspect them of that underhand motive, but that was not the deal.
I don't have any problems with you harbouring such a suspicion ... you have every right to wonder what the company's unstated intention was. But you also said we cannot criticize an umpire saying that he must have had doubt because we have no right to assume the inner workings of his mind. Here you sugegst that I have no right to assume the unstated inner workings of the umpire's mind. Just pointing out the contradiction.

I gave the dismissal going by the feel of things, banking on years of experience Seriously, in the former case we are not talking about a general situation but a specific set of people who have a case history. In the umpire's case, I was speaking generally. You are of course welcome to suspect any certain umpire if he has a history of suspicious behaviour - I have no issues with that.