The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

[Burgey]

That's right - all you need is the bit of software or the third umpire to monitor it - I mean, what else does the third umpire do with his time? Would probably appreciate something to keep him awake.

The only reason I'm not 100% on the idea of the third umpire monitoring this, with a big red 'no ball' button sitting there in front of him, is that in trying to react quickly mistakes would be made - especially if you want it signalled quick enough for the batsman to react (though really, that's probably not necessary). I'm imagining a Bucknor-like figure peering at the screen from the 3rd umpire chair, with his finger hovering over that button every ball and the umpire in the middle every so often being radioed "Sorry that wasn't really a no-ball. My finger slipped".

It only really matters though when there's a wicket doesn't it? I mean, I don't see why he'd need to press the button in time to influence the players' reactions to the ball that's been bowled.

Say a bloke lets one go through to the keeper, third umpire as a matter of course gets a side on replay and if it's a no ball, tells the on-field umpire. Same thing if there's a wicket, a boundary or whatever.

I know a lot is made about how all this undermines the umpires, and it would be hard for the crop of umpires who've come through as the sole arbiters of on-field stuff to maybe have their egos deal with it, but that's a short term problem. For those umpires who come into the international scene after they bring the system in, it will be all they know.

In any event, more important to get these things right imo, and a no-ball call should be one of the easier things to get right with technology.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's right - all you need is the bit of software or the third umpire to monitor it - I mean, what else does the third umpire do with his time? Would probably appreciate something to keep him awake.

The only reason I'm not 100% on the idea of the third umpire monitoring this, with a big red 'no ball' button sitting there in front of him, is that in trying to react quickly mistakes would be made - especially if you want it signalled quick enough for the batsman to react (though really, that's probably not necessary). I'm imagining a Bucknor-like figure peering at the screen from the 3rd umpire chair, with his finger hovering over that button every ball and the umpire in the middle every so often being radioed "Sorry that wasn't really a no-ball. My finger slipped".

Not a massive issue for mine. The front-foot no-ball rule has essentially eliminated batsmen having enough time to react and put a no-ball out of the ground anyway. Can't remember ever seeing a batsman belting a no-ball they weren't planning on smacking anyway.

 

[ripper868]

I said as much in the match thread - certainly no howler - but Hussey clearly missed it, so therefore the right outcome would've been for him to have remained at the crease.

Yeah, and i bet if Hussey did stand his ground he would have had "Spirit of Game" tripe thrown at him, the same way Ponting has had **** thrown at him for telling Hughes to stand his ground like Bopara did.

 

[straw man]

It only really matters though when there's a wicket doesn't it? I mean, I don't see why he'd need to press the button in time to influence the players' reactions to the ball that's been bowled.

Say a bloke lets one go through to the keeper, third umpire as a matter of course gets a side on replay and if it's a no ball, tells the on-field umpire. Same thing if there's a wicket, a boundary or whatever.

I know a lot is made about how all this undermines the umpires, and it would be hard for the crop of umpires who've come through as the sole arbiters of on-field stuff to maybe have their egos deal with it, but that's a short term problem. For those umpires who come into the international scene after they bring the system in, it will be all they know.

In any event, more important to get these things right imo, and a no-ball call should be one of the easier things to get right with technology.

Yeah agree with what you're saying. A quick alert on front-front no balls allowing the batsman to go for an ugly slog is more of a nice-to-have and is not at all necessary for any system. Though it would arguably provide an interesting new angle or facet of batting (with flavour more suitable to ODIs and 20/20s) if it could be implemented well.

Also agree on umpire egos and the debate about being undermined by using this technology - the next generation of umpires will be far more comfortable and accepting of this than the current one. IMO the third umpire should become more of a specialist position for someone who is familiar and capable with using the technology, as well as (obviously) knowing the rules in the same way a normal umpire needs to. For those umpires who complain that their decision making abilities are being taken away, there would be plenty of scope for making the best decisions, and taking pride in making these decisions the quickest, from the third umpire seat. Obvioulsy this necessitates a shift in power from the umpire in the middle to the third umpire, though I'm not suggesting umpires in the middle should be done away with as some have.

Anyway, heading off topic here. Let's hope there are no more contentious decisions tonight.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Well, whether Hussey was out or not to that lbw earlier, he was absolutely certainly not out when he did get given...

So that's 3-1 to England on the "out"s.

Speaking of which, though, Australia are damn lucky that all these bad "out" decisions have come in an innings where they were just waiting to be beaten. They haven't impacted on the result at all.

This is a really good point, as good a time as any to get this outa the system.........although after the 6th wicket partnership, it might very be that we end up 80 runs short and this could have been the difference. But this is but optimistic speak (for our English cousins, please consult dictionary for optimism) and the truth is Australia were dead men walking way before they went out to bat and the game was lost when these decisions were made.


**conspiracy alert** - Just had a thought; Are umpires lazier and more trigger happy in the fourth innings of a match that is effectively over? A tendancy to give marginal decisions particularly once the tail is batting and defeat is assured. Not saying deliberately, more subcontiously..........hmm something to ponder.

 

[Streetwise]

Yeah, again while you can't actually call that an "Umpiring error" as such, there's certainly doubt as to whether the ball carried.

Mind, that was the one sort of inclarity where for once the Umpires have a better view than the camera, so it may or may not have been right.

Just to ease any doubts you may have.

http://resources1.news.com.au/image...777-ashes-second-test-controversial-catch.jpg

 

[Uppercut]

Just to ease any doubts you may have.

http://resources1.news.com.au/image...777-ashes-second-test-controversial-catch.jpg

That looks like a clean catch in that pic.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

That looks like a clean catch in that pic.

sorry but I can't take that comment seriously at all. Dire stuff

 

[Uppercut]

sorry but I can't take that comment seriously at all. Dire stuff

It does. Well, it looks like one of those "looks out on TV but is probably off the ground" catches. Whereas in the slow-mo replays it looks like a grassed catch.

 

[Streetwise]

That looks like a clean catch in that pic.

Why use words when a picture says a thousand words.

 

[Son Of Coco]

3 of the top 5 given out incorrectly is very similar to what happened to England on a regular basis on the 1982/83 Tour - the difference so far being that the bottom 6 often suffered a similar fate. I think Mr Doctrove has one great big blunder still left in him in this match - maybe a LBW with the score on 519-9.

And he'll give it out after it hits the badge on Hilfy's helmet.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, again while you can't actually call that an "Umpiring error" as such, there's certainly doubt as to whether the ball carried.

Mind, that was the one sort of inclarity where for once the Umpires have a better view than the camera, so it may or may not have been right.

 

[zaremba]

Just to ease any doubts you may have.

http://resources1.news.com.au/image...777-ashes-second-test-controversial-catch.jpg

These pictures invariably give a distorted view since they foreshorten the field of view and you have no idea whether the ball is touching the ground or 2 inches clear of it.

 

[Burgey]

These pictures invariably give a distorted view since they foreshorten the field of view and you have no idea whether the ball is touching the ground or 2 inches clear of it.

Thing with the Strauss one that particularly made me sit up was how the fingers seemed to wrap under the ball quite late. Anyway, it's all fish and chip wrapping now.

I'm more concerned about us taking our chances when he's batting. That would have made a far greater difference to this game.

 

[zaremba]

I'm more concerned about us taking our chances when he's batting. That would have made a far greater difference to this game.

Much like our lot in the 1st innings at Daffodil Park.

 

[Richard]

**conspiracy alert** - Just had a thought; Are umpires lazier and more trigger happy in the fourth innings of a match that is effectively over? A tendancy to give marginal decisions particularly once the tail is batting and defeat is assured. Not saying deliberately, more subcontiously..........hmm something to ponder.

Quite possibly, in addition to being more trigger-happy when tailenders are at the crease. Have thought that for a fair while.

Obviously Umpires are going to be most keen to avoid errors at important times... which naturally doesn't mean they will, unfortunately.

 

[Richard]

Jesus Christ, this takes it to a whole new level.

 

[Richard]

It's obviously highly unlikely but it'll probably happen one day, and it'll be in a match like this one, with an excellent batting pitch and a strong(ish) batting lineup that failed in the first innings and left a big target and a lot of time to chase. Teams have already chased well over 400 so 520 isn't that much of a stretch.

If Australia were 1/200 at tea for example, you'd be pretty optimistic as an England fan if you didn't feel like Australia could win. England were 95% favourites but the game wasn't over, so a couple of wickets makes a difference. That's all there is to it.

If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?

 

[Top_Cat]

If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?

Fundamental misunderstanding of probability at work here, m'thinks. That is, if you're arguing that they've somehow used up their bad luck so it'll be less likely to happen from now on.

 

[Uppercut]

If you prefer, you can view it as "Australia were damn lucky they suffered the saw-offs in an innings where they had an almost impossible task".

Surely even the most deliberate contrarion would fail to argue that they're not infinitely better-off having three out of the top five sawn-off when they're chasing 500+ rather than chasing 200+, trying to set a decent score, replying to a decent score, or batting first?

Well considering that having three bad decisions go against you in one innings makes it no more or less likely that another three will go against you in another innings, there's no way in hell anyone with a brain could ever describe Australia as lucky.