Neutral Umps In ODI's

[Scallywag]

. In this Ind vs. Aus match there have been many poor decisions which have effectively decided the match.

Agreed, if Patel had been given out when plumb LBW then the game would have finished yesterday, and if Langer had not copped his fourth bad decision against India in two series then India would be chasing 500+.

 

[Dasa]

Should it be the 3rd umpire who makes the lbw and caught behind decisions? With all this technology like hawk eye which never gets used in the match situations by the umpires, should technology be used?

Lets take for example an lbw shout, the 3rd umpire could perfectly analyse whether the ball pitched in line, and could then tell if it was going to hit the stumps - using hawk eye. However, the batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt if it would have just clipped the bails, or hit leg/off by a mm or two.

Surely getting the decision right and ending with a fair winner is more important than the umpires authority. In this Ind vs. Aus match there have been many poor decisions which have effectively decided the match.

I don't think the poor decisions have decided the match exactly... India have never looked like they were on top. However, I agree completely with the use of the third umpire in LBWs, and on occasion, caught behinds. The technology is there, why not use it?

Agreed, if Patel had been given out when plumb LBW then the game would have finished yesterday, and if Langer had not copped his fourth bad decision against India in two series then India would be chasing 500+.

Who knows what would have happened if Langer had been given out first ball in the first innings like he should have?

 

[marc71178]

Lets take for example an lbw shout, the 3rd umpire could perfectly analyse whether the ball pitched in line, and could then tell if it was going to hit the stumps - using hawk eye.

That's assuming you trust Hawkeye to be correct.

In this Ind vs. Aus match there have been many poor decisions which have effectively decided the match.

And of course the gulf in quality and performance didn't have a bearing.

 

[The Baconator]

i don't think hawkeye should be used just slow motion replays with some sort a red line projected down the middle of the pitch by some computer system thing if neccessary

 

[Richard]

Agreed, if Patel had been given out when plumb LBW then the game would have finished yesterday, and if Langer had not copped his fourth bad decision against India in two series then India would be chasing 500+.

Like it or not these had far less an influence on the match than the decisions in Australians' favour.
And if you're as poor against the inswinger as Langer is, you're asking to be given lbw - which means if you get a reputation for being an lbw candidate, you're going to get a few more poor decisions against you.
Franklyn Rose, for instance, in the latter part of his career it was virtually a case of as soon as the ball hit his pad the finger was up as a matter of course.

 

[Richard]

That's assuming you trust Hawkeye to be correct.

Which I don't, personally.
I find it far less reliable than Snickos and Red Zones, which about 60% of the time will give information not available without them.

 

[Richard]

That's just the way the cookie crumbles....

And that's far too Australian an attitude for my liking.
A decent, honest batsman is far more of a credit to the game than a cheat who knows perfectly well he's hit the ball and just stands there innocently.
There is no difference between this and claiming a catch you know hasn't carried - if players got suspended for gloving or nicking a ball and standing, it would do wonders for the game's inegrity.
And don't give me that rubbish about "it's not always possible to tell if you've nicked it" - it is every bit as easy as telling whether or not you've caught something. You do not hit the ball and not notice.

 

[Richard]

And the fact is they are.

Some people just can only see decisions that go against their team.

Which is irritating.
Nonetheless, so is a game such as the Bangalore Test where all the significant errors favour one team.
Of course it's not bias, but it is very bad for the game.

 

[SJS]

i don't think hawkeye should be used just slow motion replays with some sort a red line projected down the middle of the pitch by some computer system thing if neccessary

There are two clear areas where TV replays can help in LBW decisions

1. Whether or not the ball pitched outside the leg stump
2. Wheter or not the point of impact with the batsmans body was outside the line of the stumps.

and a third where it can be of assistance at times
- whether their was an edge before the ball hit the batsman's body.

All these can be done without the hawkeye.

I think hawkeye's problem could be in judging the height. This has to be left to the umpire on the ground. But cutting out the above mentioned alone will make for a huge reduction in the potential for errors.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why would 1) be any help at all?

 

[marc71178]

And don't give me that rubbish about "it's not always possible to tell if you've nicked it" - it is every bit as easy as telling whether or not you've caught something. You do not hit the ball and not notice.

Doesn't that contradict itself?

A lot of low catches the fielder doesn't know.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

i don't think hawkeye should be used just slow motion replays with some sort a red line projected down the middle of the pitch by some computer system thing if neccessary

And that differs from Hawk-Eye how?

 

[NikhilN]

As long as the match doesnt have Australia playing I dont care who the umpire is

 

[age_master]

the Australian team wants to have the best umpires for thier games as well so we need home umpires


also there are so many ODI games and series played, because they only go for a day having 4 neutral umps would be a logistical nightmare that is not really necessary.

 

[SJS]

Why would 1) be any help at all?

Thanks for the correction....sir

I meant leg stump, of course.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't that contradict itself?

A lot of low catches the fielder doesn't know.

You know if you haven't caught it - there will, of course, be an odd occasion here and there where a fielder has caught the ball and doesn't know for certain that he has.

 

[Tom Halsey]

But if he knows for certain when he hasn’t caught the ball, he wouldn’t thik he hasn’t when he actually has.

 

[marc71178]

You know if you haven't caught it - there will, of course, be an odd occasion here and there where a fielder has caught the ball and doesn't know for certain that he has.

And there'll also be a lot of times when they don't know if they've caught it or not.

Nicking it is a lot easier to tell.