• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Technology - What's Your Verdict?

howardj

International Coach
Well, having been trialled in the three SuperSeries matches, there's now a small body of evidence with which to form an opinion on the expanded use of technology. My view is that it was a resounding success and should stay. For instance, with Martyn's innings today, the technology was used twice in relation to LBW appeals. In the first instance, the side-on replay indicated that the ball was indeed going over the stumps - a replay that the on-field umpire would not otherwise have had access to.

The second instance, was when Umpire Dar wanted to know whether Martyn had got an inside edge onto the ball, and whether the ball had pitched in line with the stumps. Again, the replay resolved these issues, and Martyn was given out LBW. In both cases, the replays resolved the doubts that the umpires had, and were quite unambiguous. The technology assisted the umpires to arrive at the correct decision.

Of course, the major complaint going into the series was that the technology - or the referrals to it - would be too time consuming. However, in Australia's innings, despite four referrals, the innings finished on time. Besides, who cares if a few extra minutes are taken up? I mean, spectators - when bowlers go around the wicket - wait while the sidescreen is moved and the batsman scratches out a new guard.

They also wait for while video run-out decisions are being made, and while captains have endless conferences with their vice-captains, keeper and bowlers about field placings/tactics. So, what opponents of technology are saying, is that we can afford those delays, but we can't afford the very insignificant delays (as shown today) in order to help the umpire gather more evidence to hopefully arrive at the correct decision. Crazy stuff.

Anyway, let's hope that the technology stays. As shown in this series, it is not often sought, but when it is, it often adds to the adjudicative armoury of the umpire, and improves the quality of decision making. Furthermore, the time-wastage fears are very much, as shown today, over-stated.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
i agree totally and i hope the ICC do aswell.

cricket isn't exactly a non-stop game anyway so a couple of delays won't hurt.

using technology is so much better than not using it,as channel 9 pointed out,the players can't complain about the decisions that they thought were out or not because the umpires have used the best veiws availible.

IMO,more technology can only be good for the game.
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
I hope it doesn't stay.

All the umpire needs is a stump microphone in his ear to try and pick up sounds, it has always been his judgement on the others.

All this is doing is delaying cricket even more.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I didn't see any of the SuperSeries but I still believe the best solution is for the captain of each side to have 3 third umpire appeals a day, if he feels the decision was wrong he appeals to the third umpire and they decide whether the uphold the original verdict or not. If the initial verdict is upheld then the captain loses an appeal, if the verdict is changed then they don't lose an appeal. It's not intended to change run-out decisions, which would still go to the third umpire if the umpire decides that way. I think this is the best way to eliminate errors because often the umpire is in little doubt over a decision they've actually gotten wrong - in this instance they don't go to the third umpire and the result is the bad decision stands. The way it is at present you've also got the potential for the umpires to go to the third umpire for virtually everything.

I hope whether they keep with the present sort of system or not that they do bring in third umpires for all Tests, I think over time we'll get to a point where players simply walk off when they thin edge the ball or on the bat-pad decisions because they know they'll be given out eventually anyway.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I'm still undecided as I was at all 3 matches, and hence I guess I wasn't in the best position to decide. From what I overheard from crowd members, it received a mixed reaction. However howardj your argument against the argument of delays is strong IMO. Its fine for captains to chat with their bowlers for 90 seconds, but its not fine to double check if a decision, which may have a significant impact on the game of cricket people have paid to watch, is correct?
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
howardj said:
Anyway, let's hope that the technology stays. As shown in this series, it is not often sought, but when it is, it often adds to the adjudicative armoury of the umpire, and improves the quality of decision making. Furthermore, the time-wastage fears are very much, as shown today, over-stated.
Couldn't agree more...I can't really see a credible argument against the use of technology as it was used in the Super Series matches. The delays were largely short - at any rate, we often see longer delays when umpires are checking whether a fielder touched the boundary while fielding a ball and such.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
SirBloody Idiot said:
All the umpire needs is a stump microphone in his ear to try and pick up sounds, it has always been his judgement on the others.
I'd add giving the 3rd umpire no balls and that's all that we'd need IMO - with no delays to the game.
 

Shounak

Banned
marc71178 said:
I'd add giving the 3rd umpire no balls and that's all that we'd need IMO - with no delays to the game.
That would be good.. Warney might have a test century if that were in place earlier..

But I say use the technology.. It's there and it's better for the game.. Cricket has to grow up like any other sport.. They're not playing the same game they did 50 years ago, a lot more is on the line these days.. It's fair on cricketers that they get the right decisions..
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
I'd add giving the 3rd umpire no balls and that's all that we'd need IMO - with no delays to the game.
I would want that too as its too much of an effort asked for from the umpires to look at the bowling crease and then towards the batting end in a flash.

However in this regard an interesting incident occured in the match today. Ntini bowled a ball and the batsman was caught. However the replay showed the bowler might have delivered a no ball. The umpire called it then and Ntini started swaying ihs head as he returned to his bowling run up.

Holding was in the commentary and he said that he was not convinced no part of the foot was behind the bowling crease. It certainly was a bit dountful from the video clippings.

So until the video is conclusive (a closer camera may help) the decision should not be given to the third umpire. After a better video technology is used, I am with you that 3rd umpires should be given the responsibility of judging no balls.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
shounak said:
That would be good.. Warney might have a test century if that were in place earlier..
And equally he wouldn't have got anywhere near if about 3 catches hadn't been dropped.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Richard said:
And equally he wouldn't have got anywhere near if about 3 catches hadn't been dropped.
Why compare an umpiring fault with a player fault :p

Your one chance average theory comes up again? NO!

Its a game being played. Between two teams. If one team makes a mistake the other team captialises on it. Bah.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
howardj said:
Well, having been trialled in the three SuperSeries matches, there's now a small body of evidence with which to form an opinion on the expanded use of technology. My view is that it was a resounding success and should stay. For instance, with Martyn's innings today, the technology was used twice in relation to LBW appeals. In the first instance, the side-on replay indicated that the ball was indeed going over the stumps - a replay that the on-field umpire would not otherwise have had access to.

The second instance, was when Umpire Dar wanted to know whether Martyn had got an inside edge onto the ball, and whether the ball had pitched in line with the stumps. Again, the replay resolved these issues, and Martyn was given out LBW. In both cases, the replays resolved the doubts that the umpires had, and were quite unambiguous. The technology assisted the umpires to arrive at the correct decision.

Of course, the major complaint going into the series was that the technology - or the referrals to it - would be too time consuming. However, in Australia's innings, despite four referrals, the innings finished on time. Besides, who cares if a few extra minutes are taken up? I mean, spectators - when bowlers go around the wicket - wait while the sidescreen is moved and the batsman scratches out a new guard.

They also wait for while video run-out decisions are being made, and while captains have endless conferences with their vice-captains, keeper and bowlers about field placings/tactics. So, what opponents of technology are saying, is that we can afford those delays, but we can't afford the very insignificant delays (as shown today) in order to help the umpire gather more evidence to hopefully arrive at the correct decision. Crazy stuff.

Anyway, let's hope that the technology stays. As shown in this series, it is not often sought, but when it is, it often adds to the adjudicative armoury of the umpire, and improves the quality of decision making. Furthermore, the time-wastage fears are very much, as shown today, over-stated.
Certainly I've always felt that the "it'll take too long" stuff is overplayed. Over-rates are stupidly slow enough anyway, there's so much time wasted between deliveries as it is.
I've always been of the opinion that the calling of no-balls has to be done in some way completely unconnected to the standing-Umpire. Whether it be by third-Umpire or some form of Cyclops (that'd be my preference).
It strikes me as crazy that when there are so many ways to make no-ball calling so easy that we're still insisting on doing it the hard way.
I've also been a fan of consultation between both Umpires, TV and standing. So if something has blatantly pitched outside leg a third Umpire can instantly relay that.
I don't even understand why we don't have the easiest method - why bother even with all the signing? Why not just have a two-way headpiece, which Sky use in Twenty20 Cup games to talk to the players, which connects both on-field Umpires, third and fourth Umpire and Match Referee? And wire this system up to the stump-cam, too.
That would even cut down further the already miniscule delays and would ensure wrong decisions became almost non-events. Take the calling of no-balls off everyone's mind, make missing a nick almost impossible, and make missing a glove so unlikely that it'll hopefully be taken out of the equation.
And of course if batsmen know they're near enough certain not to get away with a non-deviation nick or a glove, they're likely to give-up this pretending they're not out when they know blatantly that they are, and we're likely to see walking become the abounding trait.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pratyush said:
Why compare an umpiring fault with a player fault :p

Your one chance average theory comes up again? NO!

Its a game being played. Between two teams. If one team makes a mistake the other team captialises on it. Bah.
And if one player makes a mistake it does not mean another player deserves that luck, any more than they deserve an Umpiring error for or against them.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Richard said:
And if one player makes a mistake it does not mean another player deserves that luck, any more than they deserve an Umpiring error for or against them.
Why not? Human beings are playing, not robots. Its a competition and mistakes are bound to happen!
 

Swervy

International Captain
Pratyush said:
Why not? Human beings are playing, not robots. Its a competition and mistakes are bound to happen!
there is no room for human frailty in Richards view of the game
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Apart from of course his own frailty in continuing to tell us all he knows better than the rest of the world.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pratyush said:
Why not? Human beings are playing, not robots. Its a competition and mistakes are bound to happen!
Yes, indeed.
Where did I say anything to the contrary?
All I've ever said is those mistakes should not be discounted and brushed-off as if they didn't happen.
 

C_C

International Captain
Pratyush said:
Why not? Human beings are playing, not robots. Its a competition and mistakes are bound to happen!

So why dont we take that attitude and apply it everywhere ? Why do we have robots make microcircuitry and not some guy sitting with a silicon cast, sand, tin and a soldering tip ?
 

C_C

International Captain
marc71178 said:
Apart from of course his own frailty in continuing to tell us all he knows better than the rest of the world.
Please define this so-called 'world opinion' and what makes it so valid.
Please tell me how many of them ( or even here) understand control systems and its applications.
Please tell me how or why a human umpire is better suited to the task of real time precision decision making than a control system.
Please tell me why we have advanced control systems in industrial processes
8-)
 

Shounak

Banned
Richard said:
Yes, indeed.
Where did I say anything to the contrary?
All I've ever said is those mistakes should not be discounted and brushed-off as if they didn't happen.
It's completely irrelevant to this thread. The fact is that Warne did get to 99, despite his dropped catches. We're not debating whether or not he should be credited for the runs after his first chance..

We're simply discussing the use of technology..

If you want to draw members into an argument about this, just start another thread.. It has NOTHING at all to do with technology..
 

Top