Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 116

Thread: Technology - What's Your Verdict?

  1. #1
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,792

    Technology - What's Your Verdict?

    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.

  2. #2
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    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.

  3. #3
    Cricketer Of The Year SirBloody Idiot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Moving the hole in the o-zone layer
    Posts
    8,547
    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.

  4. #4
    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.
    National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk


  5. #5
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,599
    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?
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  6. #6
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by howardj
    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.

  7. #7
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,593
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot
    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.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  8. #8
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    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..

  9. #9
    Banned Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,793
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    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.

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by shounak
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  11. #11
    Banned Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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

    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.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by howardj
    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.

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush
    Why compare an umpiring fault with a player fault

    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.

  14. #14
    Banned Pratters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kolkata, India
    Posts
    20,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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!

  15. #15
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratyush
    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
    rave down, hit the ground


    MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Technology - Cricket vs Soccer
    By deep85 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 18-01-2005, 05:03 PM
  2. India in Australia 2003/04 - the final verdict?
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-09-2004, 07:24 AM
  3. the use of technology in umpiring
    By jagaways in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-12-2003, 10:44 AM
  4. Live Scoring - Verdict
    By Andre in forum World Cup 2003
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 23-03-2003, 02:21 PM
  5. Technology
    By Kimbo in forum World Cup 2003
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2003, 03:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •