Oh Deary Me!

[SJS]

- Umpiring is a thankless job

- It all evens out in the end

- The Umpires are human afterall

- They are not biased even though they make mistakes

- Its easy for us sitting in our drawing rooms​

So goes the list of defense offered for bad umpiring. Bad umpiring can not be defended PERIOD

- Lots of us have thankless jobs. No one overlooks our mistakes because of that.

- A mistake, favouring Pakistan does not cancel out an earlier one against England. It just makes the umpiring twice as bad as it was after the first mistake

- Yes they are human so are all professional, including George 'Dubya' Bush but I dont condone his stupidity either

- Being an unbiased bad umpire is not a virtue ! If it is, I nominate my wife to the ICC Elite panel

- When you do a lousy job dont hide behind the credentials of the critics. If there was a valid case for that argument then the selectors of all cricketing countries would have to be sacked for a start. Of course, we are likely to do a bad job at umpiring but THATS WHY WE ARE NOT GIVEN THAT JOB !!

They are professionals and are expected to do a good job.
When they dont they are going to be pulled up.
When they do are very bad job, they will be ridiculed.
When they do a terrible job, they should lose their jobs.
Thats what happens to all professionals.
You and me included.

 

[atlanta]

some are saying in this forum and other forums that umpires would constantly review every lbw or questionable catch and it would slow down the game. But american football replay challenge gets it perfectly right. A team can only challenge 3 times during a game. If you employ the same thing in cricket, it will resolve the whole "review every lbw appeal, slow down the game" theory.

I mean enough is enough, the so called "elite" umpires continue to make atrocious decisions. People don't come to see umpires screw up, and contrary to what people might claim, I don't think bad umpiring is a "part of the game", or it shouldn't be.

 

[greg]

Out of interest there's been senior tour tennis on BBC of late, caught a bit of Courier v McEnroe where Hawkeye was being used to judge line calls (whether ball landed in or out) on appeal from the players (in the normal tennis tour they're thinking of limiting the number of appeals to 2 per player per set) and it even shut McEnroe up when the Hawkeye generated replay came up. The first appeal the response was a bit slow and it took 20-30 seconds for the replay to come up (probably human error), but it was near instant after that.

Whether the ICC and umpires like it or not, this is the future for cricket.

There's a fundamental difference between Hawkeye in tennis and cricket - in tennis the point is to tell you where the ball has been, in cricket the point is to predict where it will go in the future. And it's predictive power has been observed to be somewhat flawed in the last year.

EDIT: d'oh! Read the thread!

 

[greg]

y?

its sceintificaly proven to be amaingly accurate.I wouldn't want it to be used for LBWs either but i don't dought its accuracy.

There were a number of deliveries in the Ashes series which either hit the stumps or came very close, and the Hawkeye replays had them missing by some distance.

 

[SJS]

There were a number of deliveries in the Ashes series which either hit the stumps or came very close, and the Hawkeye replays had them missing by some distance.

While there is some merit in doubting the hawkeye's accuracy in where the ball would have ended up but surely there is a lot of help the umpires could do with. To name a few...

• where the ball pitched, on the stumps or outside, particularly pitching outside leg
• where the point of contact with the pad was...in line with the stumps or outside
• whether there was a nick before the ball hit the pad...for LBW's
• whether there was a nick at all...for bat pad catches
• whether there was a nick for caught behind off faint edges..also to other close positions

and so on.

There will be more conclusive evidence with the third umpire in most such cases than is with the field umpire wiythout slow motion replays.

YES there will still be the odd case when it is still unclear , in such cases the benefit of the dobt will go to the batsman. But we would have got rid of a large number of DOUBTFUL BENEFITS that are given today or the batsmen who suffer from the quickly raised finger.

Just because technology can not help in 100 percent cases doesnt mean we should use it in ZERO PERCENT ! Thats obstinacy ICC style and logic Gavaskar style.

 

[greg]

some are saying in this forum and other forums that umpires would constantly review every lbw or questionable catch and it would slow down the game. But american football replay challenge gets it perfectly right. A team can only challenge 3 times during a game. If you employ the same thing in cricket, it will resolve the whole "review every lbw appeal, slow down the game" theory.

I mean enough is enough, the so called "elite" umpires continue to make atrocious decisions. People don't come to see umpires screw up, and contrary to what people might claim, I don't think bad umpiring is a "part of the game", or it shouldn't be.

I believe there's a difference in American football. In cricket who would decide if a decision is referred? The batsman? The captain of the fielding side? The coach in the dressing room with access to what the TV replays are showing (and whether they are showing doubt or not?) There would also be INCREASED pressure on the umpires because of the "benefit of the doubt" convention - something which does not apply in Gridiron where both Offensive and Defensive teams are effectively treated equally. There is also far less cause for interpretation in US football - the problems are, I think, often more a lack of eyes to see everything that goes on, more than a problem of Referees making bad decisions.

 

[shankar]

There's a fundamental difference between Hawkeye in tennis and cricket - in tennis the point is to tell you where the ball has been, in cricket the point is to predict where it will go in the future.

It's the same thing. The lbw rule requires the future path of the ball to be predicted on the basis that it follows the same path it followed prior to hitting the pad. So it just boils down to accurately tracking the ball prior to hitting the pad and then simply extrapolating the path.

 

[James90]

While there is some merit in doubting the hawkeye's accuracy in where the ball would have ended up but surely there is a lot of help the umpires could do with. To name a few...

• whether there was a nick before the ball hit the pad...for LBW's
• whether there was a nick at all...for bat pad catches
• whether there was a nick for caught behind off faint edges..also to other close positions

I think it's likely that hawkeye will be trialled sometime in the future. I'm also wondering if the Super-slow-mo camera could be used to determine if the bat had made contact with the ball in cases such as your example above.

 

[atlanta]

I believe there's a difference in American football. In cricket who would decide if a decision is referred? The batsman? The captain of the fielding side? The coach in the dressing room with access to what the TV replays are showing (and whether they are showing doubt or not?) There would also be INCREASED pressure on the umpires because of the "benefit of the doubt" convention - something which does not apply in Gridiron where both Offensive and Defensive teams are effectively treated equally. There is also far less cause for interpretation in US football - the problems are, I think, often more a lack of eyes to see everything that goes on, more than a problem of Referees making bad decisions.

yes, on lbw, it can be made by the batting or the bowling team. What's wrong with that. It's not so difficult. Who cares about the umps being under increased pressure. Hell, they are under increased pressure now.

and like shankar said, umpires do the same thing that hawkeye does. determine the path of the ball even if they are not 100% sure it will end up in the same exact spot that they think it will end up in. When push comes to shove, I would trust hawkeye before daryll hair or koertzen. To say these two have been atrocious (sp) in this series would be a slap in the face to the word atrocious.

 

[SJS]

Those who claim that increasing use of technology and the third umpire will result in loss of importance of the field umpire are so wrong its not funny. Thay arent doing a favour to the field umpired, they are amongst those ensuring that these umpires are subject to ridicule and worse by public who have the benefit of the technology denied to those who need it the most.

I remember when computers were making there inroads into companies in India (I have lived and worked through that period from bulky adding, subtracting and multiplying machines which were cranked with a lever to denote the number of times you multiplied, to hand held calculators, to computer) and there was this huge number of people, particularly the older accountants who refused to use hardware for anything except as type writers. They saw computers and software as something designed to make them redundant and finally take away their jobs.

Where are we today and where would the accountants be without computers.

It is ridiculous, this obduracy to keep out technology.

I sacked one of my Accounts Managers and groomed a young professional to usher computerisation in my first job as CEO. Maybe the ICC needs a similar influx of younger technology savvy and not technology weary managers.

 

[greg]

yes, on lbw, it can be made by the batting or the bowling team. What's wrong with that. It's not so difficult. .

.

And do they have to make such an appeal instantaneously or do they get a signal from the dressing room telling them what the TV replays are saying?

 

[SJS]

And do they have to make such an appeal instantaneously or do they get a signal from the dressing room telling them what the TV replays are saying?

I think these are details that can be sorted out once the basic decision to use technology is made. We need not feel emotionally attached to whether or not the third umpire should intervene only on being consulted, whether he can be appealed to as a second recourse by the fielding side and whether he can over rule the field umpire.

These things can be resolved purely on logical and practical considerations. Everyione, field umpires, third umpires and match refree are there to do a job which is to conduct the game in fairness. In doing that job, if roles have to redefined and authority redelegated, so be it.

It happens all the time in all spheres of business and everyday running of all affairs in the world. Why should this be different.

The important thing is to decide what the major objective is...to make sure no feathers/egos are ruffled or to provide an irriotant frr system to the extent feasible. I think the answer is the latter.

AND it should be an ongoing process since technology will kepp improving and provide increasing accuracy to the decision making proces. What can be better for the game?

 

[atlanta]

And do they have to make such an appeal instantaneously or do they get a signal from the dressing room telling them what the TV replays are saying?

challenge should come from the dressing room. Kind of like in football (american). Coach can review the play in big screen and decide whether to challenge or not before the other team runs a play. similarly in cricket, team can challenge a play before the next ball is bowled.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't really take to the 'human' element about cricketing decisions.

there was a post on cricinfo's technology blog that summed my views up perfectly.

'the flaw is not the charm'

Another typical argument is that the charm of cricket comes from the element of uncertainty, and that human error is a part of that charm. I disagree. Cricket gets its charm not from human error but from human excellence. When a quality spinner is continually frustrated by batsmen who keep padding up to him and getting the benefit of the inevitable doubt, a doubt that technology can reduce, if not remove, that excellence is compromised. When a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar is wrongly given out time and again on his tours to Australia, to ludicrous errors that the use of technology would eliminate, that excellence is compromised. Technology reduces error and does justice to the excellence that is the soul of the game. Cricket can only benefit from it.

The same can be said about Lara in Australia. Honestly, I generally don't get so aroused when batsmen who are out are given not out, but I really feel bad and angry when batsmen who are clearly not out are given out. It is the benefit of the doubt going to batsman theory, I guess.

 

[greg]

I think these are details that can be sorted out once the basic decision to use technology is made. We need not feel emotionally attached to whether or not the third umpire should intervene only on being consulted, whether he can be appealed to as a second recourse by the fielding side and whether he can over rule the field umpire.

These things can be resolved purely on logical and practical considerations. Everyione, field umpires, third umpires and match refree are there to do a job which is to conduct the game in fairness. In doing that job, if roles have to redefined and authority redelegated, so be it.

It happens all the time in all spheres of business and everyday running of all affairs in the world. Why should this be different.

The important thing is to decide what the major objective is...to make sure no feathers/egos are ruffled or to provide an irriotant frr system to the extent feasible. I think the answer is the latter.

AND it should be an ongoing process since technology will kepp improving and provide increasing accuracy to the decision making proces. What can be better for the game?

I disagree - the details are very important. Comparisons with business are slightly misleading, because often the point in business is to save time and money as much as to produce more accurate work. The "appeals idea" was suggested as a solution to the specific problem of technology slowing down the game (which is important in cricket, unlike US football (or indeed virtually every other sport i can think of), because there is a specific time period in which the game must be played. Think for example of the case of Ponting, given not out by technology after 15 minutes analysis at Trent Bridge. There are many different ways in which technology (with consideration for it's limitations borne in mind) could be introduced, but primarily because it is not perfect how it is introduced is very important. Decisions would have to be made as to whether technology is an aid to the onfield umpires or has the power to overrule them (this is particularly relevant in situations where there is doubt - and as we have seen (eg. low catches) television can often create (wrongful) doubt where for the umpire there is little. Now maybe all these problems can be solved satisfactorily, but they have to be discussed and debated in advance.

And appropriate solutions would be very different in different parts of the world - the Super Series "trial" for example had a very benign environment for testing in Australia, where, frankly, umpiring should not be that difficult. Opinions of it could have been very different (either positive or negative) had it been held in India, for example.

 

[greg]

challenge should come from the dressing room. Kind of like in football (american). Coach can review the play in big screen and decide whether to challenge or not before the other team runs a play. similarly in cricket, team can challenge a play before the next ball is bowled.

I personally don't think you've thought the implications of that through. Would the coach have to call for time outs to review the pictures? Would they have a limited no. of timeouts to go with the limited no. of appeals? Do you want spinners overs to go from lasting 3 minutes to lasting 10?

EDIT: OK so maybe the coach could get a signal from the onfield players suggesting they want a review. It would be a useful time wasting tactic though for the fielding side ;-)

 

[SJS]

I disagree - the details are very important. Comparisons with business are slightly misleading, because often the point in business is to save time and money as much as to produce more accurate work. The "appeals idea" was suggested as a solution to the specific problem of technology slowing down the game (which is important in cricket, unlike US football (or indeed virtually every other sport i can think of), because there is a specific time period in which the game must be played. Think for example of the case of Ponting, given not out by technology after 15 minutes analysis at Trent Bridge. There are many different ways in which technology (with consideration for it's limitations borne in mind) could be introduced, but primarily because it is not perfect how it is introduced is very important. Decisions would have to be made as to whether technology is an aid to the onfield umpires or has the power to overrule them (this is particularly relevant in situations where there is doubt - and as we have seen (eg. low catches) television can often create (wrongful) doubt where for the umpire there is little. Now maybe all these problems can be solved satisfactorily, but they have to be discussed and debated in advance.

And appropriate solutions would be very different in different parts of the world - the Super Series "trial" for example had a very benign environment for testing in Australia, where, frankly, umpiring should not be that difficult. Opinions of it could have been very different (either positive or negative) had it been held in India, for example.

I didnt say details are NOT important. Nor did I suggest that they should not be dealt with before introducing technology in the game. I just said, taking the deision to use it is the first step not finding reasons for delaying it.

As far as comparisons with business being slightly misleading, again, I refered to business as a comparison because that is the one which readily came to mind. All comparison of things as dis-similar as cricket and business will have there differences. To say that they are different is to state the obvious. The comparison was made to help explain the point being made not because it was an exact replica of the situation.

 

[greg]

I didnt say details are NOT important. Nor did I suggest that they should not be dealt with before introducing technology in the game. I just said, taking the deision to use it is the first step not finding reasons for delaying it.

As far as comparisons with business being slightly misleading, again, I refered to business as a comparison because that is the one which readily came to mind. All comparison of things as dis-similar as cricket and business will have there differences. To say that they are different is to state the obvious. The comparison was made to help explain the point being made not because it was an exact replica of the situation.

Well I'm perfectly happy with the principle that technology should be used. I don't think there are that many people who aren't - after all it is, pretty successfully, at the moment.

So it is all about details. Although i support the principle of technology use, I am not prepared to support it unless it's implementation is properly thought out and has a clear benefit. And thus far i haven't heard a convincing case (even though I'm perfectly prepared to believe that one might exist), beyond commentators seeing a bad decision, seeing TV cameras showing it to be a bad decision, and saying "technology must be used". That sort of stuff doesn't advance the debate at all. Especially when the same commentators (especially Australian ones if the recent series is any evidence) will then totally disregard technology when it disagrees with their opinions (see, for example, the Lara "not out" vs Symonds in the final test).

The situation with low catches is a clear case (and cautionary tale) of how the introduction of technology can be not just a neutral thing but actually a bad thing. The number of disputed low catches, eliciting heated public argument, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, since the technology was rolled back.

Before we get too tied into the technology argument i think there needs to be a bit more scrutiny of some of the decisions these umpires are making. Because for all the talk about "umpiring being as good as ever", there have been some absolutely unbelievable decisions made in the last year.

 

[SJS]

Well I'm perfectly happy with the principle that technology should be used. I don't think there are that many people who aren't - after all it is, pretty successfully, at the moment.

So it is all about details. Although i support the principle of technology use, I am not prepared to support it unless it's implementation is properly thought out and has a clear benefit. And thus far i haven't heard a convincing case (even though I'm perfectly prepared to believe that one might exist), beyond commentators seeing a bad decision, seeing TV cameras showing it to be a bad decision, and saying "technology must be used". That sort of stuff doesn't advance the debate at all. Especially when the same commentators (especially Australian ones if the recent series is any evidence) will then totally disregard technology when it disagrees with their opinions (see, for example, the Lara "not out" vs Symonds in the final test).

The situation with low catches is a clear case (and cautionary tale) of how the introduction of technology can be not just a neutral thing but actually a bad thing. The number of disputed low catches, eliciting heated public argument, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, since the technology was rolled back.

Before we get too tied into the technology argument i think there needs to be a bit more scrutiny of some of the decisions these umpires are making. Because for all the talk about "umpiring being as good as ever", there have been some absolutely unbelievable decisions made in the last year.

Sure. No arguments with all that.

 

[Armadillo]

I remember in Faisalabad when Bell claimed the catch off Youhana, Woolmer was telling Youhana to go back because he had obviously seen that Bell had dropped the catch, is this right? If he had gone back would they then have had another look?