Third Umpire

[Swervy]

IIRR there were 2 angles that showed it to be clearly out in this instance, anyhow.

well I seem to remember that the moment of impact in the KP C&B thing was ctally in between frames on the view that looked like he was out. On the view from long on, the ball was clearly seen to be hitting the ground as it hit the bat..so benefit of the doubt has to go with the batsman

 

[Richard]

I thought it suggested that was a possibility - and other angles showed it hadn't happened that way.

 

[Jono]

Swervy I really don't see how you could say KP wasn't out. I mean often those 3rd umpire calls on catches resulting in not outs are reasonable and you can understand why its not given, but that KP one was clearer that Kumble caught it than others where there is some doubt.

Its no coincidence almost everyone believed KP to be more than lucky compared to other 3rd umpire calls where you just couldn't give it out.

 

[utopianindigent]

Of course bad decisions are not all crucial in the context of the match. However, sometimes they are, and this needs to be recognised if the ICC are to be jump-started into action. The technology is available to achieve little improvements. But then the whole system needs careful thinking.

E.g. the TV ump was called on for a crucial decision in the recent second test between SL and SA in Columbo - all he had to do was tell as small little lie and say 'inconclusive' to the ball being out of bounds, and in terms of the rules that meant the in-form batsman Rudolph was out. One more error to get rid of De Villiers later on, and the result of the match and THE SERIES was changed by error. The problem here was that, with the rules written as they are, the TV ump should not have been a local. (TH Wijewardene)

Another one:

"Ntini being given out lbw" (referring to an error at Edgbaston)

That shouldn't be that important in the context of the game, as the Proteas are down and out if they need Ntini to bat through. However, doing that to Kallis, Smith, Rudolph AND Ntini in one innings, as Bucknor did at Kingsmead, that is highly suspicious if not comically incompetent. It renders the outcome of the match (and, once again, that series) unacceptable.

Do something about the umpiring crisis! Collect data on bad umpiring on worstcricketumpires on ezboard, so that we have one collection of evidence to take to the ICC! England-India and England-pakistan (not to mention the 2005 Ashes) are three instances not yet discussed properly on worstcricketumpires.



http://p067.ezboard.com/bworstcricketumpires

 

[open365]

Why the third umpire doesn't use super slow-mo to judge close run outs and catches I don't know, but it'd make a whole lot more sense.

I think there's only a few cameras that have the super slow mo capablity.

 

[andyc]

I think there's only a few cameras that have the super slow mo capablity.

I'm sure you're right, but what I don't understand (as I've said before) is why they deem it better to focus on Andrew Symonds' dreadlocks as he bowls or the ripples in a batsman's shirt as he runs or whatever, instead of using it for the third umpire.

 

[marc71178]

Do something about the umpiring crisis! Collect data on bad umpiring on worstcricketumpires on ezboard, so that we have one collection of evidence to take to the ICC!

You might also want conclusive proof that the umpires not on the Elite panel are better.

 

[utopianindigent]

"You might also want conclusive proof that the umpires not on the Elite panel are better."

Changing the umpires are not necessarily the only option. (Except perhaps in the case of Hair and Bucknor). I am talking about measures like:
- allowing referral to technology on all decisions (e.g. bat-pad and low catches) and re-training umpires to understand the difference between corroborative evidence (I thought I heard the right noises) as opposed to conclusive evidence (the camera on all angles show the ball brushed the elbow and then the pad - Rudolph errors by Bucknor).
- using international umps for tv/third ump since their decisions are getting important (e.g. see SA against SL latest test, Kumble vs Pieterson)

IF the ICC were serious about this problem they would be able to think through this properly - perfection is unattainable but crucial little improvements are available.

 

[SJS]

Theoretically a wrong decision CAN change the result of a match but it is easy to think of THAT wrong decision alone when the match has been decided. Dozens of other things could happen between that decision and the end of the match that could undo the effect of the decision. Its so easy to dwell on that one event.

The answer has to be NO.

Generally speaking a match is decided on the basis of the MANY things that happen during the match good bowling (and bad bowling) good batting (and bad batting) good fielding (and bad fielding) besides weather, wicket conditions, winning (or losing) the toss etc etc.

Teams/players are known to overcome loss of vital tosses, terrible decisions by captains, bad fielding errors and so forth. If players can take their own errors in their stride why cant they take those of the officials similarly. They are as much part of the game and as human. If only we would remember that.

PS And yes KP was out.

 

[AussieDominance]

ok how easy is that YES!!