• 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.

Third Umpire

Do you think wrong decisions can change the result of the match?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 97.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33

Karthik.2

Cricket Spectator
During day four of the first test between India and England,this incident occured.Kumble was bowling to Pieterson and the batsman hit the ball back to the bowler directly.The Indians started celebrating but the batsman wasn't convinced and stood right there.The umpire then called for the third umpire.He had several looks at it,the commentator was convinced that it was out,but the third umpire flashed the green light on.

A wrong decision by the normal umpire who is viewing it in real time can be accepted,but wrong decisions with the help of technology isn't a good sign.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
I think that, more to the point, you ought to be more concerned about the pathetic catching on display than on a single aberration..
 

Swervy

International Captain
Karthik.2 said:
During day four of the first test between India and England,this incident occured.Kumble was bowling to Pieterson and the batsman hit the ball back to the bowler directly.The Indians started celebrating but the batsman wasn't convinced and stood right there.The umpire then called for the third umpire.He had several looks at it,the commentator was convinced that it was out,but the third umpire flashed the green light on.

A wrong decision by the normal umpire who is viewing it in real time can be accepted,but wrong decisions with the help of technology isn't a good sign.
the point is you can only give a batsman out if you are 100% sure it is out...and on those replays of the KP 'catch' I dont think anyone could be 100% sure. From one angle, it looked to me KP his the ball as the ball was on the ground and so I would say he wasnt out
 

Swervy

International Captain
BoyBrumby said:
Sorry to disagree, but it looked totally out for me. Side-view was the one that showed it best.
the side view (from KPs offside) did look out, but the moment of impact on the ball by the bat was in between frames, so in fact you couldnt see it. The give away view was from the onside straightish, and you can see that the ball may well have been touching the ground when the bat hit it...the point is though that there is no way to really know for certain, and in that case the benefit has to go to the batsman, and so the correct decision was made IMO.

It would have been interesting to see s Super slo-mo type shot of it.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
the point is you can only give a batsman out if you are 100% sure it is out...and on those replays of the KP 'catch' I dont think anyone could be 100% sure. From one angle, it looked to me KP his the ball as the ball was on the ground and so I would say he wasnt out
It was interesting to hear KP being interviewed afterwards - and he admitted that he was 'fortunate' having seen a few replays. I think we can take it as read that it was in all likelihood out - but remember that the ball takes about a second to travel 20 metres and television cameras work on either 30 or 60 frames per second. Even at the faster rate, consecutive frames would show the ball having moved on 30 cm or so (one of the reasons third umpires have such a problem with close direct-hit run-outs) and your brain fills in the blanks.
 

Swervy

International Captain
luckyeddie said:
It was interesting to hear KP being interviewed afterwards - and he admitted that he was 'fortunate' having seen a few replays. I think we can take it as read that it was in all likelihood out - but remember that the ball takes about a second to travel 20 metres and television cameras work on either 30 or 60 frames per second. Even at the faster rate, consecutive frames would show the ball having moved on 30 cm or so (one of the reasons third umpires have such a problem with close direct-hit run-outs) and your brain fills in the blanks.
absolutely,and so the benefit has to go to the batsman, otherwise it is actually just guessing that he was out
 

alternative

Cricket Web Content Updater
I say Wrong decisions can change the result of the match, but we do have to consider the uncertaitnity and so forth.. if the umpire is not 100% confirmed, then i just see that its not correct for the batsmen to be given out..

in any case, i agree with eddie.. they just needed to latch on to the catches atleast.. there has been alot said about the india fielding that the youth has been a great asset in this department.. But i just didn't work..

I blame the drop catches cost to be more important than that of the umpire's decision in this case..
 

adharcric

International Coach
alternative said:
I say Wrong decisions can change the result of the match, but we do have to consider the uncertaitnity and so forth.. if the umpire is not 100% confirmed, then i just see that its not correct for the batsmen to be given out..

in any case, i agree with eddie.. they just needed to latch on to the catches atleast.. there has been alot said about the india fielding that the youth has been a great asset in this department.. But i just didn't work..

I blame the drop catches cost to be more important than that of the umpire's decision in this case..
The "youth" aspect shows up more in ODIs, where we often have Yuvraj, Kaif AND Raina on at the same time. Take a look at the "seasoned" test lineup, Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar are not world-class agile fielders, Jaffer isn't as good as Gambhir and Kaif is wasted half the time at short-leg.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Swervy said:
It would have been interesting to see s Super slo-mo type shot of it.
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.
 

33/3from3.3

International Vice-Captain
No offence but it's kinda stupid to ask
"do wrong decisions affect a match"(not exact words)
your bound to get 1 or 2 bad decisions now and again - i cant say if was bad or not
i didnt see "the KP incident" but maybe if this guy has been hired to be the 3rd umpire he might be trained to see things we don't
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
the point is you can only give a batsman out if you are 100% sure it is out...and on those replays of the KP 'catch' I dont think anyone could be 100% sure. From one angle, it looked to me KP his the ball as the ball was on the ground and so I would say he wasnt out
For me as long as there is a single angle that suggests it's clearly out there's no doubt.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
adharcric said:
The "youth" aspect shows up more in ODIs, where we often have Yuvraj, Kaif AND Raina on at the same time. Take a look at the "seasoned" test lineup, Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar are not world-class agile fielders, Jaffer isn't as good as Gambhir and Kaif is wasted half the time at short-leg.
Dravid and Laxman are IMO World-class slip-fielders, even if Laxman did put down a complete clanger off Pietersen.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
andyc said:
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.
Usually because there's only 1 camera at each game (I presume they're kinda expensive), but obviously as the 1000fps cameras become more standard they will be used in said situations.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
That decision was as stupid as you will get. Period. I don't see why anyone has to justify such a ludicurously(sp?) bad decision. But mistakes happen. India had other chances to get KP out too. So, in the end analysis, I think India's inability to catch affected the match more than that idiotic decision.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Karthik.2 said:
During day four of the first test between India and England,this incident occured.Kumble was bowling to Pieterson and the batsman hit the ball back to the bowler directly.The Indians started celebrating but the batsman wasn't convinced and stood right there.The umpire then called for the third umpire.He had several looks at it,the commentator was convinced that it was out,but the third umpire flashed the green light on.

A wrong decision by the normal umpire who is viewing it in real time can be accepted,but wrong decisions with the help of technology isn't a good sign.
Err... any bad decision is extremely likely to affect the game. As is any dropped catch or missed stumping.
How much affect depends on what happens next but it would be quite possible to say, for instance, that Herschelle Gibbs "dropped the World Cup" in 1999 when he missed Stephen Waugh and that Shane Warne "dropped The Ashes" at The Oval last summer when he missed Pietersen off a sitter at first-slip.
There are countless more examples. Courtney Browne and Stephen Waugh (again) at Sabina Park in 1995, most obvious of all.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
honestbharani said:
That decision was as stupid as you will get. Period. I don't see why anyone has to justify such a ludicurously(sp?) bad decision. But mistakes happen. India had other chances to get KP out too. So, in the end analysis, I think India's inability to catch affected the match more than that idiotic decision.
Indeed.
Two things need serious questions asked of them:
India's catching
Ivaturi Shivram's eyesight\clarity-of-mind
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For me as long as there is a single angle that suggests it's clearly out there's no doubt.
Nope, not enough. As luckyeddie said, there's plenty of error inherent in any instrument (especially one which has to zoom using less-than-precise lenses), let alone a relatively imprecise one as these cameras are. There's no measurement indicators nor can we be definite that what is seen is exactly how it happened. There's enough of both measurement and instrumental errors to argue that these cameras should require at least two angles to correlate before a decision can be made.
 

Autobahn

State 12th Man
I think super slow-mo takes a while to set it up, all the times i've seen TV channels use it, it's been at least a couple of overs later and you can't have batsmen waiting that long. :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Top_Cat said:
Nope, not enough. As luckyeddie said, there's plenty of error inherent in any instrument (especially one which has to zoom using less-than-precise lenses), let alone a relatively imprecise one as these cameras are. There's no measurement indicators nor can we be definite that what is seen is exactly how it happened. There's enough of both measurement and instrumental errors to argue that these cameras should require at least two angles to correlate before a decision can be made.
IIRR there were 2 angles that showed it to be clearly out in this instance, anyhow.
 

Top