Should we use technology for better decisions?

[Pratters]

Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?

Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?

Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals - 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.

Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. They are human and we cannot expect them to make every decision correct. However, that does not mean that we should not try and get decisions correct, particularly as they can be so crucial in a game like cricket.

At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.

 

[Matteh]

Naah, no need to turn it into tennis.

For me the whole 'completely on the umpire' approach is much better as it's far less clinical. I'd rather the onus was on the umpire to make the correct decision than knowing that they can be overruled by replays, which in turn increases the pressure on the umpires as their mistakes can be shown and affect the game instantly.

 

[DCC_legend]

Tough decision this. It would be very useful, using it in dismissal situations. But if you used it in tight decisions all the time, what would be the point in having umpires?

 

[Richard]

Let's not forget that Kasprowicz was out in said Test before he'd scored, but was incorrectly given n\o.

Anyway - I'm in favour of every decision being made as right as it can possibly be by using everything available to everyone (at as many levels as possible). However, I'd not just throw everything in all together - I'd do it gradually, bit by bit, and keep as much of the actual decision-giving with the Umpires out in the middle (cut out this big-screen-decision time-wasting nonsense).

Obviously you don't want to waste time, but time's wasted to a stupid extent these days anyway. Getting a correct decision would not waste time if done in an effective way - ie, get the players back in position while the decision is given, which takes a stupidly long time in any case.

Obviously you'll never get every decision 100% right every time. But you could get damn close I think if you used everything you can possibly use.

And I'd start by taking no-ball calling out of the hands of the standing Umpire. Ideally at every level down to club level where it can be afforded.

 

[Sanz]

NO, umpires do a good job of it 99% of time. Also Techonology today isn't reliable enough to replace the umpires except in runout/Stumping decisions. And I definately dont want Noball stuff to be handed over to the techonology.

So in regular dismissals like lbw/caught behind - NO

 

[Richard]

And I definately dont want Noball stuff to be handed over to the techonology.

Why on Earth not? It's the single most important thing that should be done by use of technology (ie, a cyclops machine).

D'you have any idea how many no-balls are missed? Some cameramen have estimated it at 20 a day in some cases.

 

[Sanz]

I am not going to vote on the basis of mere hearsay. Let them do a research and make their case for using techonology for No-Balls.

 

[Dasa]

I'm a big believer in using technology to make better decisions...anything to get the right decisions imo, I don't really care about the traditionalist aspect.

 

[Sanz]

This whole technology stuff(for lbw and caught behind) is overrated and has created a negative image of modern day umpires, they are under a lot of pressure esp. when they are making decisions against primma donnas of the subcontinent.

Technology is not reliable enough (Today's case, Karthik says he got some bat, but technology says otherwise) to be given that kind of role.

 

[Pratters]

Some technology is not reliable like for the Karthik decision.

However, for other stuff, it is pretty reliable. Like

1) Technology can show you whether the ball hit the batsman outside the off stump or in line

2) It can show thicker edges pretty conclusively.

 

[Richard]

Today's case was perfectly conclusive, Karthik did not hit it, regardless of who thought what. As it is in 99.99% of cases.

For everyone available to genuinely not know what a decision should be is unbelievably rare (technology is often inconclusive for has-it-carried - in those cases those on the field are usually better-placed than the cameras).

 

[Pratters]

For me the whole 'completely on the umpire' approach is much better as it's far less clinical. I'd rather the onus was on the umpire to make the correct decision than knowing that they can be overruled by replays, which in turn increases the pressure on the umpires as their mistakes can be shown and affect the game instantly.

The pressure doesn't increase, having less responsibility reduces the pressure. Umpires aren't pressurised to make every run out call now. They refer close shaves to the third umpire and we get run outs right.

Also, in the end, the cameras aren't making the decision, the umpires are (though power shifts from the umpire at the ground to a degree - which I don't have a problem with as long as the decision power remains with the three umpires including the third umpire). The third umpire watches the tv screen and makes the decision too. That does not mean that he is not making a decision. It just means that the umpires have a more informed view to make decisions.

The possibility of giving a batsman out and the tv camera showing the umpire was wrong (despite the umpire giving the decision as best possible in that split seond) for the media to blast the umpire is much more pressurising imo.

 

[Matteh]

The possibility of giving a batsman out and the tv camera showing the umpire was wrong (despite the umpire giving the decision as best possible in that split seond) for the media to blast the umpire is much more pressurising imo.

That's essentially what would happen in this situation as well though. Only literally everyone would know straight off, that if his decision hadn't been overturned the match could have been affected in some way. Making the mistakes so much more public and formalised clearly adds to the pressure.

 

[Pratters]

That's essentially what would happen in this situation as well though. Only literally everyone would know straight off, that if his decision hadn't been overturned the match could have been affected in some way. Making the mistakes so much more public and formalised clearly adds to the pressure.

The pressure from the media, fans and more importantly the expectations (which create a large part of pressure) is much more when the umpire has the responsbility of all the decision on that split second, a batsman is wrongly given out and cannot bat further as a result of it.

 

[Matteh]

The pressure from the media, fans and more importantly the expectations (which create all the pressure) is much more when the umpire has the responsbility of all the decision on that split second, a batsman is wrongly declared out and cannot bat further as a result of it.

Whereas he'll feel great knowing that he's definitely made a mistake and his self-confidence wouldn't be undermined at all.

 

[Pratters]

Whereas he'll feel great knowing that he's definitely made a mistake and his self-confidence wouldn't be undermined at all.

He would know it instantly any way. Taufel knew immediately for instance when the screen showed it. Even if the screens do not show, there are screens in the dressing rooms and media rooms. He is bound to know immediately in both situations.

 

[Matteh]

Taufel didn't know instantly, Pietersen was practically off the field before his own team sent him back because of the big screen. They effectively did what you're advocating and everyone's reaction was that it was an odd situation.

 

[Richard]

Whereas he'll feel great knowing that he's definitely made a mistake and his self-confidence wouldn't be undermined at all.

So don't let him make a mistake. Have a situation where ball goes past outside-edge, bowler's-end Umpire thinks he hears a nick, says "what'd'ya think mate?" to him upstairs via his hands-free communication, third-Umpire says "gimme a sec", checks the Snicko and\or HotSpot, says "nah mate, no nick" and the standing Umpire says "not out".

No authority undermined, and the right decision made.

Similarly, if it's an lbw appeal:
Bowler: "HAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW?"

Third-Umpire, instantly, into earpiece on standing-Umpire: "Pitched outside leg mate, at least, I think it did, hang on a sec... *checks replay with red-mat* "No, actually pitched in line, and certainly looked pretty straight, yep?"

Standing-Umpire: "Yep, certainly did" *raises finger*

 

[Pratters]

Taufel didn't know instantly, Pietersen was practically off the field before his own team sent him back because of the big screen. They effectively did what you're advocating and everyone's reaction was that it was an odd situation.

I always look at the big screen after giving a decision. And the minute I saw the replay of Sachin's dismissal, I knew I got it wrong - Taufel.

The umpire would know soon enough and so the situation you described where the batsman has been wrongly given out and is sitting in the pavilion versus what I am saying - decision given is aided by the third umpire.... the batsman sitting in the pavilion is obviously worse as not only does the umpire know that he has given the wrong decision, he also has to contend with much more flack than if the batsman went on to bat rather than sit in the pavilion.

 

[Engle]

Firstly, nothing stands in the way of technology.

Secondly, even if the tech is not 100% accurate....at least it's consistent