the use of technology in umpiring

[jagaways]

all indian supporters were horrified by the terrible decision made by steve bucknor to give tendulkar out when the ball was clearly going well over the stumps. i think decisions like that which are so obviously incorrect should be allowed to be overruled by a third umpire upon inspection of replays/hawkeye etc. this isn't just cos of sachin's bad luck, but i think its really stupid when lbw decisions are given out when they clearly are not. and vice versa too, sometimes u get lbw's which are ABSOLUTELY plumb, and the umpire says no. its not fair and seeing as we've GOT the technology, why not use it? if they can do it for catches and runouts, why not lbw's as well. of course, if we relied solely on technology, then the whole appealing issue would be gone and an important part of cricket would be lost, and the role of the umpire would become significantly less. thats why i only think that in cases where the third umpire is certain the wrong decision was made, overruling is allowed, or by contrast, if the umpire on the field is uncertain, they are allowed to refer it to the third umpire.

 

[marc71178]

Absolutely not IMO.

If you do that then you may as well remove the umpires and run it all from the TV box.

Technology is nowhere near as accurate as it needs to be to say that it's any better than the on field umpire, and until it is, status quo for me.

These decisions almost always tend to even themselves out over the course of a series.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If the umpire on the field is uncertain

Then it's not out.

All this has come up from one off decision that Tendulkar got - which was only down to height - and there was a big wooden thing in his hand that the ball should have been hit with - and there were some viewers who thought it was out first up. When the Sri Lankan incompetents were getting as many wrong as right three years back, you didn't care then. Or when Chopra got reprieved ten minutes after Tendulkar got out.

Mistakes happen! They're part of life! Cricket wouldn't be the same without them.

I suggest you look at the actual Laws of Cricket

Besides, that rule change that you suggest wouldn't have helped Sachin - Bucknor would have been certain in order to give it... and still the third umpire can screw things up (Rugby League Superleague Final 2002).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think technology should be used only for run out decisions and possibly for LBW's in the future. It should NOT be used for disputed catches, because that always casts more doubt into the situation. The same with disputed edges.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: the use of technology in umpiring

All this has come up from one off decision that Tendulkar got - which was only down to height - and there was a big wooden thing in his hand that the ball should have been hit with - and there were some viewers who thought it was out first up. When the Sri Lankan incompetents were getting as many wrong as right three years back, you didn't care then. Or when Chopra got reprieved ten minutes after Tendulkar got out.

Mistakes happen! They're part of life! Cricket wouldn't be the same without them.

I agree. Get off it folks! This is being blown way out of proportion. Lara got a massive inside edge onto pad (huge deflection) and was given out against Australia earlier this year. Lara was in top form and we ended up losing that match. Who knows what Lara would have done had he been allowed to stick around? India may have gotten a very poor decision, but they didn't lose the match! Furthermore, it didn't cost them victory either.

For goodness sake, Steve Bucknor was forced to make a press statement... for one decision!!

 

[V Reddy]

These decisions almost always tend to even themselves out over the course of a series.

They also end the career of some batsman :P

 

[Neil Pickup]

They also end the career of some batsman :P

One innings ends someone's career? I suggest they score runs in their other knocks..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One innings ends someone's career? I suggest they score runs in their other knocks..

But spare a thought for Sachin Neil. God knows he's had issues with run-scoring. :P

 

[Neil Pickup]

But spare a thought for Sachin Neil. God knows he's had issues with run-scoring. :P

If he has issues, I want them.

 

[luckyeddie]

You know, I think that Daryl Harper's decision to give Samaraweera out today was arguably a WORSE leg-before decision than the Tendulkar one.

Height is probably the hardest thing to judge of all. Samaraweera's one was 9" outside off stump.

At the end of the day, though, on both occasions my sympathy is with the umpire and not the batsman.

Padding up to a ball outside off stump is asking for trouble.

The factor in common was that both batsmen were early in their innings and looking to leave alone all they could.

 

[luckyeddie]

On second thoughts, all that's needed is a slight re-wording of the LBW law.

Batsman playing a shot - benefit of the doubt with the batter.
Batsman not playing a shot - benefit of the doubt with the bowler.

Current law 36 (snipped)

1. Out LBW
The striker is out LBW in the circumstances set out below.
(a)The bowler delivers a ball, not being a No ball

and (b) the ball, if it is not intercepted full pitch, pitches in line between wicket and wicket or on the off side of the striker's wicket

and (c) the ball not having previously touched his bat, the striker intercepts the ball, either full pitch or after pitching, with any part of his person

and (d) the point of impact, even if above the level of the bails
either (i) is between wicket and wicket
or (ii) is either between wicket and wicket or outside the line of the off stump, if the striker has made no genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat

and (e) but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket.


At the moment, the only thing about the batsman playing no shot is that the area of contact is extended to outside off stump.

Note it doesn't say 'in the opinion of the umpire' at all - it is more certain than that (see point (e)).

 

[Eyes_Only]

I am an Umpire and the OVERuse of techonology scares me....I have worked damn hard to get where I am and hate the thought of replays taking over my job...

Umpires are HUMAN and are going to make mistakes no matter how good they are at umpiring...we don't have the luxury of 10,000 replays from every angle....we have to judge what we see in the fraction of a second....

If you think you can do better...feel free to umpire...then you'll see it's not as easy as it looks!

 

[Mister Wright]

all indian supporters were horrified by the terrible decision made by steve bucknor to give tendulkar out when the ball was clearly going well over the stumps. i think decisions like that which are so obviously incorrect should be allowed to be overruled by a third umpire upon inspection of replays/hawkeye etc. this isn't just cos of sachin's bad luck, but i think its really stupid when lbw decisions are given out when they clearly are not. and vice versa too, sometimes u get lbw's which are ABSOLUTELY plumb, and the umpire says no. its not fair and seeing as we've GOT the technology, why not use it? if they can do it for catches and runouts, why not lbw's as well. of course, if we relied solely on technology, then the whole appealing issue would be gone and an important part of cricket would be lost, and the role of the umpire would become significantly less. thats why i only think that in cases where the third umpire is certain the wrong decision was made, overruling is allowed, or by contrast, if the umpire on the field is uncertain, they are allowed to refer it to the third umpire.

So should a batsman who makes a mistake - leaves a ball outside off that comes back in and hit the stumps or leaves and gets bowled around his leg be allowed to continue his innings? The benefit of the doubt should always be given to the batsman. Batsman make mistakes, bowlers make mistakes and of course umpires will always make mistakes, let's keep the game human.

 

[luckyeddie]

Re: Re: the use of technology in umpiring

So should a batsman who makes a mistake - leaves a ball outside off that comes back in and hit the stumps or leaves and gets bowled around his leg be allowed to continue his innings? The benefit of the doubt should always be given to the batsman. Batsman make mistakes, bowlers make mistakes and of course umpires will always make mistakes, let's keep the game human.

I suppose that there's always the possibility that a meteorite could deflect the ball from its course, consequently in that case if we take it to its (albeit illogical) extreme, there should be no such thing as leg before wicket.

As I've said before, a batsman has a bat. The rules are, if it pitches outside leg, fine, pad up. There's only one umpire who over the last couple of years has erred in that area - and he HAS improved in that respect.

On the wicket or outside off, leave at your peril.

No modern technology for leg befores at all, please. A few mistakes are good conversation pieces.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A bit of BTW...

If the LBW rule is due to the pad obstructing a ball which would otherwise have hit the wicket, and an inside edge may hit the wicket, it's a bit of a contradiction that an inside edge onto the pad is not out.

That said, it would be extremely difficult to gauge whether an inside edge would have hit the stumps.

That said, it's extremely difficult to gauge whether many LBW shouts would hit the stumps.

Hmmm....

 

[age_master]

I am an Umpire and the OVERuse of techonology scares me....I have worked damn hard to get where I am and hate the thought of replays taking over my job...

Umpires are HUMAN and are going to make mistakes no matter how good they are at umpiring...we don't have the luxury of 10,000 replays from every angle....we have to judge what we see in the fraction of a second....

true, its part of the game and it would not be the same without them. apparently they assess all the decisions with teh availiable technology at the international level - and human umpires by themselves have a sucess rate of over 90, thats amazing to me and shows that they are doing a fantastic job, yeah they make the same mistakes but everyone does, small mistakes dont need to be blown out of proportion like this one has, its not needed

 

[jagaways]

ahhhh! i knew every1 would jump down my throat for bringing up tendulkar's decision. did u not READ my post? i said very carefully that wasn't the only reason, and to whoever said it'll make the game less human..THATS WHY I SAID its only a referral, only if the umpire is doubtful. and i FULLY agree that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the batsman, and that is usually ok with most umpires. but when they start doubting absolute plumb lbws and giving the benefit to the batsman, its not fair. somebody tell me why lbw is more important and special than runouts and catches? in fact, i think with catches, to make the spirit of the game better, they should leave it to the catcher. he should just state whether he took it cleanly or not. but with lbw's, more often than not, neither the batsman NOR the bowler can tell whether the ball was going to hit the stumps. and my suggestion is that when the umpire too cannot tell (ie for the reaaally close decisions like whether or not the ball pitched outside leg or on it), they should be allowed to refer. seriously, what is the POINT of us seeing a batsman given out/notout and then seeing in replays that the wrong decision was made..but nothing can be done. if ur against technology, get rid of it for run outs too. the game lasted for many years without this technology, so why not leave it up to the umpires just like before? i'll tell u why, because umpires get things WRONG at times, and if its possible to reduce the amount of times using technology, it should be done.

 

[mavric41]

Lets not exterminate the human element from umpiring. My initial impressions from a quick look was it was going to hit the wickets. Only after analysis with replays that it looked different.What about Javed Miandad never being given LBW in Pakistan? Would have technology changed that? What else would the media whinge about? (Thats right - run outs. Ask Steve Waugh) Until technology is perfect, keep the umpire.

 

[luckyeddie]

Until technology is perfect, keep the umpire.

I can see it now... (well, DD can - he told me)

England are on the point of winning the Ashes in 2052 (Steve Waugh's comeback test). Aussie 9 down, 10 to win and draw the series. It's the home side's first real chance to put the convicts in their place in 7 decades.

The ball is played down to Harmison at fine leg... no, not Harmison. Clarke. That's right. Ozzy Clarke. He picks the gravi-sphere up, wills it in to the keeper who catches it in ihis magno-gloves and removes the light-bail.

Steve Waugh looks gone to the world - his zimmer frame has got stuck in a crack at Trent Bridge (probably armadillo-related).

There is an appeal, the Mechano-Bowden calls for the third umpire.

"Sorry, Billy." says Mike Proctor's brain in a jar. "Blue screen of death - not out"

Hmmmm. Might use that in this week's DD column.

 

[marc71178]

ahhhh! i knew every1 would jump down my throat for bringing up tendulkar's decision.

Actually, hardly anyone did.

Incidentally I believe Murali's bowled was referred this morning, and they said on the radio that couldrefer anything where they needed clarification.

At the moment, technology is no better than the human eye, in fact it's probably worse.