• 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.

The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
A guy I know who works on radars at Australian military installations who goes on and on about this and knows the chap who invented the system. So it's anecdotal, but as anecdotes go it's pretty convincing (if rather dull, tbh).

If I can, I will ask him for chapter and verse and post it here.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Cardiff University study.

The makers of the system admit to 3.6mm, but the study suggests the actual margin might be higher. Law 5 says a cricket ball must be no more than 229mm in circumference, which means a diameter of roughly 73mm, so it's roughly 5% if 3.6mm in accurate.
But this is margin of error as to the actual point where the ball pitched. It doesn't relate to the predicted path of the ball had it not hit the batsman's body. Which must surely be vastly less reliable and carry a serious health warning.

Having said all of which, I almost always find Hawkeye's predictions to be pretty darned convincing and I'd take a Hawkeye prediction, inaccurate though it may be, over an umpire's guess every time.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Hawkeye showed it pitching on the outside of leg stump actually. That was obviously the justification for giving it not out, but it definitely pitched in line, albeit only just. If we're taking Hawkeye as the ultimate arbiter of what is an umpiring error and what isn't (rather than making a subjective call about whether or not it should have been given out), it was a mistake.

Understandable decision live though.
When they showed a slow motion replay of the ball pitching(and paused it as it pitched) it was about 52% outside the line and 48% inside the line. The law says at least half of the ball has to pitch in line, so it was the correct decision according to the laws.

Wouldn't have given the Katich one either, but mainly because when watching it I thought it went straight on to the back pad.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
Botham made a good point (!), that how on earth are umpires meant to know whether half the ball is over the line of the stumps or not? I mean, if it took the commentators several slowed-down versions with the red stripe to determine it, what chance do the umpires have in real time?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Having said all of which, I almost always find Hawkeye's predictions to be pretty darned convincing and I'd take a Hawkeye prediction, inaccurate though it may be, over an umpire's guess every time.
I'm assuming it's improved in the past 4 years, but ever since Hawkeye showed that Warne didn't bowl Strauss, I've been less than impressed with it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
When did it do that?

The only thing from 2005 I remember HawkEye doing which damaged its own credibility was refusing to register the ball from Warne that turned about a mile into Trescothick at The Oval - I forget whether it was the ball that actually had him lbw or the previous one that turned so much Aleem Dar or whoever it was said he couldn't be sure.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
When did it do that?

The only thing from 2005 I remember HawkEye doing which damaged its own credibility was refusing to register the ball from Warne that turned about a mile into Trescothick at The Oval - I forget whether it was the ball that actually had him lbw or the previous one that turned so much Aleem Dar or whoever it was said he couldn't be sure.
He's talking about the ball that bowled Strauss behind his legs at Edgbaston. Hawkeye showed the ball missing leg-stump.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That it pitched outside leg. It had the blue carpet thingy superimposed on and the middle of the ball was just outside leg when it landed.
Should paint a blue strip down the middle of each pitch imo. Sure it'll make the ball skid, but at least we'l see where the ball pitches all the time :ph34r:
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Nah, should make the wicket out of sand so that the ball leaves a mark like in the Long Jump
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Change the colour of the ball to green. More of a challenge for the batsmen and the replay-watchers.

Or, have paint on it, so when it hits the deck it leaves a mark.
 

Top