• 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.

Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

Aidan11

International Vice-Captain
Ireland playing Bangladesh in a ODI today at Chelmsford.

Doesn't appear to be any UK TV coverage of this.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Kinda disappointed there is not more discussion on this but two test playing sides are getting new coaches.



Hope to see some sort of resurgence at least in white ball for the Windies.

And God knows what Pak side will be upto but that bowling attack should be good enough for them to be in the top 3 across formats. Plus Babar and Rizwan.
 

SillyCowCorner1

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Looks like the umpires soft signal rule is to be scrapped.

Not sure that's a good thing. Umpires are closer to the action than tv cameras which can show a deceptive picture at times.
One thing that will come out of this is that there will be more rock-and-rolling...
 

Aidan11

International Vice-Captain
What is this absolute twaddle
Plain English but if you need it explaining...the two men in white coats on the field are in a better position to judge if a catch has been taken cleanly with their own eyes than a TV camera that can only provide two dimensional images and therefore cannot always prove conclusively whether a catch has been taken cleanly from the images on screen.
 

ataraxia

International Coach
Plain English but if you need it explaining...the two men in white coats on the field are in a better position to judge if a catch has been taken cleanly with their own eyes than a TV camera that can only provide two dimensional images and therefore cannot always prove conclusively whether a catch has been taken cleanly from the images on screen.
no they're not
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Plain English but if you need it explaining...the two men in white coats on the field are in a better position to judge if a catch has been taken cleanly with their own eyes than a TV camera that can only provide two dimensional images and therefore cannot always prove conclusively whether a catch has been taken cleanly from the images on screen.
I can absolutely guarantee you that two people watching in real time, who may not be anywhere near the optimal angle (and could be 70 metres away for outfield catches) will not do a better job than the camera.

Video cameras aren't perfect and we don't have angles for everything. Removing a level of oversight and leaving it up to 3rd umps who often aren't savvy with the tech or even understand the process is a disaster waiting to happen.
Video cameras have far less uncertainty than a guy trying to see the catch in real time many metres away, and where in many cases the decision if a catch has carried will come down to either a guess or taking the fielder's word.
 
Last edited:

Yeoman

U19 Debutant
I can absolutely guarantee you that two people watching on teal time, who may not be anywhere near the optimal angle (and could be 70 metres away for outfield catches) will not do a better job than the camera.


Video cameras have far less uncertainty than a guy trying to see the catch in real time many metres away, and where in many cases the decision if a catch has carried will come down to either a guess or taking the fielder's word.
Generally speaking the cameras are more reliable than then on field umpires and the DRS has been a great success, even if teams occasionally do not use it appropriately. I would make an exception however for low catches where the camera can make it seem that the ball is closer to or even touching the ground when it is not. I recall many years ago commentators demonstrating this on the outfield, showing how, to a camera facing the fielder, the ball appeared to be on the ground even though from side on it was clearly not touching it.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Generally speaking the cameras are more reliable than then on field umpires and the DRS has been a great success, even if teams occasionally do not use it appropriately. I would make an exception however for low catches where the camera can make it seem that the ball is closer to or even touching the ground when it is not. I recall many years ago commentators demonstrating this on the outfield, showing how, to a camera facing the fielder, the ball appeared to be on the ground even though from side on it was clearly not touching it.
Still not an exception. The on field umpires' only option in that situation is to guess from a distance away.
 

Yeoman

U19 Debutant
In the specific case of a frontal view of a low catch, given the problems with a 2d image and its inherent bias to ‘not out’, I think that an umpire’s instinctive view is preferable. While they might occasionally get it wrong, it would not be inherently slanted against the fielding side. An equivalent for LBW decisions would be if all those currently described as ‘umpire’s call’ were given not out.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Honestly the history of the rules around these decisions is so tedious. For years we had catches that were clearly out being given not out because on one camera angle things looked a touch dubious. At the time commentators clammoured to just hand things over to the umpires. Then when that was done, we ended up in a situation where the on-field umpires decisions weren't much better than a coin-toss for marginal catches, and commentators immediately turned around and said it was something that needed to be in the hands of the 4th umpire. Regardless of where we end up, just changing the rules won't fix the problem, the ICC needs to develop a rigorous set of guidelines for making these decisions or we'll continue to get poor decisions.
 

Xix2565

International Debutant
I can absolutely guarantee you that two people watching in real time, who may not be anywhere near the optimal angle (and could be 70 metres away for outfield catches) will not do a better job than the camera.


Video cameras have far less uncertainty than a guy trying to see the catch in real time many metres away, and where in many cases the decision if a catch has carried will come down to either a guess or taking the fielder's word.
A problem is that cameras aren't covering everything all the time though, and it's not like the 2 dudes watching in real time are no name hacks like us here. You have to guess either way unless you want to increase the budget for that level of coverage.
 

Top