High time ICC have a check on the umpires

[Swervy]

koch_cha, you should put the authors name at the bottom....dont worry I will do it for you....

the guy who wrote this article was called:Amit Varma

 

[Lions81]

koch_cha, you should put the authors name at the bottom....dont worry I will do it for you....

the guy who wrote this article was called:Amit Varma

Well now we are entering new territory here on cricketweb, questioning the journalistic integrity of Wisden writers. I think you should be cautious about such allegations. Amit Varma is not some little eight-year old placing unfounded rumors into stories. He is a veteran writer who has covered cricket - all around the world - for many years. He would never throw his reputation away by giving in to objectivity. Just because he is Indian does not mean he cannot write impartially about the Indian team.

 

[Swervy]

Well now we are entering new territory here on cricketweb, questioning the journalistic integrity of Wisden writers. I think you should be cautious about such allegations. Amit Varma is not some little eight-year old placing unfounded rumors into stories. He is a veteran writer who has covered cricket - all around the world - for many years. He would never throw his reputation away by giving in to objectivity. Just because he is Indian does not mean he cannot write impartially about the Indian team.

hehehehe...presuming a bit there arent you....i think any article posted on here deserves to have the authors name included...how on earth do you know that I am accusing the writer of any kind of sour grapes

 

[Lions81]

hehehehe...presuming a bit there arent you....i think any article posted on here deserves to have the authors name included...how on earth do you know that I am accusing the writer of any kind of sour grapes

Haha, I took a wild guess. :P

 

[Swervy]

Haha, I took a wild guess. :P

you can take my comment in which ever way you want to take it

 

[Sehwag309]

I am wondering what would be going on Bucknor's mind when he reads these articles. He knows people are talking about him and must have seen the replays, so as an umpire what does he do next

 

[Swervy]

I am wondering what would be going on Bucknor's mind when he reads these articles. He knows people are talking about him and must have seen the replays, so as an umpire what does he do next

i would hope he doesnt give a flying f*** about what some articles say...if he gets influenced by such hysteria, then the game really is in trouble

 

[marc71178]

Yes, the technology's not 100%. But it's somewhere closer to it than the human umpire.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Anything which can improve the accuracy of calls should be implemented unless it's amazingly unwieldy or hurts the game, and I don't see how allowing hawkeye or something similar to be used would be that bad.

Hawkeye as it stands isn't actually that accurate.

I don't think any real cricket fan will mind a test match starting 30 mins early and ending 30 mins later if it means their batsmen won't be out lbw to balls that are inside edged or their bowlers won't have to take fifteen wickets to end one innings.

No instead they'd see the batsmen out to outrageous swing early in the day and poor light late in the day.

 

[marc71178]

I also dont like when umpires change their minds (ok say a six signalled four that is different) or make decisions to suit the other team.

"To suit the other team"?

Can you explain what you mean here?

 

[marc71178]

John Wright upset with Bucknor

I assume this is the follow-on to John Wright complaining about the decisions in the First Test?

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: Re: High time ICC have a check on the umpires

please read all of the post u r missing some parts

inzamam,youhan where at the receving end at multan and both of them benifitted at lahore

That looks to me like you've not read my post.

How come it took you till now to complain about it?

There were as many bad mistakes last time (although one could argue that a batsman being given out incorrectly is worse than not being given out to a close decision)

 

[marc71178]

I am wondering what would be going on Bucknor's mind when he reads these articles. He knows people are talking about him and must have seen the replays, so as an umpire what does he do next

Well I've not seen the incidents, but from what I've read on here from neutral observers, only one was a shoking decision, the others were touch and go.

 

[Lions81]

I wouldn't be so sure.




Hawkeye as it stands isn't actually that accurate.





No instead they'd see the batsmen out to outrageous swing early in the day and poor light late in the day.

Hawkeye seems accurate enough from television.

The ball won't swing anymore at 9:30 than it would at 10. They do start play even as much as an hour early if time requires it if the overs havent been bowled out the day before.

And they'd only play a half-hour later if light allowed, if not, we'd start earlier. But, oh that swing!

 

[Eyes_Only]

I am wondering what would be going on Bucknor's mind when he reads these articles. He knows people are talking about him and must have seen the replays, so as an umpire what does he do next

Most umpires don't read the press when they are umpring so I'm not sure he'd even know!

 

[marc71178]

Hawkeye seems accurate enough from television.

If you assume a straight path that is.

It cannot 100% accurately predict the path of a ball therefore it is no better than the human eye and IMO not as good since it isn't actually out in the middle.

 

[Newlands]

Yes, the technology's not 100%. But it's somewhere closer to it than the human umpire. With all due respect to you, I am certain you do your job with the utmost care and skill, but you are a human being! You can't do what machines can do! Anything which can improve the accuracy of calls should be implemented unless it's amazingly unwieldy or hurts the game, and I don't see how allowing hawkeye or something similar to be used would be that bad.

Ah right, well Lions why don't we just get rid of umpires, period. What is the need of them if a computer can do the job?
Why don't we just get rid of bowlers as well then? The bowling machines can just take over their job surely?
Umpires are an essential part of our game and without them, hey, there is no game.
Think back fifty, a hundred years. They seemed to cope way back then without technology so why can't we cope now?
There's no reason. The technology is cosmetic. It gives commentators something to look at and to talk about but it should NOT replace good, old human umpiring.
I can't even think of a reason why it would come into more use. I have felt the wrong end of an umpiring decision. I have felt burned by it but then I abide by cricketing etiquette and I have accepted the decision.
What we don't need is cricketers losing this etiquette and assuming that the umpire is incapable and waiting for the electronic decision for everything.
lbw is a cricket bugbear. For every hundred people who think it was out you'll find another hundred who think it wasn't out and I don't mean fans of one team or another, I simply mean neutrals who are watching.
And I do agree with Marc, hawkeye is a computer projection of the ball bowled. You, Lions, agree that technology is not 100% and therefore hawkeye cannot be 100%.

 

[luckyeddie]

You are exactly right...I am human and I do make mistakes. While I try my darndest not to, they happen. I love umpiring and part of the charm of the game of cricket for me has always been the "Human Element"....

I know many umpires who don't feel the way you do, (Simon Taufel to name one) but I think I'll agree to disagree on this one!!

Good for you, Megan - and we both think that Simon is the best umpire around.

The thing which really upsets me is when people start looking at umpires and, whilst not exactly accusing them of cheating (one subscriber did), at least suggesting a degree of bias.

Umpires are human and consequently are bound to make mistakes. On thing they do, though, is they try to learn from those mistakes. The West Indies v England series is a classic case in point. There have been a few 'iffy' decisions for lbw which Hawkeye has indicated might have been too high - the amount of bounce has not just surprised the batsmen but the umpires too.

These decisions have tended only to be on the first day - the umpires will watch the tapes at close of play and adjust their view as to how high the ball is likely to lift, consequently as the game has gone on, there have been fewer and fewer of the 'doubtful height' dismissals. The bummer there, of course, is that the West Indies have batted first on each occasion.

The idea that umpires could be dispensed with entirely is, I'm afraid, somewhat short-sighted. Why would anyone bother to become a minor-list umpire if there is no incentive to strive for the heights, to emulate Shep, Dickie, Billy, Simon, Venkat, even Asoka and Shakoor Rana? If umpires could only go as far as officiating in county matches because the tests are handled by technology, it would signal the beginning of the end for cricket. Within 5 years or so, there would be no new umpires coming into the game - and that, my friends, would be that.

 

[Lions81]

Ah right, well Lions why don't we just get rid of umpires, period. What is the need of them if a computer can do the job?
Why don't we just get rid of bowlers as well then? The bowling machines can just take over their job surely?
Umpires are an essential part of our game and without them, hey, there is no game.
Think back fifty, a hundred years. They seemed to cope way back then without technology so why can't we cope now?
There's no reason. The technology is cosmetic. It gives commentators something to look at and to talk about but it should NOT replace good, old human umpiring.
I can't even think of a reason why it would come into more use. I have felt the wrong end of an umpiring decision. I have felt burned by it but then I abide by cricketing etiquette and I have accepted the decision.
What we don't need is cricketers losing this etiquette and assuming that the umpire is incapable and waiting for the electronic decision for everything.
lbw is a cricket bugbear. For every hundred people who think it was out you'll find another hundred who think it wasn't out and I don't mean fans of one team or another, I simply mean neutrals who are watching.
And I do agree with Marc, hawkeye is a computer projection of the ball bowled. You, Lions, agree that technology is not 100% and therefore hawkeye cannot be 100%.

Hawkeye doesn't have to be 100% accurate. All it has to be is more accurate than a human umpire, and it certainly is.

How is it better for the game when players are given out or not out when the opposite is the case? As I've stated already, just because cricket has survived with flawed umpiring does not mean we should not do anything about it. You might say, well no one was complaining about the umpiring back then. Well how many more people follow cricket now then before? I would say it's on orders of magnitude of difference. More people paying close attention means more scrutiny in all aspects of the game, so I'd hazard a guess that umpires screwed up royally back then too, but there were fewer people around - and no television coverage - to call them on it.

You want to think back 50-100 years? I'd wager that if we were transported back then, we would be bored out of our minds with the kind of cricket they play, when run-rates of 2 were considered too aggressive, when the game was played by out of shape part-time aristocrats, when fast bowlers bowled slower than our slowest medium bowlers. Back then, LBWs probably came onto the pads at a comfortable 60-70 mph, and they beat the edge at the same pace. Now they're a good 20-30 mph faster. That's a huge difference, we can't expect umpires - who are often much older than the players - to keep up. Cricket has evolved, and if it wants to survive into the future, it must continue to evolve. 50-100 years ago, people got along without vaccinations for polio too.

Simply put: technology can help umpires make better decisions. No one is saying get rid of umpires, but rather we have tools to make them better at their job, so let's make sure they have it at their disposal.

 

[Sehwag309]

I agree with you Lions, by the way isn't technology used to find out if a certain player is "chucking" or not.

Muralitharan tests completed

Charlie Austin
April 2, 2004
Muttiah Muralitharan: the tests done, it's now time to wait © Getty Images

Muttiah Muralitharan has completed five of the most important overs of his life, strapped with reflective markers and watched by 12 high-speed cameras. The fate of Muralitharan's controversial doosra now rests upon the conclusions of a computer.

Muralitharan wasted no time in undertaking the tests, for the second time in his career, at the University of Western Australia in Perth, after his doosra was labelled suspect by Chris Broad, the ICC match referee for last week's third Test against Australia in Colombo. The analysis was carried out on Wednesday night, and the results are expected shortly.

Professor Bruce Elliott, an ICC-approved human-movement specialist employed to undertake the tests, was confident that the assessments would produce a clear conclusion: "We put reflective markers on Murali, which are captured by the cameras and computers. The computer then does the calculation and gives us the answer."

Elliott said that Muralitharan fervently believed his doosra was legitimate. "His comment is that he uses far more wrist in his top-spin delivery to create his doosra. We will see if there is any truth in that. He has such rotational ability with his wrist, his strange elbow and in his shoulder that is quite possible that it is an optical illusion."

Bruce Yardley, the former Australian offspinner who has also coached Sri Lanka, watched every ball of the tests to ensure that Muralitharan used the same energy and action that had brought him 513 Test victims. Yardley was satisfied that Murali's bowling was the same as when he bowled competitively.

The footage will now be analysed by Elliott and Daryl Foster, the former Western Australia coach and bowling advisor to the Sri Lankan team. The report will then be handed over to the Sri Lankan cricket board, which will file a report to the ICC within six weeks. The results – especially if they clear Muralitharan – are likely to be made public long before that deadline.

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/APR/114372_SL_02APR2004.html

All this was done because the Match referee found his action suspiciuos, if he can report that and he should also report repititive umpiring errors. Afterall, it's all in the game

 

[Slow Love™]

Re: Re: Re: Re: High time ICC have a check on the umpires

That looks to me like you've not read my post.

How come it took you till now to complain about it?

Is it just me, or are you repeatedly not reading koch_cha's original post properly? He DID complain about it in that post - when you replied, you cut the relevant content out of the very sentence you quoted.

Read what he said again - it makes perfect sense, and you just keep alleging a one-sided argument that doesn't exist.

As to the rest of the thread, yes, while it's absolutely true that the umpires have a difficult job to do, I would think that Bucknor's decline is so patently obvious, you'd have to be in absolute denial not to have noticed it. I'm an Australian supporter, but I can completely empathise with the Indians' frustration with both Bucknor's conduct AND his decision-making ability. I'm totally with what Varma said in his CricInfo article.