If you could change anything about cricket -

[tooextracool]

I think 85-90% is a big understatement.

doubt it....

 

[marc71178]

That's saying about 45 wrong decisions in an ODI, or 27 in a session of Test Cricket, by each umpire...

 

[Mr Casson]

err what?

I was saying that there are people who will always find a reason to complain.

 

[tooextracool]

That's saying about 45 wrong decisions in an ODI, or 27 in a session of Test Cricket, by each umpire...

that really depends on how many decisions you are looking at....as i said earlier, lets leave no balls and wides and stuff out because technology can get that 100% right.
looking exclusively at lbw and caught behind decisions,id say theres at least 5 mistakes in an ODI game, and i doubt an umpire makes more than 70-80 decisions in a game. i think technology would probably make 1 mistake in an entire game.....

 

[tooextracool]

I was saying that there are people who will always find a reason to complain.

i doubt it, the viewers have the benefit of seeing on the replay whether or not someone is out.

 

[SJS]

that really depends on how many decisions you are looking at....as i said earlier, lets leave no balls and wides and stuff out because technology can get that 100% right.
looking exclusively at lbw and caught behind decisions,id say theres at least 5 mistakes in an ODI game, and i doubt an umpire makes more than 70-80 decisions in a game. i think technology would probably make 1 mistake in an entire game.....

The exact statistics are not relevant to the argument and discussing the exact percentages and number of decisions made per game shows total lack of appreciation of the point being made.

The fact of the matter is that the thrust of what TEC is saying is absolutely correct.

 

[marc71178]

looking exclusively at lbw and caught behind decisions,id say theres at least 5 mistakes in an ODI game

Based on what?

There's rarely a Test where there's a total of 5 wrong decisions like that, let alone 5 each in an ODI.

 

[marc71178]

i doubt it, the viewers have the benefit of seeing on the replay whether or not someone is out.

Except when the replay is inconclusive (which seems to be surprisingly often for something allegedly almost perfect)

 

[tooextracool]

Based on what?

There's rarely a Test where there's a total of 5 wrong decisions like that, let alone 5 each in an ODI.

no because most of the time they are not clear cut decisions. people will only notice the ones that were clearly out, not ones that take 3-4 replays from each angle before you can make a decision. in which case we give the perennial excuse of 'benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman' or 'its one of those that goes either way'......

 

[marc71178]

The number of close calls in an ODI is not that many - certainly not 1 every 10 overs, and that would then have to be all got wrong for your figures to be right.

 

[tooextracool]

The number of close calls in an ODI is not that many - certainly not 1 every 10 overs, and that would then have to be all got wrong for your figures to be right.

except that an ODI game has 100 overs(appx).......
and however accurate it is, it is certainly far more accurate than an ordinary umpire, and it doesnt have bad days.......

 

[tooextracool]

Except when the replay is inconclusive (which seems to be surprisingly often for something allegedly almost perfect)

in which case the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, if the common viewer cant decide on the replay whether or not someone is out then the decision made really doesnt cause too much of a dilemma after the game.
the point of technology is to ensure that the more obvious ones are given out/not out.

 

[marc71178]

except that an ODI game has 100 overs(appx).......

And 2 umpires - 5 mistakes each means that by your reckoning there's a close call at least every 10 overs.

 

[marc71178]

in which case the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman, if the common viewer cant decide on the replay whether or not someone is out then the decision made really doesnt cause too much of a dilemma after the game.

And all that hapens is that 5 minutes is wasted when over rates are already at an all time low.

the point of technology is to ensure that the more obvious ones are given out/not out.

Hang on, a minute ago you wanted it for the close decisions, now you're saying it will ensure the obvius ones (which incidentally are rarely incorrect, but people make an almighty whinge when one is)

 

[tooextracool]

And all that hapens is that 5 minutes is wasted when over rates are already at an all time low.

yes but we'd much rather have umpires make wrong decisions that can potentially change matches....

Hang on, a minute ago you wanted it for the close decisions, now you're saying it will ensure the obvius ones (which incidentally are rarely incorrect, but people make an almighty whinge when one is)

err i said 'more obvious' ones, by which i mean the ones that are obvious using technology, yet not so obvious without.

 

[tooextracool]

And 2 umpires - 5 mistakes each means that by your reckoning there's a close call at least every 10 overs.

who said anything about 5 mistakes each?i said that there are 5 mistakes in an entire game.

 

[vic_orthdox]

i couldn't stand it if we went to the third umpire over every close decision. and as we've seen with the run outs, even the rather obvious ones will end up being referred to the third umpire coz the central umpire doesn't want to be embarrassed if they got a simple decision wrong.

just give the umpires access to the stump microphone through the ear pieces they already have.

please, don't turn it into gridiron where we stop the game far too often. over rates are a vital ingredient in a watchable cricket game. an idea suggested recently was to rotate three umpires during the day - give them all a session off, keep them fresh and make it easier for them to concentrate?

 

[odyssey]

Like i said before the third umpire should be used as he is now.....but, if a batsmen is given out incorrectly and the next ball is yet to be bowled then he should have the right to overrule and the batsmen be recalled......But only on obvious decisions....ie: a big inside edge on an LBW, or a caught behind that clearly hit the thigh-pad....

 

[marc71178]

You can't recall a batsman like that - completely undermines the umpire.

 

[tooextracool]

You can't recall a batsman like that - completely undermines the umpire.

yet we can have big screens on the ground that show the replays in front of the umpire when he quite clearly makes a wrong decision......