• 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.

Oh Deary Me!

Armadillo

State Vice-Captain
The Eng vs Pak series that has just gone had some of the worst umpiring I have ever seen, especially in the last two tests. This atrocious showing was mainly down to messirs Koertzen and Hair. Now I know people say umpiring is a very hard job and all, but surely its not that hard! Geraint Jones middles the ball onto his pad, Koertzen gives him out, Collingwood edges the ball so it deviates and the keeper takes a diving catch, Hair has wax in his ears! If these guys want to be umpires they have to get these decisions right, after all its these decisions that can turn a match. In the morning session Pakistan must have had three or four plum lbw decisions turned down. Maybe umpires should be younger, meaning their hearing and sight isn't as slow as Daryll Hair's Just one other thing, how easy is it to see a red cricket ball in quite bad light with shades on, sort it out Rudi!
Discuss....
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Kaneria defintely should have had a hat trick and Jones shouldn't have been given out.

i agree with the fact that you get the same amount of bad decisions as you get good ones and it doesn't effect much in the long run,but i'd still rather have better umpiring decisions.i don't know about the players,but if i were one,i would feel a lot better knowing that every decision has been given as fairly as possible so i couldn't complain about getting out.atm,the umpires just can't give as good a decision as technology can.
 

Beleg

International Regular
Easy there dude.

Umpiring is a thankless job. While criticising the umpires about the decisions that go wrong, we tend to forget about decision that they DID get right. For example, just from this test match, I can remember a few appeals against Inzy and Akmal (LBW and caught behind) which at first sight looked pretty clear outs on the TV screen. The umpire ruled non out and the TV replay showed how correct he was.

There is no doubt in my mind that the standard of umpriing has improved a great deal and is gradually on an up. I remember a few series from the 90's and the umpiring there was attrocious by today's standards, to say the least. You will never be able to get 100 percent accuracy, even with automatic equipment, there's always a margin for error; no mathematical model is ever perfect.

If you want maximum (and sustained) accuracy than you have to get rid of the field umpires, it's as simple as that. To be honest, I am not sure I want that sort of accuracy though. There's a certain element of uncertainity that's an inherent part of the current cricketing set-up, I don't want my game to become boring and mechanical - a chore or a job rather than sport.

If that means sacrificing some of the available technologies and perks, than so be it.
 

Armadillo

State Vice-Captain
Beleg said:
Easy there dude.

Umpiring is a thankless job. While criticising the umpires about the decisions that go wrong, we tend to forget about decision that they DID get correct. For example, just from this test match, I can remember a few appeals against Inzy and Akmal (LBW and caught behind) which at first sight looked pretty clear outs on the TV screen. The umpire ruled non out and the TV replay showed how correct he was.
Its all well and good giving not outs, some times you're gonna be right if you keep doing it. The only lbw's given were plumb which my grandma (who really doesn't know anything about cricket) would have spotted, apart from the Jones dismissal of course.....
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Guess what, guys. Umpires are human! They make mistakes. I personally think people using technology to scrutinise every single decision an umpire makes and jumping on top of them if the decision is proved wrong is just low. Remember, this technology which is so much greater than umpires is hardly perfect either.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I don't really take to the 'human' element about cricketing decisions.

there was a post on cricinfo's technology blog that summed my views up perfectly.

'the flaw is not the charm'

Another typical argument is that the charm of cricket comes from the element of uncertainty, and that human error is a part of that charm. I disagree. Cricket gets its charm not from human error but from human excellence. When a quality spinner is continually frustrated by batsmen who keep padding up to him and getting the benefit of the inevitable doubt, a doubt that technology can reduce, if not remove, that excellence is compromised. When a batsman like Sachin Tendulkar is wrongly given out time and again on his tours to Australia, to ludicrous errors that the use of technology would eliminate, that excellence is compromised. Technology reduces error and does justice to the excellence that is the soul of the game. Cricket can only benefit from it.
 

Hazza

U19 Cricketer
I think the Umpires had a bad series, and maybe it does call for techinology as, in my opinion, the main reason of having Umpires out there is to get the correct decision. If it means implementing technology to get the correct decisions then surely it would stop arguments like this happening in the first place.

I know it may take a human element out of the game, but using proven technology would increase the standard of playing. If the umpiring decisions could be checked using the snickometer for example, then England may well have saved the game.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
steds said:
Guess what, guys. Umpires are human! They make mistakes. I personally think people using technology to scrutinise every single decision an umpire makes and jumping on top of them if the decision is proved wrong is just low. Remember, this technology which is so much greater than umpires is hardly perfect either.
the perfect solution fallacy in action again.

sure,technology can't give every decision a perfect answer but thats no argument not to use it.

drink and drive campaigns don't stop every drink driver,so should we stop them?no.

When umpires where the best avalible people to give a decision,then fine,i accept that they're human,but when we have so much power to give better decisions,i stuglle to comprehend why we aren't using them.
 

Beleg

International Regular
The only lbw's given were plumb which my grandma (who really doesn't know anything about cricket) would have spotted, apart from the Jones dismissal of course.....
I am sure ICC would love to hire the services of your grandma, in that case. :)

Remember, being an armchair umpiring expert is one thing, performing in the middle is a totally different matter altogether.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Out of interest there's been senior tour tennis on BBC of late, caught a bit of Courier v McEnroe where Hawkeye was being used to judge line calls (whether ball landed in or out) on appeal from the players (in the normal tennis tour they're thinking of limiting the number of appeals to 2 per player per set) and it even shut McEnroe up when the Hawkeye generated replay came up. The first appeal the response was a bit slow and it took 20-30 seconds for the replay to come up (probably human error), but it was near instant after that.

Whether the ICC and umpires like it or not, this is the future for cricket.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Beleg said:
I am sure ICC would love to hire the services of your grandma, in that case. :)

Remember, being an armchair umpiring expert is one thing, performing in the middle is a totally different matter altogether.
reminds me of the Cairns/Lee convo.

Cairn-'my mum could captain Australia' in response to people praising Ricky Ponting's captaincy.

Lee-'i'm sure Chris Cairn's mum is a very good cricketer'
 

Hazza

U19 Cricketer
Scaly piscine said:
Whether the ICC and umpires like it or not, this is the future for cricket.
Yes, umpiring of this level cannot be tolerated for too much longer.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
so lets look at the pros and cons of technology

pros
more decisions are correct
players can't complain/feel hard done by
armchair fans can finaly stop shouting at the TV

cons
Appealing will become less frenetic
Billy Bowden will turn from 20% umpire to 90% showpony
the 4th umpire might acctualy have to watch the game for a change
 

Armadillo

State Vice-Captain
I'm not calling for out and out technology, what I'm saying is, if these umpires want to be professional umpires they have to get simple decisions right. Daryll Hair is renowned for getting decisions wrong but it doesn't stop him. Does he get told after the game that he got these decisions wrong?. Did you see Geraint Jones' reaction after his decision? there's no telling me that that adds to the spirit of the game. Note: I was referring to my grandma knowing the plum ones were out, just added to the point lol.
 

Hazza

U19 Cricketer
open365 said:
so lets look at the pros and cons of technology...
cons
the 4th umpire might acctualy have to watch the game for a change
Is that really a con? ;)
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
once we make him check every ball for being a no-ball then defintely yes,i'm talking a permanent camera of the line all the time,so he doesn't get confused by any cricket action.
 

Hazza

U19 Cricketer
open365 said:
once we make him check every ball for being a no-ball then defintely yes,i'm talking a permanent camera of the line all the time,so he doesn't get confused by any cricket action.
I'm not sure the no-balls are too much of a problem. The main rant is LBW's.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
open365 said:
sure,technology can't give every decision a perfect answer but thats no argument not to use it.
How about this, then. We could only get through about 70 overs a day in this Pakistan-England series without using the technology. How many less overs would be bowled if every single decision was referred to a bloke sitting infront of a tv screen?
 

Top