Why not use TV technology more?

[slugger]

Stolen from a blog...

Mike Zahm wrote to me from Singapore with a lovely illustration of the point I was making. He wrote:


You go to the grocer's, do your shopping and come home only to find that you're a 100 rupees short on change. You go back to the store and point it out to the cashier who replies "Oh, sorry, I made a mistake, but what I do isn't easy, you know. I total everything in my head instead of using the till. I could use the till, but then there wouldn't be anything challenging about my job, would there? I wouldn't get to use the skills I've developed. Anyway, what's done is done, and I can't give you your money back. Don't worry though, I get it right 95% of the time. Hey, you think your mental maths is any better?"

Quite. And if I may add to that, if you pointed out during the transaction itself that you got less change, the store would haul you up for dissent and confisticate half your shopping. And some smartass would no doubt tell you, "Don't worry, next time he might give you more change than is due, it all evens out in the end." Right.

Mike adds:


You go the grocer's to buy supplies for the correct price, not to see how good someone's addition is. [Similarly], you watch cricket to see the players play, not to see whether Billy Bowden can judge the trajectory of the ball after hitting a pad, in a split second, with all of Eden Gardens screaming around him. I don't care how good his eyesight is. I don't care how good his hearing is ... I care about whether the ball was going on to hit the stumps.

Prefect....

 

[Richard]

Not bad.

Something I think is oft neglected is that players have used maximum technology to better themsleves, why on Earth shouldn't Umpires do the same?

 

[NUFAN]

Not bad.

Something I think is oft neglected is that players have used maximum technology to better themsleves, why on Earth shouldn't Umpires do the same?

There will still be mistakes with maximum technology.. You only have to look at Rugby League with the Video Ref..

Also, is anyone complaining about the 3rd umpire for not giving Symonds stumped, while the 'expert' commentators said he was just out.

 

[Richard]

I certainly am, and I hope that guy's Umpiring career never sees the light of day again. Disgraceful decision. Far worse than anyone who has to make an on-the-spot decision and gets it wrong. 'Twas the same with that idiot who gave Atherton out to Taylor in '98\99.

Obviously no Umpire is ever going to be perfect, but he'll be a damn sight better with maximum aid than he will without.

 

[slugger]

There will still be mistakes with maximum technology.. .

thats true and i dont disagree the point is you have reduced this "mistake" error down to such a small figure.. that if any doubt even with tech you cant be given out... we have all accepted it for run out cases cameras obscured by a fielder and things like that have all gone in favor of the batsmen...now thats true luck.. not this lame umpire luck..evens itself out.. stuff...

 

[archie mac]

There will still be mistakes with maximum technology.. You only have to look at Rugby League with the Video Ref..

Also, is anyone complaining about the 3rd umpire for not giving Symonds stumped, while the 'expert' commentators said he was just out.

Like I have said if there is still doubt with the video evidence give it not out, but the obvious ones like big edges to the WK and into the pad before an LBW appeal. Or whether the ball pitched outside the leg stump or struck the batsman outside the line, hard to argue with these, and if not clear they could always refer it back to the umpire.

Time is the concern to me, so if after 3 replays they are still not sure give it back to the umpire

 

[Craig]

That's why we should give each team one or two appeals per innings and they must be used in that innings (or not at all) so a team can't save them up for later.

 

[Richard]

Nah never liked appeals for any number of reasons, and there are ways to get more decisions right anyway.

 

[pasag]

I'm all up for more technology being used and I think whenever the umpire is in doubt he should radio the third umpire and discuss it with him. Certainly for things like nicks, inside edges and the like. There's long been a culture with run outs - if in doubt ask the third umpire and it should be similar for other things as well.

However I'm strongly against a referral system where the players have a certain amount of objections (especially the batsmen). Just don't like the concept at all and I think technology can be implemented pretty well without having to resort to something as drastic as that.

 

[Engle]

Nothing stands in the way of technology.....it's just a matter of time when ppl become accepting that it gets implemented.

Frinstance, this business about bowlers yelling their lungs off hoping to convince the ump for an LBW is starting to irritate

Wish H'Eye would decide that. (A few millimeters here or there is, well, neither here nor there).

The biggest benefit to using the machine is that it is consistent for all.
Favors no one, has no emotion, does'nt get tired, dont care about the state of the match nor the player, nor the crowd, nor whether he's playing in his last Test....nothing.

Just unadulterated technological decision-making

 

[slugger]

ICC wants player referrals trialled

Cricinfo staff

January 4, 2008

@ champions trophey

The referral was used in English county games last year - Speed said the players lost interest in it after a couple of matches -
can someone summerise the reasons for above re: the england county games...

 

[Richard]

'Cos it were ' stupid idea.

TBH I never saw any of the matches involved, barely caught any domestic cricket last summer, but I'm sure someone said it was a half-baked experiment doomed to fail.

Why anyone wants more referrals and less stuff that will actually result in the minimum bad decisions I don't know.

 

[silentstriker]

'Cos it were ' stupid idea.

TBH I never saw any of the matches involved, barely caught any domestic cricket last summer, but I'm sure someone said it was a half-baked experiment doomed to fail.

Why anyone wants more referrals and less stuff that will actually result in the minimum bad decisions I don't know.

You can do both. A player generally knows if he has hit the ball, so if he is willing to waste his referrel on it, it's a pretty sure indication that he is sure. If the replay is inconclusive, uphold whatever was decided by the onfield umpire.

 

[slugger]

hes an obvious chance for a batsmen to use refferal
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfrmdQEAxk&feature=related

 

[Richard]

You can do both. A player generally knows if he has hit the ball, so if he is willing to waste his referrel on it, it's a pretty sure indication that he is sure. If the replay is inconclusive, uphold whatever was decided by the onfield umpire.

Even if you did have some ridiculous obsession with reducing the Umpire's authority, you'd surely still see that referrals
a) waste time that could be not wasted and
b) will probably result in less errors being avoided
than a different system would!

Why not just have communication between Umpires on the park and an Umpire sitting in front of a TV, so the bad decision isn't even made, and no-one even has to bother faffing around appealing and getting this and that, and the decision is simply delayed by 5 seconds or so while Umpires consult?

 

[Craig]

I'm all up for more technology being used and I think whenever the umpire is in doubt he should radio the third umpire and discuss it with him. Certainly for things like nicks, inside edges and the like. There's long been a culture with run outs - if in doubt ask the third umpire and it should be similar for other things as well.

However I'm strongly against a referral system where the players have a certain amount of objections (especially the batsmen). Just don't like the concept at all and I think technology can be implemented pretty well without having to resort to something as drastic as that.

You don't like the time that may be wasted or you would rather the umpires made the call?

 

[Pratters]

I first advocated referrals ages ago and this post of mine sums up my feelings on the matter:

Cricket is a sport where dismissals are a key element. In test cricket, there are a maximum of 40 dismissals. A batsman given out when not out or vice versa can have a huge impact on the way the game shapes up. So why should we not use technology where it can help us conclusively where decisions are concerned?

Kasporwicz was not out in Ashes 2005 if we go by the rules. However, there was no way the umpire could have judged the same with the angle he had and made the best decision he could have made given how he saw things. If we can get a decision like that right within a minute (which is practical given we can see replays on the screen instantly), why should the thid umpire not talk with the umpires officiating and immediately get the decision right?

Do such decisions waste too much time? Let teams use referrals - 3 or 5 in a game. Every time you use a referral incorrectly, you have one referral less to use in the game. Simple.

Would it undermine the authority of the umpires? Not really. We would cut the pressure from the umpires this way more than any thing. They are human and we cannot expect them to make every decision correct. However, that does not mean that we should not try and get decisions correct, particularly as they can be so crucial in a game like cricket.

At the end of the day, we should strive to get decisions right wherever we can. It is ludicrous that the whole world can see what y decision should have been and yet we have the scenarios of x batting when he is clearly out or x sitting in the pavilion when he is clearly not out.

Am happy we are looking at referrals now, finally.

 

[slugger]

Its a can of worms attempt... to fix the problem.. however the icc are caught between a rocck and a hard place.. if the hand over more power to the umpires to refer decisions its like telling your elite panel you are just not elite enogh elites another word for prefect or the best right? and then the umpire doesnt like the idea of using aid to assist in his decisions and maybe reluntant to use it at all... giving the referal decisions to the teams is really the only safe way to go.. but there is a downside to it.. certain players will be targeted by team to use their referals on to try and up set them whether its genuine or not.. then captains on the field have to make referal decisions based on info from key players like the bowler and keeper.. he doesnt want to waste a refferal on a maybe he nicked it skip.. and how long of time tdoes the capt. have to make up his mind to refer it.. or not.. while he gathers this info from his key players ... in the end it just might be beter to avoid the problem which i could amigine was the case in the england county games?

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I've thought since last year you could use a referrals system similar to tennis. I reckon two referrals per innings, but they'd be like the tennis ones - if the reply shows you were right to question the call, you retain that referral to use again. Plus the umpire should have the option to refer more decisions themselves. The terrible umpiring at the SCG has underlined that to me.

I think Hawkeye is questionable, but snicko, hotspot (where available), and the 'strikezone' graphic, as well as slo-mo replays are all pretty universally accepted and understood as accurate.

Now not all of these are available everywhere, but neither is the basic 3rd umpire. The hawkeye system isn't available on all courts at the grand-slam, but somehow the players and umpires there manage to work it all out, so I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument. As long as people are clear at the start of each match what is happening in that match, it'll work fine.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, I've thought since last year you could use a referrals system similar to tennis. I reckon two referrals per innings, but they'd be like the tennis ones - if the reply shows you were right to question the call, you retain that referral to use again. Plus the umpire should have the option to refer more decisions themselves. The terrible umpiring at the SCG has underlined that to me.

I think Hawkeye is questionable, but snicko, hotspot (where available), and the 'strikezone' graphic, as well as slo-mo replays are all pretty universally accepted and understood as accurate.

Now not all of these are available everywhere, but neither is the basic 3rd umpire. The hawkeye system isn't available on all courts at the grand-slam, but somehow the players and umpires there manage to work it all out, so I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument. As long as people are clear at the start of each match what is happening in that match, it'll work fine.

I would prefer they just left it to the umpires, if they are not sure check with the third umpire and if not obvious in two replays refer it back to the umpires