Jump to content

The age old question...


The age old question...  

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

I, for one, feel that they should be. That way we will get a lot more correct decisions, and the game will be fair. The better team will win. I dont understand this crap about "Oh, the human element from the game will be taken out, there will be no charm.. blah blah blah..". Balls to that.. I mean, are people trying to say that they WANT human errors and mistakes in the game? As for those who say "It all evens out in the end, thats all crap. It does not.

Link to comment

NO ! This was my post earlier on a related topic.

It will be total disaster if you have on-field umpire decision over-ruled by technology. It will decrease match momentum badly. Very rarely are bump-ball decisions, close run-out and stumping decisions got wrong these days anyway. But reverting an umpire decsion is not such a smart move. See the video below and you will understand what i am saying.. AF_VA2OK4HU
Link to comment

I vote for NO. If you are looking for Robots then go play the game of cricket on your laptop. This is cricket, a 5 day feast where every single second can change the complexion of the game. The umpires are a vital part of this game and by and large they are impartial and correct. Sure they make mistakes but so what? If the mistakes were as glaring as say 25% I would say fair enough but it is mostly in single digits, if that. Isn't it so much easier to just blame umpires? How many of the fierce SRT(or Dravid) fans have I seen who have initiated a thread on how "SRT was cr@p" in this game? On the other hand how many threads/posts were made about Bucknor/Tauffel? There is a saying in my side of the world - Gareeb ki joru sabki bhaujai.(loosely translated to - poor man's wife is everyone's sister-in-law(so one can have fun with)). Umpires are those gareeb ki joru. xxx

Link to comment
But reverting an umpire decsion is not such a smart move.
I am not talking about reverting a decision. I am talking about referring it to the third umpire before making one.. something like the run out system. If i remember correctly, this was tried earlier in the champions trophy or something.
Link to comment

Yes. Note that i am not for the complete replacement of umpires by technology, but for the implementation of technology for the purpose of AIDING umpires when it comes to LBW calls. I'd like to see the umpires further empowered by technology and make use of it whenever they have a doubt as to whether the ball was going to hit stumps or not. None of this "slow-death" crap which we ROUTINELY see from the likes of Steve Bucknor. Let the process behind giving an LBW decision be the same as the decision made with regard to close boundary line saves or run-out calls. The latter rightfully require the third umpire's intervention because of the speed at which the action takes place. They invariably get it right. The speed at which the ball strikes a batsman on the pad is no different. The third umpire would effectively minimize any margin for error. Cricket is a stop start game by nature, so it's not like a 30 second referral will severely disrupt the momentum of the game.

Link to comment
I vote for NO. If you are looking for Robots then go play the game of cricket on your laptop. This is cricket, a 5 day feast where every single second can change the complexion of the game. The umpires are a vital part of this game and by and large they are impartial and correct. Sure they make mistakes but so what? If the mistakes were as glaring as say 25% I would say fair enough but it is mostly in single digits, if that. Isn't it so much easier to just blame umpires? How many of the fierce SRT(or Dravid) fans have I seen who have initiated a thread on how "SRT was cr@p" in this game? On the other hand how many threads/posts were made about Bucknor/Tauffel? There is a saying in my side of the world - Gareeb ki joru sabki bhaujai.(loosely translated to - poor man's wife is everyone's sister-in-law(so one can have fun with)). Umpires are those gareeb ki joru. xxx
who is blaming them? What I am saying is, that even with umpires, we have big mistakes. One false decision in a final can decide who holds the world cup. The umpires are after all humans, and they make mistakes. But that is not my point. My point is, even with a mistake rate of 1%, there still is a mistake, and that one mistake can decide someone's career, or the destiny of the next world cup. Do you really want that? or would you rather have a fair game, even if it is "robotic".
Link to comment
I am not talking about reverting a decision. I am talking about referring it to the third umpire before making one.. something like the run out system. If i remember correctly' date=' this was tried earlier in the champions trophy or something.[/quote'] I believe it has been tried at various levels with varying degree of success. The problem is modern cricket is such a show-pony that every other delivery there is an appeal. Bowlers are not only lot more aggressive but equally frequent in their appeals too. This combined with "non-walking" by batsmen means umpires are in hot seat every single time. So what do they do now? Refer all appeals to 3rd umpire? This will ensure lot less cricket due to constant referalls and all. If he doesnt refer to 3rd umpire then expect the next day headline - Why didnt Mother effer Bucknor refer to 3rd umpire?? Let the umpires be. It is not they who are the problem, but the players. But who has the galls to take on the players? xxx
Link to comment
What I am saying is' date=' that even with umpires, we have big mistakes. One false decision in a final can decide who holds the world cup. The umpires are after all humans, and they make mistakes. But that is not my point. [b']My point is, even with a mistake rate of 1%, there still is a mistake, and that one mistake can decide someone's career, or the destiny of the next world cup. Do you really want that? or would you rather have a fair game, even if it is "robotic".
Thats a lot of hyperbole isnt it? Show me if a country has lost a WC due to bad umpiring decision? Show me the last time a country lost a Test series due to umpiring. The easy answer is that teams who have been dominant - Australia, West Indies - never worried about bad umpiring. It is the second rung team and its whiny players -like India - who excel when it comes to moaning about umpire rather than putting their hands up and say we suck. Would I have a fair game? I beleive 95% plus, if not more, games are fair today. And I have no problems with that probability. xxx
Link to comment
Thats a lot of hyperbole isnt it? Show me if a country has lost a WC due to bad umpiring decision? Show me the last time a country lost a Test series due to umpiring. The easy answer is that teams who have been dominant - Australia, West Indies - never worried about bad umpiring. It is the second rung team and its whiny players -like India - who excel when it comes to moaning about umpire rather than putting their hands up and say we suck. Would I have a fair game? I beleive 95% plus, if not more, games are fair today. And I have no problems with that probability. xxx
Well, I dont know if any WC has been won or lost due to umpiring errors.Even 1 small error can change games. Imagine this. The 1999 semi final.. Aus vs SA... Lets say McGrath or Fleming or someone bowled a marginal ball down leg..which was not given as a wide when it should have. Thats all it takes.. In all fairness, the outcome of this test would have been really different if sree was given out by bucknor.
Link to comment
Well' date=' I dont know if any WC has been won or lost due to umpiring errors.Even 1 small error can change games. Imagine this. The 1999 semi final.. Aus vs SA... Lets say McGrath or Fleming or someone bowled a marginal ball down leg..which was not given as a wide when it should have. Thats all it takes.. In all fairness, the outcome of this test would have been really different if sree was given out by bucknor.[/quote'] Which is why I said that it is just a lot of hyperbole Holy. You would be hard-pressed to show a game was lost by one umpiring decision. Specially in Test where each team plays 2 innings. So Dravid was "raped" in first innings, what happened in second? If 19 wickets can not give you good score, 20 wont as well. On the other hand we have used technology and have seen mixed result. Atleast one very important game, if not more, was marred simply by use of technology. I am sure you know what happened to South Africa in 1992 WC. From chasing 22 runs off 14 deliveries they were left to chase 22 off 1 due to rain interruption. How cruel was that? xxx
Link to comment
Thats a lot of hyperbole isnt it? Show me if a country has lost a WC due to bad umpiring decision? Show me the last time a country lost a Test series due to umpiring. The easy answer is that teams who have been dominant - Australia, West Indies - never worried about bad umpiring. It is the second rung team and its whiny players -like India - who excel when it comes to moaning about umpire rather than putting their hands up and say we suck.
:whatchutalkingabout India lost the Bangalore test in '04 vs AUS mainly because of SH*TTY umpiring. What about the last day of the Sydney test in '03 ? That cost India the series, didn't it ? What about the World Cup final ? Ricky Ponting plumb to Dinesh Mongia - given the fact that Ponting went on to finish 140 not out, don't tell me that decision didn't influence the direction of the game. Don't get me started. India have been screwed enough times to raise this question over the viability of human umpiring. Your last statement is utterly LAUGHABLE. Look at the video marirs posted and watch how Ponting cries like a b*tch when the umpire rightfully rules out the dismissal by bringing Tendulkar back. Remember Ponting mouthing off to the umpire in Banglastan ? I could go on. The West Indies did it too - Michael Holding kicked down the stumps once in protest of sh*tty umpiring. When was the last time an Indian bowler did the same ? The English have cried foul over umpiring in India on numerous occasions - i still remember how the Observer slaughtered umpire Sharma when he gave Trescothick (when he was on 120*) LBW to Srinath for what was a marginal call in an ODI at the Eden Gardens back in '02. Let's not forget the tensiosn with Pakistan - Shakoor Rana incident @ Faisalabad ring a bell ? Second rung teams, my @ss. Crappy umpiring affects EVERY team and to claim that some raise more concerns about it than others is just plain IGNORANT.
Link to comment
On the other hand we have used technology and have seen mixed result. Atleast one very important game, if not more, was marred simply by use of technology. I am sure you know what happened to South Africa in 1992 WC. From chasing 22 runs off 14 deliveries they were left to chase 22 off 1 due to rain interruption. How cruel was that? xxx
Come on. That was not "marred by technology". That was a stupid rain rule :confused_smile:
Link to comment
If 19 wickets can not give you good score, 20 wont as well.
Expected much better from you, Lurker. Didn't the one wicket in reference here make all the difference at Calcutta, Adelaide and so many other matches.
On the other hand we have used technology and have seen mixed result. Atleast one very important game, if not more, was marred simply by use of technology. I am sure you know what happened to South Africa in 1992 WC. From chasing 22 runs off 14 deliveries they were left to chase 22 off 1 due to rain interruption. How cruel was that?
Exactly what kind of technology was used in that SF. Good post, Predzz. Will add more to it later.
Link to comment
:whatchutalkingabout India lost the Bangalore test in '04 vs AUS mainly because of SH*TTY umpiring. What about the last day of the Sydney test in '03 ? That cost India the series, didn't it ? What about the World Cup final ? Ricky Ponting plumb to Dinesh Mongia - given the fact that Ponting went on to finish 140 not out, don't tell me that decision didn't influence the direction of the game. Don't get me started. India have been screwed enough times to raise this question over the viability of human umpiring.
India did not win the Sydney Test in 03 thanks to Parthiv Patel. If you are thinking umpires costed India the game then you are deluding yourself. Your example of World Cup is exactly what I have been trying to show - how easy it is to beat umpires and not the players themselves. Here is why. The ball you are referring to was bowled as late as 37th over. Australian score at that time? A rather poor 223/2. Run Rate of 6 plus. Ponting batting on 46* and Martyn 56*. By any account that is as formidable a team's position as it has EVER been. In fact I would bet my money that no other country has been in a stronger position in a WC final at that level(37 over). The game was lost NOT because of the umpire but because of utterly clueless bowling by Indian bowlers. xxx
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...