The age old question...

[Lurker]

Can we agree on the review of following day-light robbery in case of LBW (1) ball pitched outside leg stump given LBW (2) U are playing shot ball hits u outside line of off stump (3) u actually edge the ball on to pad I say if a bump catch can be reviewed why not these obvious cases . There is hardly any room for perspective in aforementioned cases.

How are you going to review it? The best position on a cricket ground is held by the umpire. Not even the bowler, or batsman at the popping crease, have as good a view as the umpire. Where are you going to place the camera? Yes we have had advancements like hawk eye and so on. And yes they are good help but it may surprise a few that they are not exactly taken as Holy Grail. If they were fullproof perfect you would have seen them used in a game atleast in County and First class circuit. If someone can throw some light on Hawk Eye that would be great. For now we can all agree on one thing - the speedometer, a 20 year invention if not earlier, is still as inconsistent today as it was then. Who is willing to stick his neck out and say Hawk Eye is always right? And what is the ground for that conviction? xxx

[yoda]

lurker, do you watch tennis?

[Lurker]

Okay. Here is a record of every sh*tty umpiring decision in that test. Credit goes to Bheembhai for writing this;

Will read it and then get back to you.

During the course of the entire test match. Did you watch it ? It wasn't just that test either. What about Tendulkar's LBW @ Brisbane ?

Not completely but yes I did watch it. Like I mentioned before I picked the last day of the game as that would have mattered the most. From what I have already mentioned above I do not buy umpiring "substandard" for India not winning the Test, we could not force the win, or take the chances that come our way. As for Tendulkars LBW that was a terrible decision but I thought we were arguing about how it impacts the end result? The game you mention was a draw and a boring draw with rains. So not sure if there is a point to this argument. If bad decisions were the norm I could pick quite a few where India benefitted as well, including the current series.

Oh please. So a wicket at stage wouldn't have made a difference at all ? How do you know that. Do you want me to provide you with a few instances in which a team lost wickets from such supposedly comfortable positions ? I've already mentioned one of them - the England vs India ODI @ Kolkata from '02. England went from 220/4 at the 35th over mark to 259 all out. Matches are played over FIFTY overs, not 35 or 39. And i am ignorant ? LOL. I am not saying India bowled well, far from it - but Australia's batting performance wasn't exactly flawless either.

I will keep it rather simple for you. Dig up all the WC finals since circa 1975. Come back to me with how many teams have been in a stronger position after 37 overs. Remember the argument is about how a decision ultimately impacted the result of the game. Go on give it a shot.

Dude, here is a question for you - when was the last time the Indian team ever reacted to bad umpiring in that same way ? Indian cricketers have been gracious in defeat more often than not.

You obviously know little about Indian cricket or else you wouldnt have made this statement. Can you please check Kapil Dev's statement after India lost a Test series in Sri Lanka. Kapil is my favorite player as you would know but yeah go ahead and dig that up. Perhaps you would learn something. xxx

[Lurker]

lurker' date=' do you watch tennis?[/quote'] Not so much these days. But before I used to yes.

[yoda]

Not so much these days. But before I used to yes.

they use hawk-eye now and each player gets a max of 3 challenges per set. yes, it is not perfect, but makes fewer mistakes than humans do.

[Holysmoke]

I see what you mean by keeping it all fair but my assertion is the game is pretty fair as it is. Out of 1000 decisions given every year by umpires I daresay not more than 50 are debated. That is a very low number for me(5% or less) to contemplate technology. Of course if such numbers were ridiculously high like 400 or 500 or more it would be a different story. xxx

So thats the difference.For me, thats a high number. I wouldnt want there to be even a single decision ever which goes wrong.. and a team benefits from it where it should not. I would strive to acheive a 100% accuracy rate for decisions, and if that means bringing in tv replays, so be it.

[Predator_05]

If bad decisions were the norm I could pick quite a few where India benefitted as well' date=' including the current series. [/quote'] These are big decisions which were wrongfully given. That is the point of this thread - why should we bear witness to crappy umpiring all the time when there is an alternative ?

I will keep it rather simple for you. Dig up all the WC finals since circa 1975. Come back to me with how many teams have been in a stronger position after 37 overs. Remember the argument is about how a decision ultimately impacted the result of the game. Go on give it a shot.

You make the assertion, so why don't YOU prove it YOURSELF. Why should i do your dirty work for you when I have watched enough cricket to know that a team which may be in a good position at a certain juncture of their innings can STILL LOSE THEIR WAY. Your argument that Ponting being given out at that stage wouldn't have done anything to influence the direction of the game is as ridiculous as saying that India would have bowled out SL for under 100 in the '96 semi final because they had taken 2 wickets in the opening over

You obviously know little about Indian cricket or else you wouldnt have made this statement. Can you please check Kapil Dev's statement after India lost a Test series in Sri Lanka. Kapil is my favorite player as you would know but yeah go ahead and dig that up. Perhaps you would learn something. xxx

hmmm...so did Kapil kick down the stumps, shove the umpire and then walk off the pitch, refusing to play under a particular umpire ?

[Lurker]

they use hawk-eye now and each player gets a max of 3 challenges per set. yes' date=' it is not perfect, but makes fewer mistakes than humans do.[/quote'] Ah okay. Thanks for that info. I did not know it. I wouldnt argue it for the simple reason I have not followed tennis much and so it would be arguing for the sake of it. :thumbs_up:

[MundaPakistani]

they use hawk-eye now and each player gets a max of 3 challenges per set. yes' date=' it is not perfect, but makes fewer mistakes than humans do.[/quote'] It's a good system but remember that's made for line calls. they should try a 1 challenge per innings system in 1st class cricket and see how it works.

[yoda]

3 challenges per team per innings would be a good start. simply allow ANY decision to be referred to the third umpire. he can use whatever replay he has at his disposal to make the call. you win the challenge you keep it, meaning it doesn't count against the 3. it will add probably 5 minutes of extra time per innings. big facking deal.

[Lurker]

These are big decisions which were wrongfully given. That is the point of this thread - why should we bear witness to crappy umpiring all the time when there is an alternative ?

What a ridiculous statement to make. You change an old cellphone if it doesnt work for you. You do not just go ahead and buy a new cellphone because it is there. The point is that "bad" umpiring has NOT affected the net results and thus far you have been unable to prove me otherwise. If that is your best shot, the technology is there, rest assured it is not gonna be included just for that.

You make the assertion, so why don't YOU prove it YOURSELF.

I dont need to. I know the FACTS of WC finals, apparently you do not. If you choose to wallow in ignorance and get all hot under the collar be my guest. Aussies crusing at 6 plus RR as good as 37th over and Umpire's decision ruined the result. Yeah sure go on uttering those gems.

hmmm...so did Kapil kick down the stumps, shove the umpire and then walk off the pitch, refusing to play under a particular umpire ?

Dig up yourself. You know you need to do a bit of study on Indian cricket. And pray do tell why should I do legwork for you Predz :tounge_smile: xxx

[kumble_rocks]

they use hawk-eye now and each player gets a max of 3 challenges per set. yes' date=' it is not perfect, but makes fewer mistakes than humans do.[/quote'] If I am not mistaken , during Wimbledon , McEnroe was saying that hawkeye is 95 % right which is still good enough.

[MundaPakistani]

I' date=' 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.[/quote']

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".

and you think those 1% mistakes will not occur if we use technology? here is what i posted on the other thread

Reasons why i think total reliance on technology is a bad idea because First of all it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases when batsman has been bowled yet the Hawk eye has the ball missing the stumps.... then there have been bat and pad cases where the batsman has admitted of hitting the ball yet if you look at the replays you will never know that. Secondly in the LBW decisions Hawkeye doesn't consider the shot the batsman was trying to play(yes i think it's important) . The law written in the book should only be used as a guide line e.g if i was the umpire then there will be quite a few cases in which even if i am not sure that the ball had hit the batsman in line with the stump but i am convinced that the bowler has 'defeated' the batsman then i will waste no time in raising my finger. Simiarly if i see the batsman has a decent stride forward and is willing to use his bat then i might not give him out...it's this human interpretation factor which should always be the part of the game.For hawk eye a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward and playing with a straight bat is the same thing as a batsman being caught at the crease playing an ugly swipe to the leg side...the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not good enough

[Lurker]

If I am not mistaken ' date=' during Wimbledon , McEnroe was saying that hawkeye is 95 % right which is still good enough.[/quote'] This is what I am looking for people to educate me upon. How correct is Hawk Eye?? I have read that it is pretty accurate(90% plus) but definitely not 100%. Some people it seems assume Hawk Eye is 100% which it clearly is not. By the way it would be interesting to see what are the percentage for Elite Panel umpires? xx

[Holysmoke]

and you think those 1% mistakes will not occur if we use technology? here is what i posted on the other thread

Oh, mistakes will still occur even if we use technology. What I mean is, that if by using technology, we cna reduce the amount of wrong decisions, we should. Lurker said, that he feels there is a 5% rate of debatable decisions. I feel that if by using technology, we can change to rate to even 4.9%, we should go ahead and do it.

[yoda]

the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not good enough

if the ball hits you in line (which incidentally hawk-eye can tell you as well), the only other other thing that should matter is the above. no one is asking hawk-eye to automatically pull a player by his shirt and throw him to the balcony. we are just asking these incompetent bozos to use that to make up for their own limited skills.

[Holysmoke]

btw, Faisal, hawk eye is improving by the series. I remember, when it was just introduced.. it was really really bad.. but its getting better and more accurate as time passes.... so when u say that uve seen the ball missing stumps when batsman was bowled... was it in the last year or so?

[kumble_rocks]

3 challenges per team per innings would be a good start. simply allow ANY decision to be referred to the third umpire. he can use whatever replay he has at his disposal to make the call. you win the challenge you keep it' date=' meaning it doesn't count against the 3. it will add probably 5 minutes of extra time per innings. big facking deal.[/quote'] Completely agree with you . Even in NFL their was lot of clamour by traditionalist for not wanting replays to overrule referee's decision and now that it is implemented coupled with coaches challenge (they have two in NFL), games being decided due to human error is on the wane.

[yoda]

This is what I am looking for people to educate me upon. How correct is Hawk Eye?? I have read that it is pretty accurate(90% plus) but definitely not 100%. Some people it seems assume Hawk Eye is 100% which it clearly is not. By the way it would be interesting to see what are the percentage for Elite Panel umpires? xx

look at it this simple way. if it is good enough for tennis, it is good enough for cricket.

[Holysmoke]

and we have the version of replays which makes the batsman transclucent. I hope you know what im talking about. We dont have to use hawk eye. The replay that makes the batsman transclucent.. can be used.. then judge for urself...