Jump to content

Enough talk on Umpires' call - Be done with it - Kohli

coffee_rules

By coffee_rules
in Cricket Talk

Umpires’ call and Soft Dismissal   

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Do we need umpires’ call and soft signal?

    • Both should be banned
      4
    • Umpires call is OK, soft signal should be banned
      5
    • Soft signal is OK, Umpires’ call should be banned
      0
    • Both are fine, nothing needs change, let whinners whine
      1
    • Kohli should be banned
      3
    • Only Umpires’ call on Impact should be banned
      1
    • Umpires’ call on impact and soft signal should be banned
      0

Recommended Posts

coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am in total agreement, the umpires' call on impact is the most ridiculous of all. CC has put forth it's recommendations to ICC, hopefully they get rid of it.

Next issue - soft signal. If it is based on the fielders' claim, again, I want it to be 'Don't facking know, Don't trust the fielder' call on the soft signal. After the Ponting/Clarke spirit of cricket decisions in Sydney '08, no player can be trusted, given a choice they will cheat . A lot of fielders who claim catches also don't walk. So, there you go about their integrity.

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ind-vs-eng-2020-21-1st-odi-virat-kohli-umpire-s-call-right-now-is-creating-a-lot-of-confusion-1256275

 

Quote

"So, from basic cricket common sense, I don't think that there should be any debates on that. If the ball is clipping the stumps, it should be out - whether you like it or not you lose the review. And that is how simple the game has to be: if it hits the stumps or it misses the stumps, it doesn't matter how much it is hitting and those kind of things. Because it is creating a lot of confusion."

 

Quote

KN Ananthapadmanabhan, the on-field umpire, gave the soft signal as out even as Virender Sharma, the TV umpire, remained unconvinced. Although the rulebook gives the TV umpire the authority to overrule the soft signal, Sharma upheld his on-field colleague's decision.

 
After the match Kohli reacted strongly, saying he failed to understand why there was no "I don't know" option the on-field umpire could use for cases where the evidence was not conclusive.

On Monday Kohli felt controversial dismissals like Yadav's also had the potential to trigger the spirit of cricket argument. "One more factor that needs to be considered is how the fielding team responds to a dismissal that is claimed is also somewhere you know defining soft signal as well," he said. "Again, you have to question what the spirit of the game is and what those guidelines are. Because if things like that happen with the Indian cricket team overseas, then you are talking about a totally different conversation about spirit of the game, and so on and so forth.

 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Texan Mentor

Texan

Posted
Posted

Umpires call should not go away completely but they should reduce the margin on these calls. They did reduce it a bit couple of years ago I think, and now they should do some more to reduce that margin. Idea is to chip away the margin as technology improves and ultimately at some point where we are 100% sure it works, to remove this completely. 

Link to comment
neel roy Mentor

neel roy

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sandeep99 said:

Umpires call for DRS reviews  is good. Soft signal for catches is the one that should go.

I still dont get it how an umpire from 22 yards can determine exactly whether a thunderbolt from archer has hit the pads of a batsman adjacent to a stump or not in a nano second. Does their eyes have supermanersque powers that they know a ball is hitting 51 perc of stumps or 49 perc. Former is out and latter not out.. isnt it better to leave it to MIT guys who have refined these techniques since 2008.. 

Edited by neel roy
Link to comment
putrevus Grand Master

putrevus

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

does Kohli know why there is umpires call in the first place? the technology is not  good enough to predict the outcome right now,umpires call is the best option right now till they get better cameras and improves it.

So we still can get two decisions based on the same umpire's call.

Link to comment
ShoonyaSifar Newbie

ShoonyaSifar

Posted
Posted

The whole reason why ICC had to introduce umpire's call was on captain's complaints regarding such marginal decisi and why technology cannot be fully trusted!  Soft signal is again about the competency of the 3rd umpire both have mostly workef fine. In any case Technology is there to get rid of howlers. 

 

The larger point is Kohli should stop fussing about umpiring. He looks like a sore loser doing so and has developed a habbit in recent times to bully junior umpires in IPL and in international cricket.

 

Time for ICC to show him the rule book and hand out an adequate punishment for violating the code of conduct. Just because he is a superstar he should not be allowed to get away with obnoxious behaviour with umpires. 

Link to comment
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Texan said:

Umpires call should not go away completely but they should reduce the margin on these calls. They did reduce it a bit couple of years ago I think, and now they should do some more to reduce that margin. Idea is to chip away the margin as technology improves and ultimately at some point where we are 100% sure it works, to remove this completely. 

 

NO they most definitely should not.  It is the graphic that is misleading and makes it look conclusive.

 

The margin is there because the "predictive" software has a very large margin of error - so when the stupid TV graphics are showing it just clipping the stump, what the software is actually saying that it could be missing it by a few inches.  

 

The graphic needs to be updated, and in case of the "marginal" calls, the on-field umpire's judgement should absolutely override the hawkeye "predicted" pathway.

Link to comment
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, neel roy said:

 isnt it better to leave it to MIT guys who have refined these techniques since 2008.. 

NO.

 

because its not "MIT Guys" reviewing each and every simulated prediction of the ball trajectory.  Its software, which only predicts a "range" of trajectory possibilities.  The trained umpire who's on the field, has reviewed thousands of leg-before appeals personally, is far more trustworthy than 'programmed' software.  

 

In this particular narrow specific edge-case, the human is far superior, unquestionably than the machine.

Link to comment
sage Veteran

sage

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

NO they most definitely should not.  It is the graphic that is misleading and makes it look conclusive.

 

The margin is there because the "predictive" software has a very large margin of error - so when the stupid TV graphics are showing it just clipping the stump, what the software is actually saying that it could be missing it by a few inches.  

 

The graphic needs to be updated, and in case of the "marginal" calls, the on-field umpire's judgement should absolutely override the hawkeye "predicted" pathway.

Yep the graphic is just the most likely of a whole host of possible paths. I don't know what better way to show it though

Link to comment
bowl_out Grand Master

bowl_out

Posted
Posted

Soft signal should definitely go.. It makes no sense in any situation.

Umpire's call on impact should also go because there is no prediction of trajectory. It either struck in line or didn't strike in line

 

Umpire's call needs to stay to check if it is hitting wickets because the trajectory of the ball is a prediction and is subject to errors. The range for umpire's call (how much of the ball should hit the stump) can be debated and corrected

 

 

Link to comment
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, sandeep said:

NO.

 

because its not "MIT Guys" reviewing each and every simulated prediction of the ball trajectory.  Its software, which only predicts a "range" of trajectory possibilities.  The trained umpire who's on the field, has reviewed thousands of leg-before appeals personally, is far more trustworthy than 'programmed' software.  

 

In this particular narrow specific edge-case, the human is far superior, unquestionably than the machine.


But the same predictive software is accepted 100% by line calls in Tennis. Why not in cricket?

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...