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

[bowl_out]

15 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Why don’t they use HD slo mo cameras then? Instead they use similar graphics as DRS? 

 

They should.. Slow mo HD cameras to determine impact, but it should either be deemed "stuck in-line" or "stuck outside the line" and not umpire's call

 

Umpire's call is only where the event is probabilistic because there is an error margin (like trajectory that the ball would have traveled)

[bowl_out]

24 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Updated OP with Poal.. vote away..

Add an option of Soft signal and umpire's call on impact should be banned..

 

[YCCC]

One of my biggest annoyances from fans and commentators is when they ask “why isn’t it out of the ball tracking shows it’s hitting the stumps but it’s umpire’s call” or “it’s either hitting the stumps or it’s not”. They never seem to get that there has to be some margin for error as the technology isn’t accurate enough 

[coffee_rules]

11 minutes ago, YCCC said:

One of my biggest annoyances from fans and commentators is when they ask “why isn’t it out of the ball tracking shows it’s hitting the stumps but it’s umpire’s call” or “it’s either hitting the stumps or it’s not”. They never seem to get that there has to be some margin for error as the technology isn’t accurate enough 

The b-grade graphics shows more than 50% hitting and still it is umpires’ call. They can print the margin of error to determine umps call instead of graphics. They can even reduce it to 1% or so.

[zen]

I do not see too much issues with umpire’s call on LBW as it keeps on field umpiring decisions still relevant and teams get to keep the review as well 

 

Soft call should go as the umpire has not necessarily taken a well informed decision esp. on catches, and also stumping, which are difficult to pick in slow motion too. Let the TV umpire decide that based on technology. Benefit of doubt goes to the batsman and it should be clarified as well by the TV umpire 

 

Though teams could still find something to complain about like there was not enough doubt to give benefit of doubt if decisions do not go their way. At the end of the day, we need to stop worrying about tosses and close decisions (just enjoy the game!)

[rollingstoned]

re umpire's call on impact, if they want to further refine it they make the umpire say whether he gave it not out because he thinks it is hitting in line and missing the stumps or missing on impact but possibly hitting, with no inside edge. It removes decisions where it is hitting the stumps but the decision is marginal on impact.

Edited March 23, 2021 by rollingstoned

[kirkutfan]

10 hours 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.

But then why not just trust the umpires and accept human error as part of the game. What is the point in relying on technology that imperfectly predicts the direction of the ball. It would reduce the time we waste with those referrals. The time wasted with the catch that got SKY was ridiculous and at the end of all that, it’s possible that we still got the wrong outcome.

[sandeep]

5 hours ago, YCCC said:

One of my biggest annoyances from fans and commentators is when they ask “why isn’t it out of the ball tracking shows it’s hitting the stumps but it’s umpire’s call” or “it’s either hitting the stumps or it’s not”. They never seem to get that there has to be some margin for error as the technology isn’t accurate enough 

too lazy to correct their ignorance.  

[New guy]

13 hours ago, Sandeep99 said:

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

I saw an interesting argument about this on some other forum. I will summarize

 

1) There is no guarantee of good camera angles for a catch or fielding effort. Unlike lbw or run outs etc where we have them. So if umpires don't give soft signals, 90% of the time the third umpires verdict will be not out, benefit going to batsmen. 

 

2) Host countries will control cameras. So there will be lots of talk that when visitors are batting, suddenly there are lots of good angles but when hosts are batting we have bad angles so third umpires always give it not out. 

 

3) Most matches without technology, its umpires who make the calls anyways 

 

 

[New guy]

1 hour ago, kirkutfan said:

But then why not just trust the umpires and accept human error as part of the game. What is the point in relying on technology that imperfectly predicts the direction of the ball. It would reduce the time we waste with those referrals. The time wasted with the catch that got SKY was ridiculous and at the end of all that, it’s possible that we still got the wrong outcome.

Becuase we are combining human with tech. And tech still over turn obvious wrongs. It's only marginal ones which are in debate 

[New guy]

7 hours ago, bowl_out said:

Add an option of Soft signal and umpire's call on impact should be banned..

 

Umpires call on impact is when the entire ball is not hitting in line. If 1% of ball is hitting in line, should that also be considered in line? 

[New guy]

7 hours ago, bowl_out said:

 

They should.. Slow mo HD cameras to determine impact, but it should either be deemed "stuck in-line" or "stuck outside the line" and not umpire's call

 

Umpire's call is only where the event is probabilistic because there is an error margin (like trajectory that the ball would have traveled)

In this case umpires call is when less than half of the ball is striking in line. If 1% of ball is striking in line should it be considered hitting in line? They use the same term as the predictive part, so its confusing. But if less that 50% of ball is striking in line, they go with original umpires call. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by New guy

[New guy]

10 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.

Also, point to note, that when its umpires call, we are not saying umpire was right or superior. We are combining BOTH umpires and tech. Tech says, this ball is so close it might be hitting or missing. Umpire says, its missing. So we combine both and go with missing. The graphic showing hitting is confusing viewers, but actually tech is saying it can be both hitting or missing. They should show a range instead of one point 

[Adamant]

Umpire call should have no place in cricket. 

If 25% or more part hits the stumps it should be out otherwise not out. 

[Adamant]

Same applies for Soft Signal, no need. 

[kirkutfan]

1 hour ago, New guy said:

Becuase we are combining human with tech. And tech still over turn obvious wrongs. It's only marginal ones which are in debate 

Yes, that is what we are doing. I will even go along with the assumption that this is better than what we had before. The issue in my mind is whether this is “better” enough. The costs such as the delays in the flow of a game high. And we still have error. For one, are we using tech properly when an umpire is forced to make a call when he doesn’t have enough information to make the call. He should be able to say that he needs to check replays first and if things are still gray, benefit of doubt goes to batsman. The umpire was not in position to make a real call on the SKY catch. He trusted the fielder’s reaction. Then, if we check replays, we should review  2 or 3 set angles and be done. Not beating this to the nth degree with all kind of angles and holding the game up for what seemed like half an hour. 

[New guy]

50 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Umpire call should have no place in cricket. 

If 25% or more part hits the stumps it should be out otherwise not out. 

But we don't know if 25% or more is hitting because projection has an error rate. 25% hitting might be completely missing in reality 

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, New guy said:

But we don't know if 25% or more is hitting because projection has an error rate. 25% hitting might be completely missing in reality 

Yeah i know that. 

But all this is based on probability, even a ball hitting top of stump might have missed it on it's real trajectory,

[putrevus]

13 hours ago, YCCC said:

One of my biggest annoyances from fans and commentators is when they ask “why isn’t it out of the ball tracking shows it’s hitting the stumps but it’s umpire’s call” or “it’s either hitting the stumps or it’s not”. They never seem to get that there has to be some margin for error as the technology isn’t accurate enough 

Yes, there is margin of error from technology but it is resulting in two completely different outcomes based on umpiring decision. Umpiring bias has started to creep in, it is starting to affect the outcome of the matches.

 

 

[New guy]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Yes, there is margin of error from technology but it is resulting in two completely different outcomes based on umpiring decision. Umpiring bias has started to creep in, it is starting to affect the outcome of the matches.

 

 

Err, the two different outcomes is BECAUSE the ball hitting can have two likely outcomes. H/E creators themselves say that. So ball hitting on umpire's call can have BOTH outcomes, out or missing