Technology and Umpires : Umpire review system trial in SL-India Tests

[SachDan]

although its a good news for Cricket Fans across the world that finally Referral system is being tried in test matches..whether this go on to become the Norm is worth waiting for... But Still there are few areas where ICC can take the initiative and try to minimize the human error.. Since the game of cricket is a game between Bowles and Batsmen..so only these two should be responsible for the outcome of any game or series..only then the fans will be satisfied with the game... The most controversial decisions in the game of cricket are LBWs... as it all depends on the judgment of Umpires...and his correctness in reading the path of the ball...and i think a human eye is best judge in these circumstances... BUT i am all in favour of assisting the field umpires in making the decisions of LBWs... There are still few rough areas which needs to be smoothen...for ex.. 1. if an LBW decision is referred to third umpire...then third umpire will only assist the field umpire in deciding whether the ball pitched in line of the stumps or the ball struck outside the line of stumps... if the Ball was a Front foot No Ball...then third umpire can not correct the field umpire on this... Now why would third umpire have no power to over rule the field umpire in this matter...its beyond my thinking,, 2. in decisions of LBW..the batsman can not possibly tell if the ball pitched outside the line or ball struck him outside the line of stumps...and he can not possible be sure enough to challenge the decision of umpire if given out... In this case...third umpire should intervene if he finds that field umpire made a mistake... I don't think this procedure is under consideration.. 3. Third Umpire should be from a neutral country..as the responsibility of the third umpire will increase .. 4. Third Umpire can take help of Slow motions and super slow motions..but many times..some frames are so difficult to judge..to find whether ball touched the bat or pad...in such cases...Heat Spot technology should be used to judge... 5. Front Foot No Ball should be judged by some machine...as it will greatly reduce the burden of of field umpires and then can concentrate more at the batsman end...many a times...field umpires have missed the front foot no ball...and that ball dismissed the batsman at the other end... if all these recommendations are incorporated ..then i am sure Game of cricket will be more fun to watch...

In that case a simple idea would be to draw to lines between stumps at both ends...so that the onfield umpire too will be at ease in judging whether the pitched out side the leg stump or not...like they do in Tennis,the batsman can challenge it then it self even if the umpire misses the call.

[fineleg]

In that case a simple idea would be to draw to lines between stumps at both ends...so that the onfield umpire too will be at ease in judging whether the pitched out side the leg stump or not...like they do in Tennis,the batsman can challenge it then it self even if the umpire misses the call.

I agree with drawing the lines. Also, they should consider using the Hot-Spot technology. That is quite useful in finding inside edges, impact etc. Front foot no-ball should certainly be monitored with technology like foot fault in Tennis, it should not be too complicated for using technology here.

[fineleg]

^^ Good one by THX_1138

[Ram]

sriram..since you are advocating for the assistance of field umpires by technology... i think the referral system is more or less the same...the only difference probably is that instead of field umpires.. its the third umpire who will be assisted with the technology.... if the use of technology guarantee the fair play for both sides..i don't think any conventionalist will object...even Wimbledon of all places..agreed to use technology for Line calls.. and also we should keep in mind that Umpires are some times biased and take favours... and more often than not borderline decisions go in favour of successful teams...even though benefit of doubt should have gone to the opposition.. and this referral system will definitely make players more honest at least n the field....we will not have the repeats of clarke claiming a bump catch...and ponting and Symonds olding ground..even after nicking one to the keeper..

Sandeep, while I agree with your assertion that this will make players think twice before not being honest, I definitely dont agree with the manner in which this is done. You either trust human judgment or go the whole hog and fully replace the umpires with technology. Having the umpires and giving an option of over-ruling their decision doesnt make sense to me.

[ludhianvi]

As has been seen with catches being referred to the third umpire, the third umpire has to be absolutely sure that the batsman is out, otherwise the decision is given in favour of the batsmen. With this new referral system, only glaring mistakes like that Sangakarra dismissal in Australia would be corrected as there has to be conclusive evidence to give a batsman out. Even then, there will still be arguments on the decision taken by the third umpires IMO. I like the fact that the system has been limited to 3 referrals, otherwise it will be chaos. Btw, will inconclusive evidence favor the on-field umpire's decision or go against it?

Hawk-eye technology would not be used to determine future trajectory of the ball as usually shown on television broadcasts. .

I am still a bit unsure about some of the aspects which can be referred to the third umpire. The biggest concern has always been LBW decisions and with the third umpire not being able to use the hawk-eye technology to determine the extrapolated path of the ball, so the third umpire will only rely on slow motion replays. Also, with this way, the umpires will be looked upon as fools when the third umpire overturns their decisions. As was discussed earlier by one of the members here, the technology should be given to the on-field umpires in the form of psp-styled gadgets through which they can see all the slow-motion replays and hear audio analysis,etc. This way, the onfield umpires will call the shots . But then you can argue that they may be biased in their decision but not one but two umpires will be reviewing and the third umpire can be added as well to give inputs. I am glad that they will finally give this a go and we as fans can better judge whether this is the way forward or not.

[theguyinallblue]

Thinking umpire will become extinct: Bird NEW DELHI: The umpire is dead, long live the umpire. This is Dickie Bird's take on the proposed new umpire review system, to be put on trial in the upcoming India-Sri Lanka Test series in July. Bird, undoubtedly one of the greatest umpires cricket has seen, might have retired, but his standing in the game, not to mention his acerbic, down-to-earth Yorkshireman wit, are fiercely intact. But he sees nothing funny in the ICC's new "ploy", as he puts it, to trust technology and TV cameras in a bid to cut down on on-field umpiring errors. ( Watch ) Bird says the new experimental rule, in which the fielding captain or the batsman can ask for a TV review of an on-field umpire's decision, will herald the extinction of what has long been the game's greatest asset: the thinking umpire. He also feels compromising with the sole authority figure on the field will lead to confusion, and that the latest decision is a direct fallout of the umpiring controversies in the last India-Australia Test series Down Under a few months back. "People tell me you've got to move with the times," the 75-year-old Bird told TOI from Yorkshire on Tuesday, "But this a sad development for cricket, because the sanctity of an umpire's authority is what has kept the game running going back into history. If this trial in Sri Lanka is successful, and is adopted on a permanent basis, then you will find the quality of the umpire will be gone. "All the authority is now taken away from him, so he won't think much on his own. The game will be run by electronic aides. People like myself, who liked only to give their own decisions and think on their own, are finished. All the big umpires I have talked to here in England feel they want to give their own decisions, but that's gone now. Three unsuccessful referrals means there won't be frivolous challenges, but it is an eyewash on the ICC's part to say the final decision rests with the on-field umpire." Bird also feels high ticket prices in Tests will lead to frustrated spectators if such reviews slow the game down considerably: "People pay big money to watch, they do not want to see the game being stopped." The system, tried out on the English domestic scene in the Friends Provident trophy, was widely deemed a failure because not one decision was overturned, and many felt TV umpires were reluctant to go against their on-field colleagues. But Bird says his "biggest problem" is not that the authority of an on-field umpire will be compromised, but that the "technology is not foolproof". For example, the ICC has said the Hawkeye software, which will be used by the TV umpire to judge LBWs, can only be used to track the path of the ball up to the point that it strikes the batsmen. Bird, though, says it is a given that the predictive aspect of the technology will also have a bearing, because the graphics will be beamed on live TV for spectators. "Not only that," he says, "In swinging conditions, I have never understood how Hawkeye can track the path of a ball without taking atmospheric conditions into play. Hawkeye can never give you a fair assessment of an LBW. Also, low on-field catches can never be caught properly on camera because there are slight optical illusions and fake depth perceptions involved. Technology can never understand the condition of a cricket pitch, only players and umpires can." There are other problems too, he feels, like the TV umpire not being allowed to adjudicate no-balls, which might lead to some funny situations if an on-field umpire fails to perceive an overstepped delivery and a consequent decision is referred. "There will be problems but the ICC obviously feels this is the way forward," says Bird, "I do not blame the ICC. Umpires have been making many more errors of late in important Tests, and the point of no return was the India-Australia series. The ICC was under pressure to devise a way to cut down on blatantly wrong decisions. Wrong decisions have been happening not because Elite Panel umpires are overworked or too few, but because not many of them have played at a decent level for long. "What helped me become a good umpire was that I had county stints with Leicestershire and Yorkshire. Playing cricket at that level helps one understand what is going on when you are an umpire. It's not all plain theory." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Thinking_umpire_will_be_extinct/articleshow/3139110.cms

[SachDan]

will this Series be broadcasted by ESPN..? 'cos any other broadcast like TenSports or Sony or Neo ..etc are not good enough... Harsha..Ravi..Sunny...are really good...and rope in few others as well...

India-SL test series will be broadcasted by Ten Sports..... As for the commies,Sanjay Manjrekar,Ranjit Fernado and Renil Abinayake are sure bets... How I wish RF is replaced by some one else...Even SM some times thinks as if he's the ultimate cricket pundit Tony Greig too might be there.

[Zap_Brannigan]

The biggest concern has always been LBW decisions and with the third umpire not being able to use the hawk-eye technology to determine the extrapolated path of the ball, so the third umpire will only rely on slow motion replays. .

Although hawk-eye prediction would have been great (may not be right 100% but atleast it will be same for both teams ie. no human bias), this could address certain issuses like ball pitching in or outside line, ball hitting bat first or even height. This system is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

[diegovegaz]

the referral system may be helpful in decision making, but it will ruin the original play it will lead to deterioration of the goodness of test cricket i hope that the icc withdraws it after the india-sl series gets over

[flamy]

the referral system may be helpful in decision making, but it will ruin the original play it will lead to deterioration of the goodness of test cricket i hope that the icc withdraws it after the india-sl series gets over

:cantstop::cantstop::cantstop:

[ludhianvi]

Although hawk-eye prediction would have been great (may not be right 100% but atleast it will be same for both teams ie. no human bias)' date=' this could address certain issuses like ball pitching in or outside line, ball hitting bat first or even height. This system is not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.[/quote'] Yeah, it could definitely be used in those situations actually. Good Point

[Chandan]

although its a good news for Cricket Fans across the world that finally Referral system is being tried in test matches..whether this go on to become the Norm is worth waiting for... But Still there are few areas where ICC can take the initiative and try to minimize the human error.. Since the game of cricket is a game between Bowles and Batsmen..so only these two should be responsible for the outcome of any game or series..only then the fans will be satisfied with the game... The most controversial decisions in the game of cricket are LBWs... as it all depends on the judgment of Umpires...and his correctness in reading the path of the ball...and i think a human eye is best judge in these circumstances... BUT i am all in favour of assisting the field umpires in making the decisions of LBWs... There are still few rough areas which needs to be smoothen...for ex.. 1. if an LBW decision is referred to third umpire...then third umpire will only assist the field umpire in deciding whether the ball pitched in line of the stumps or the ball struck outside the line of stumps... if the Ball was a Front foot No Ball...then third umpire can not correct the field umpire on this... Now why would third umpire have no power to over rule the field umpire in this matter...its beyond my thinking,, 2. in decisions of LBW..the batsman can not possibly tell if the ball pitched outside the line or ball struck him outside the line of stumps...and he can not possible be sure enough to challenge the decision of umpire if given out... In this case...third umpire should intervene if he finds that field umpire made a mistake... I don't think this procedure is under consideration.. 3. Third Umpire should be from a neutral country..as the responsibility of the third umpire will increase .. 4. Third Umpire can take help of Slow motions and super slow motions..but many times..some frames are so difficult to judge..to find whether ball touched the bat or pad...in such cases...Heat Spot technology should be used to judge... 5. Front Foot No Ball should be judged by some machine...as it will greatly reduce the burden of of field umpires and then can concentrate more at the batsman end...many a times...field umpires have missed the front foot no ball...and that ball dismissed the batsman at the other end... if all these recommendations are incorporated ..then i am sure Game of cricket will be more fun to watch...

Where did you get these details TGIB? Can you please give us the link where this is completely explained as to what can be over ruled by the third umpire and what he has to overlook?

[theguyinallblue]

Read The Post number 7..i have highlighted the relevant part.. will dig to get some articles related to this...

[theguyinallblue]

Umpire decision review to remove players' frustration: ICC DUBAI: Praising Indian and Sri Lankan Cricket Board for agreeing to the trialling of the Umpire decision review system, the ICC on Tuesday said the initiative was aimed at removing frustration among players and ease pressure on umpires. The system, to be tested in this year's Sri Lanka v India three-match Test series starting on July 23, will allow the fielding and batting sides three unsuccessful appeals to the umpire per innings to change a decision if it is perceived to have been incorrect. These appeals can be made only by the batsman in receipt of the umpire's original decision or the captain of the fielding side by making a 'T' sign with both forearms at shoulder height. The on-field umpire will consult with the third umpire, who will review available television coverage of the incident before relaying fact-based information back to his colleague. Slow-motion replays, the wicket-to-wicket "mat", sound from stump microphones and ball-tracking technology up to the point of impact on the pad will be available for use by the television umpire. Snick-detecting devices and 'hot-spot' technology will not be used in this trial. Commenting on the review system, ICC acting Chief Executive Officer David Richardson said the decision was an attempt by the world governing body to enhance still further the game at international level. "The ICC is extremely grateful to both Sri Lanka and India for agreeing to take part in this trial. Once the series is over we will conduct a thorough review of the process before deciding whether the trial was successful and worth persevering with," Richardson said in a statement. "We want to see if we can enhance the game further by reducing or removing the few clearly incorrect ones. The fact that each side is allowed only three unsuccessful requests to review in each innings should mean that players will not make frivolous challenges and, instead, only seek a referral to decisions that are highly likely to be incorrect. "By seeking to reduce these potentially contentious decisions we believe we can help remove a source of tension and frustration among players and spectators as well as any resultant pressure on umpires," said the former South African Test cricketer. Sri Lanka Cricket CEO Duleep Mendis welcomed the initiative and said, "I think the trial's a good idea - if the technology is there then why not use it?" "As a past player we used to say that good and bad decisions would even themselves out but times have changed, the stakes are much higher now for all concerned and if the technology is available then why not use it? "It may be new to the players but I am sure they will be very positive. There are always going to be question marks when a new thing is trialed but no one likes to see anyone get an incorrect decision and if this can help reduce that then why not give it a try?" said the former Sri Lanka captain. The decision to proceed with the trial at international level follows a recommendation by the ICC Chief Executives Committee in its February meeting in Kuala Lumpur and subsequent adoption of that recommendation by the ICC Board during its March meeting here. http://cricket.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3138640.cms PS : Now why Snicko and Hot Spot are not being used to Faint edges...isn't these technologies reliable..? why would third umpire spend precious seconds..watching replays time and again to detect ant faint edge.. this is ridiculous...i can't understnad the logic behind this thinking...

[Chandan]

PS : Now why Snicko and Hot Spot are not being used to Faint edges...isn't these technologies reliable..? why would third umpire spend precious seconds..watching replays time and again to detect ant faint edge.. this is ridiculous...i can't understnad the logic behind this thinking...

I understand that and it is not a proven technology. Many a times we see in snicko the vibrations even if ball and bat are far apart. These technologies are devices for the TV audience to make them more interested in such decisions, not from a point of view of proving a decision of umpire right or wrong. I don't have full faith in hawkeye either. Many a times when the bowler has hit the stump, the hawkeye has shown that the ball would've missed the stumps. I don't think hawkeye can read the late swing or sharp turns from spinners. Nor do I think of it having an ability to read googlies. So as long as clear howlers are removed, I'm happy.

[Yuvraj4Captaincy]

A line needs to be drawn as how to how much technology use is fair.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

Perhaps because the guys in the middle are big control freaks with a big fat ego ? Now the question is why YOU dont get that point. I know you will never respond with a simple straight forward answer but for what its worth.:D

Bossbhai.. looks like we got what we wanted. :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

Perhaps because the guys in the middle are big control freaks with a big fat ego ? Now the question is why YOU dont get that point. I know you will never respond with a simple straight forward answer but for what its worth.:D

I cant believe we are doing this again! :haha::haha: P.S: Warm welcome back Boss. It goes without saying, the forum missed you big time!