Me versus umpiring charm (Calling Boss)

[Mr. Wicket]

This is an article I had written back in January 2005 on the state of umpiring, in a series of columns on another site looking back over cricketing events in 2004.

Those who have been calling for technology to replace the men in the white coats over the past year will be pleased at the argument provided for them. Just about every match in 2004 seemed to provide some evidence as to why cricket needs to head away from umpires and to technology for its own good. In a year of individual and collective form slumps and purple patches, one thing's been consistent almost right through the year - and that's been the decline in the umpiring standards from the ICC's so-called "Elite Panel". In the last few years, with the arrival of technology for the armchair viewer such as "Hawkeye" and "Snickometer", the clamor for technology to either be used as an umpiring aid or as a total replacement has been increasing - but it has never been as loud as it was this past year. The year began with one of the most impressive scenes in incompetence and buffoonery from the ICC. After a thrilling test between India and Australia at Sydney that was marred by some poor umpiring by Billy Bowden and Steve Bucknor, Saurav Ganguly rightfully complained to the ICC, filing a report that described Bucknor's on field conduct and performance as "very poor". Instead, the ICC acted as if it had never happened and instead allowed Bucknor to officiate in the upcoming VB Series, and in one of the India/Pakistan tests later in April. The horrible decision-making hadn't been confined just to Indians, and with the move to give more games to younger umpires like Simon Taufel and the like, the ICC was expected to at least demote Bucknor after a number of poor decisions and man-management on the field over the space of two months. Not even a slap on the wrists ensued. The umpiring debacles weren't just confined to those from the subcontinent. When England hosted first New Zealand and then the West Indies, both touring teams were on the receiving end of some rough decisions. A shocking piece of umpiring saw Mark Richardson robbed of a hundred in the first innings at Lords - and later, the likes of Stephen Fleming when batting, and Daniel Vettori and James Franklin more than their fair share of decisions going the wrong way. The trend continued into the following series, where Darrell Hair provided enough evidence to suggest that he might need a seeing eye dog to aid him at the non-striker's end. Shivnarine Chanderpaul was given out LBW padding up to a ball that appeared to be missing off stump by six inches or more, Brian Lara was adjudged caught off his pad, and this time it was Dillon, Collymore and their ilk who suffered when bowling. While the press did pick up on the frequency of these horrendous decisions over the two tours, with the English press nicknaming Simon Taufel "Awful Taufel" following three poor decisions in a single day's play against the Kiwis, the ICC kept their blindfolds on. The umpiring reached even greater lows as the year progressed. Australia's tour of India was supposed to be the delight for any cricketing connoisseur, but any fan who watched it would no doubt have been staggered by the quality of umpiring in the four games played. A number of shocking decisions were made in the first test, the most notable being Virender Sehwag being given out LBW off a massive inside edge visible from the press box - and they continued, with Steve Bucknor again returning to display his incompetence, and being accompanied by Aleem Dar, Billy Bowden and David Shepherd, all of whom only added to the arguments against human umpires. A number more decisions of similar caliber unfolded throughout the year - Brendon McCullum being given out caught behind by Bucknor after missing the ball by a few inches - and later being given out LBW in a similar decision to that which Sehwag copped, Justin Langer escaping a handful of plumb LBW shouts over the year that would no doubt have hurt his average this year, and Pakistan later suffering at the hands of Rudi Koertzen and Jeremy Lloyds in Melbourne. Collectively, it's made another big case as to why technology needs to be moved into the game as soon as possible. And with such furore over these decisions, one almost forgets a lone incident that stood out in Dambulla. After Peter Manuel had adjudged Andrew Symonds LBW off an inside edge, he realized that he'd made an error - and consulted Marvan Atapattu to recall the batsman, publicly admitting his mistake to show that yes, umpires are human, and yes, they do make mistakes. If the ICC could encourage such behavior rather than continue to behave as if the likes of Bucknor and Shepherd are infallible, then maybe there might be a chance of seeing technology be a primary source of judgement in the near future. After all - fifteen years ago, such debates took place with run outs as the core of the argument. Since the third umpire has been brought in, it's been very rare to see any such controversy over run outs or stumpings. It's a lesson that the ICC needs to learn - and the sooner it learns, the better - as otherwise we might only be subjected to repeats of the shambolic displays of the men in the white coats this year.

Five years later, notice that we're seeing a lot fewer shocking decisions in the game with the decision review system in place? Yes, there are flaws in the system. The charm may be lost, and umpires may now be doubtable and challenged. But this means that an innings by Sehwag or another batsman in progress doesn't suddenly get cut short just because Billy Bowden misses a blatantly obvious edge that even BossBhai and I could hear an ocean away, and that a good bowling spell gets properly rewarded instead of having a blind Bucknor or other equally incompetent umpire screw things up.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sooda]

Think I remember reading the Saf Eng series had at least 3 or 4 big decisions that would have been incorrectly given had it not been for appeals and UDRS coming into play Theres the truth in the charm argument, and also how the confidence of umpires might be affected if too many decisions get challenged but theres too much riding on international sport these days for umpire/referee error to decide a game and possibly even players careers. As long as idiots like Harper are not behind the wheel it can only be a good thing. Even then snickometer should be made standard at all major countries along with the likes of hawkeye FIFA the world football body has rejected calls to look into goal line technology- i.e to see whether the ball crosses the line fully or not. Reason: ' We should keep football as a human game' :wall: dumb.

[thevortex]

There can never be a comparison between the TV run out technology and Hawkeye/Snickometer. Chalk and cheese. The TV run out technology is still welcome only because it is not very debatable. It shows things as is and is a perfect umpiring aid. It also provides spectators a bit of excitement. Hawkeye/Snickometer on the other hand satisfy the armchair fan much more than actual cricket objectives. Snickometer is slightly better off than Hawkeye in this regard but then this benefit is lost when you consider that it consumes precious minutes that the game does not have before arriving at the pictures! Just imagine if on the basis of those decisions Taufel had been sidelined by technological automatons. The game would have lost a great umpire. He has been nothing short of staggering in the past 3 or 4 seasons.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[DomainK]

And I still wonder when Indian will finally adopt the change.

[thevortex]

Bossbhai - that incident you talk of, Tendulkar was certainly in. There the role of the umpires would have been to eliminate reasonable doubt. Tendulkar stayed on because reasonable doubt existed. Also, that piece of technology thankfully did not offer to predict what was going to happen in that millesecond's gap. However Hawkeye does do that and what is worse - that prediction is being used to make decisions upon. As far as the present rules go, Hawkeye's input has to be taken into consideration and the call is the 3rd umpire's - not the one who is standing out in the middle. In every which way, the implementation of Hawkeye is messed up.

[Lord]

its obvious that with the use of technology the results will be better n earlier?the question(maybe not that big as Mr.Wicket's,h4te's,or Sir John's:giggle:)is that can it be made better?i say yes.for starters i would like the 3rd umpire to intervene in case of a howler,whether or not the teams appeal it.2ndly,in case there is doubt even after replays,the Batsman should always be not out.umpires call thing is messed up. even if the ICC doesnt improve UDRS,what staggers me that why they havent used it for ODIs?it seems they do not want howlers in test matches but r okay with teams going out in knockout stages of WC due to bad decision?:hmmm:to me,a bad decision is more likely to affect LOI game rather than tests

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Ah, let me explain myself. Cricketing tradition tells us that a batsman can only be ruled out if evidence unequivocally and irrevocably proves that he is out. On that evidence (that is lack of evidence ruling Tendulkar out and implicated possibilities of Tendulkar being in) Tendulkar was in and ruled rightly 'not out'. Bossbhai - about Hawkeye, it is NOT the 3rd umpire who says it is barely kissing the stumps or missing it by a whisker. It is Hawkeye's predictive technology. I know you are a big math fan, but I am not. I guess that is where the difference comes in. I can even understand postmortems of cricket matches to be conducted using statistics and mathematics (even though I dont entirely agree), but to have decisions in the midst of cricket matches being ruled by predictive algorithms is taking a bit too far. In fact I am mighty surprised that given your statistical and scientific bent of mind, you are not asking for an independent analysis of Hawkeye's results and methods yourself!!! I see you have read my article on 'Bucksongate'. And therefore I guess it is safe to assume you know where I stand regarding that. It is not that I say that umpires will not make mistakes. They will. And I am not saying that all mistakes have to be classified as 'charm'. Not at all. But why would go all the way the other side and swallow numbers spouted by Richardson - without any references or proof - as the absolute truth, when it comes to umpiring accuracy or other things??

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

that doesnt mean the real outcome could have been different had there been a few more frames in between ... so why are you happy with this technology when its not fool proof ? Another thing to note here is its not just used in line decisions but also in cases where the bat / foot is in the air. In such situations the umpire even goes to the extent of using shadows and depending on the camera angle you can arrive at diffrernt interpretations . Why do you not have issues with this ?

The point being that there existed doubt and to a reasonable extent at that. Hence the decision goes in favour of the batsman. As it should happen. Why do you think I should have problems with this? In every such scenario you mention (foot or bat in the air), what we see are real images. There is no extrapolation. There is no attempt to reconstruct. What we are seeing is the constructed moment as it is taking place. The truth as it were. And umpires may use it to see if the batsman is out beyond all reasonable doubt. Why should one have problems with that? Contrast that with Hawkeye which is virtual. Need I say anything more?

reading your extreeme dislike towards hawkeye I get this feeling that you consider it as a lemon technology that was peddled thru backdoor means by greasing palms ... Is that what you feel ? If so can you explain how the crooks such as Bucknor Bowden Benson et al ... are supposedly honorable individuals to begin with ? do you have any certificate from god that these individuals are infallible saints with absolutely no bias as opposed to a machine (let alone the accuracy part) ?. The thing is I value the professor who invented that technology more than these crooked umpires. He has a lot to lose if it turned out that his gadget was a lemon and trust me there is no shortage of high profile "experts" who would leave no stone unturned to bring it down. Contrast this with the absolute free reign that umpires had till UDRS. Not one umpire had been fired on performance grounds. Not even Shakoor Rana or Javed Akthar! Yet Hawkeye has survived and has done so thru the force of its performance. Can you point me towards one single boo-boo in the recent test matches ? Not one . But I can so easily point you to a dozen mistakes by the umpires that ruined a test match. Refer to your own article for details ! Just because I dont have the certified proof doesnt mean there exists none. And there is no point arguing over this if you think that large sports bodies of cricket and tennis are corrupt and that hawk eye is a lemon.

Bossbhai - I am sure you have done due diligence on who owns Hawkeye right now. I am not saying that that is the only reason it is there. Also I am not dissing the technology entirely. And I do have respect for the founders of the technology. But having respect for that professor does not mean that one should automatically implement it for usage in Test matches!! I see it as a fantastic tool for the armchair cricket fan and one that could help commentators regurgitate a bit on air. But to use the reconstruction as the 'sole basis' and as 'evidence' is nothing short of preposterous. If this was a technology which involved showing what happened, why would I have a problem? This is precisely why I do not have a problem with respect to Snickometer (other than the time taken) or even the concept of the UDRS. But Hawkeye is another matter. I have seen countless depictions of Hawkeye which have been blatantly wrong. I have heard learned commentators and players absolutely and unequivocally disagree with Hawkeye's extrapolations as to ball path and behaviour. I am sure, being the ardent fan you are, you would not have missed those instances. I am afraid I do not have a ready note of each of Hawkeye's mistakes as far as ball path goes. But see it makes mistakes even in normal scenarios when there is no appeal from the bowler. The amount of times Hawkeye shows the ball brushing the leg stump and kissing the bails is sheer mind boggling stuff. Anybody who has played cricket at some level will know that what is being shown is not right. I am sorry that I cannot back this up with numbers or videos. But do believe me that I do not have any agenda against Hawkeye or its founders or its backers. I simply love the game and hate the way this mathematical prediction is being used as evidence on the basis of which umpires take decisions. About human umpires such as Bucknor et al making attrocious mistakes - it does bother me. You point out rightly that no umpire has been dismissed by the ICC on account of poor performance. Yet you are eager to accept numbers spouted by the same ICC as regards umpiring accuracy and Hawkeye accuracy? Why the dichotomy, pray? With human umpires there is always the lurking danger of having vested interests (which I dont agree with) which theoretically gets solved with this technology. But my belief has always been that human errors on the part of umpires was more a result of inefficiency and ineptitude rather than bias against a country or a player. I am talking about the modern game - say in the last 10 years or so. Especially with the advent of neutral umpires. And yes, it bothers me that even the serious cricket fans are not asking for written accreditation and statistical proof of accuracy for Hawkeye! In fact I find it nothing short of amazing and saddening at the same time.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Ok, every single time I have this discussion with anybody about Hawkeye, they immediately start bringing in the benefits of the UDRS. I have nothing but praise for the UDRS. In fact, I have written posts about 2 to 3 years ago advocating the introduction of such technology (not in this forum, but on another). So, I was happy at seeing the UDRS coming into the game. But lets not equate Hawkeye with UDRS. It is just an implement in the whole scheme of the UDRS. Lets get another thing out of the way. If Hawkeye was used (as originally implemented) by the 3rd umpire just upto the point of impact without the predictive part of it being used, I would not have been against it quite as much as I am right now. But right now, Hawkeye has nowhere to hide. About examples that stick in my mind I am afraid my memory is not that good. A feeble excuse but well for people who know me they will recognize that I am telling the truth :). The one example that I readily recall was that Andrew Strauss dismissal about which I have written an article. It is called 'Stop this nonsense'. It is also published here - http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=202998. Lastly I do support the usage and promotion of manual umpires and their roles in mainstream cricket. My criticism of umpiring incidents does not automatically mean that I abhor all umpires. Certain umpires at certain times have made abominable decisions. It is one thing to see the incident as abominable and quite another to see the decision taker as abominable. I guess that differs from person to person. I was as vocal as anybody else in criticizing Bucknor and Benson in that fateful Sydney Test. Perhaps more verbose than a lot of others. If you have read about 'Bucksongate' you know what I am talking about :). Presently I would like to see the back of Bowden more than most. Not necessarily because of the quality or lack thereof of his decisions but because of his inability to control players and the ugly situations cropping up on the field. The game does not need a Hair like headmaster but it can do without a blinking bystander such as Bowden. He has absolutely no authority out there in the middle and that is sad. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[DomainK]

We need to recognize the fact that technology is supposed to reduce errors and not entirely eliminate them. So, dont hole on to the odd decision that went wrong in spite of technology to argue against it's use. The objective has been achieved. The use of technology has indeed reduced errors in decisions. It should now be taken to the next stage and be firmly implemented instead of asking individual captains if they want it. I am sure it will get better and better as we learn more on the way.

[thevortex]

the H/E agreed with what the umpire said ... the rules are such that even the smallest straw is used to support the onfield umpire. (Benefit of doubt goes to the onfield umpire). I remember explaining this on that thread. My question was what part of what hawk-eye said was initself sooo blatantly wrong ? In this case did you expect it to go a foot, 6inch above stumps instead of clipping the bails ?

Bossbhai - you would not have asked this question if you had seen this live. Yes the ball would have sailed over the stumps. At least that is what I think. Yes, the question now would be whether I am backing myself over Hawkeye :). Lets not reduce it such small levels. I am sure you would have found other instances where Hawkeye has simply not been able to predict ball paths. Also in the same thread, I remember pointing out painstakingly that the entire evidence that the 3rd umpire gets to see is the reconstruction. What is the point? Why are we getting the 3rd umpire to rely on the reconstruction? Compare this to what happens in the case of run outs. The 3rd umpire sees exactly the same thing that the onfield umpire does - albeit in slow motion over frames. This is NOT what happens in the case of Hawkeye. Try a pitch where the ball is swinging, seaming or spinning a long way and you will get to see Hawkeye at its worst.

[thevortex]

We need to recognize the fact that technology is supposed to reduce errors and not entirely eliminate them. So, dont hole on to the odd decision that went wrong in spite of technology to argue against it's use. The objective has been achieved. The use of technology has indeed reduced errors in decisions. It should now be taken to the next stage and be firmly implemented instead of asking individual captains if they want it. I am sure it will get better and better as we learn more on the way.

Domaink - it is not about 100% accuracy at all. What is the basis on which the Hawkeye predicted path has been declared as evidence for the 3rd umpire? That is the pivotal question here. And my grouse is NOT against technology. Only against Hawkeye and in particular against the extrapolated path that Hawkeye shows.

[DomainK]

Domaink - it is not about 100% accuracy at all. What is the basis on which the Hawkeye predicted path has been declared as evidence for the 3rd umpire? That is the pivotal question here. And my grouse is NOT against technology. Only against Hawkeye and in particular against the extrapolated path that Hawkeye shows.

Hawkeye's projection may not be accurate(in fact, it is never claimed to be 100% accurate). But then you have to compare it's accuracy with the alternative- human judgement(which can not be 100% accurate either). Lets see some points in such a comparison. 1. Concentration: The accuracy of a human judgement depends largely on concentration. It's plain impossible for an umpire to keep all his senses concentrated on the delivery, it's movement, t's length, the batsman, his movements, his footwork, his bat's movements and then make an accurate judgement based on the inputs given after the above observations. It's only natural for his concentration level to fall at times. And that fall can lead to serious errors resulting in a complete change in the course of a game. With hawkeye however, the possible margin of error remains the same every delivery. So even if you may not be sure of a 100% accurate result, you can completely rule out howlers we saw so consistently in the 90s and early 2000s. And remember, if hawkeye is not 100% accurate, neither is human judgement. But like I explained, the possible margin of error in hawkeye is far lower than it is in case of the alternative. 2. Details: Many times, depending on the speed of the game, the umpire's concentration level, the weather (if players can find it hard to concentrate in tough weather, umpires are also human) and the umpire's mood, it may be very difficult to pick up the small details. For example a very late movement, a small deflection, a sharp rise on a delivery that hits the pads on the half volley, an angle difficult to comprehend for the naked human eye. Hawkeye however takes it's inputs from a computerized system and never misses the details. In fact sometimes hawkeye projections look weird to us viewers because we fail to detect what hawkeye can. 3. Partiality: Like BossBhai pointed out in one of his posts, it's stupid to assume that umpires can never be partial. They are human beings and like other professions, there would be partiality in their judgement. Some would be deliberate and others subconscious. Sometimes the umpire would be influenced by a player's past records (intentionally or not). Use of technology thankfully negates that possibility to a large extent. Hawkeye also effectively plays the role. It's projections do not take inputs like the players nationality, race, color, religion, past records etc. So, you see, when we compare hawkeye to the alternative- human judgement, we find that even though neither options are 100%accurate, hawkeye is better.

[thevortex]

Domaink - I wish cricket were so simple. No offense meant in any way but intuition plays a greater part in cricket (playing, decision making and team selection) than many other sports. This human intuition is what makes Taufel the official he is and Bowden the official he is. Tell me another thing. If Hawkeye is as all you say and more, then why have two officials standing out there in sun (or under the moon, if Modi has his way:))? Why only have 3 referrals? If, in your words, Hawkeye is that much better than the on field umpires, we ought to go with it all the way - should we not? And lets not even consider the tradition aspect of it. Even though I do believe tradition is good for the game in a way. For the purposes of this conversation alone lets leave alone the image of the two guys in white coats. Lets discuss utility purely. Let me know what you think. Also there is another point which I believe needs urgent attention. The records and batting statistics of batsmen hitherto have been ruled by one major, overriding consideration. That is the concept of 'benefit of doubt'. Now with Hawkeye and its predicted path there is no scope for that factor. Hawkeye is going to show a visual of the ball path (including its prediction). The 3rd umpire CANNOT disregard that evidence and CANNOT disagree. Here the rule mysteriously says that the on field umpire's words have to be relied upon. Why pray? Does that make sense to you? One reason why the replays and slow motions for the run out clause has worked out so well is that it has not attacked the benefit of doubt aspect of the game. Today the administrators want large scores and are therefore fielding smaller grounds. They need to correct this instead of trying to impose such nonsensical restrictions as impinging upon the 'benefit of doubt' aspect. If they neglect to do so, then batting averages may completely get altered in the future. What might have been a routine decision on the part of the umpire where he would not give it out as it may have possibly been striking the outer edge of leg stump, Hawkeye would force him to declare the batsman out! Do you agree with such a scenario? When talking about statistics and humanity I strongly believe that regardless of however many guilty people escape punishment not even a single innocent must be sacrificed needlessly. Call it principle of natural justice. Actually cricket's 'benefit of doubt' is doing nothing but propagating this concept - chalk one more up for the great game. We dont want all this to vanish, do we?