Umpires ask ICC to look in to Hughes' dismissal

[ganeshran]

So, was BCCI right about Hawk eye all along? :hmmm:

Simon Taufel, the senior international umpire, has referred Phil Hughes' second innings lbw dismissal in the first Test between Sri Lanka and Australia to the ICC as a serious question mark against the accuracy of Hawk-Eye, the ball tracking technology. Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but the Hawk-Eye predicted path had the ball going straight on with the angle to strike leg stump. Though he reviewed the decision, Hughes was sent on his way by umpire Richard Kettleborough after consultation with third umpire Tony Hill who is obliged to grant significant weight to the original decision made on the field when he decides whether to reprieve or dismiss a batsman. In Galle to conduct a third umpire accreditation seminar, Taufel has observed the first two days of the Test in part to assess the impact of technology's inconsistent use and accuracy, having umpired in England's home series against India under vastly different playing conditions and technological aids. He and the officiating umpires Kettleborough, Hill and Aleem Dar have referred the decision to the ICC's cricket operations department and have also sent them the relevant footage. Taufel told ESPNcricinfo that more needed to be done to prove the veracity of devices such as Hawk-Eye, HotSpot and Virtual Eye via independent testing that sits outside the views of broadcasters and suppliers. "Why can't we tap into technology if the match official is missing a piece of information, and is it right that the match official has to make a decision before technology can be used?" Taufel said. "That's a fundamental question I think we're still working through. Under the current system we're encouraged to make decisions and if a player feels they disagree with that then they've got the right to review. But if they get that wrong twice, then we can't use technology anymore in that innings for that particular team. "They're the parameters we're working with and that's the value we want to promote within the sport - do we just want to get the obvious mistake fixed up or do we want to get as many decisions right as possible? What are the technology tools we have to achieve that, and then how accurate are those tools? Have we really investigated that from an independent perspective, and have we got a categorical answer with that? Is it reliable on the day, rather than just relying on the provider of that technology to say 'it is x-amount accurate and the result is right' and we just take that on face value?" The third umpire's job in particular has become increasingly difficult as each series brings a different set of parameters for reviewing decisions, and the technological means by which they may be reviewed. Taufel said players had also become confused on the field by the transient nature of rules relating to referrals and technology. "From the training perspective we did with the third umpire accreditation module it is very difficult, because there is no consistency of inputs," Taufel said. "How do I train and develop a third umpire when I don't know what technology tools are going to be available on the day? "From an umpiring perspective, as a third umpire, it is incredibly challenging here [in Sri Lanka] because the frame rates used by Ten Sports per second will be different to the ones used by Sky in Britain. There's ultra-motion available in the UK, there's none of that here. We have Hotspot in the UK, we don't have Hotspot here. The camera rates used by Hawk-Eye here would be different to the camera rates used there. "Therein lies the challenge of consistency - how can you possibly expect consistent outputs if you've got inconsistent inputs? We've also noticed the players are somewhat confused as to what they can challenge and what they can't. In the UK they couldn't challenge lbws, they could only challenge caught decisions. Here we've gone back to a different system where you can challenge both. "Surely that's got to be difficult for the players and the match officials to keep adjusting, the more we go from series to series. Our message as umpires was rather strong at the ICC cricket committee meeting where we said, we either want to use everything or nothing at all, let's try to make it consistently easier for everybody. That's what we want to work towards."

[Sachinism]

Oh so slowly everyone is speaking up about technology being sh1te

[Trichromatic]

We've also noticed the players are somewhat confused as to what they can challenge and what they can't. In the UK they couldn't challenge lbws, they could only challenge caught decisions. Here we've gone back to a different system where you can challenge both. "Surely that's got to be difficult for the players and the match officials to keep adjusting, the more we go from series to series. Our message as umpires was rather strong at the ICC cricket committee meeting where we said, we either want to use everything or nothing at all, let's try to make it consistently easier for everybody. That's what we want to work towards."

Whether they want to use it or not, this is worst part. Why cricket doesn't has uniform set of rules? It's bad that at international level, rules vary according to the series. Either use it everywhere or dump it completely. Having different rules is a joke. I don't know whether there is any other sports where rules vary according the series or country.

[ShanS]

Would be great if someone could post a video of the Replay and Hawk-Eye prediction. If this is true, then I've to say BCCI/Sachin/Dhoni's view about Hawk-Eye has been vindicated.

[Fontaine]

There was another article where an official from CA questioned the DRS system also. By the way, where oh where are those preaching *****holes like Holding/Atherton/Botham etc now when they openly criticized Indian cricket, the BCCI, the India team for not fully accepting DRS? Those jokers kept saying it at EVERY opportunity, but will they now respond to this article in the same manner?

[rkt.india]

There was another article where an official from CA questioned the DRS system also. By the way, where oh where are those preaching *****holes like Holding/Atherton/Botham etc now when they openly criticized Indian cricket, the BCCI, the India team for not fully accepting DRS? Those jokers kept saying it at EVERY opportunity, but will they now respond to this article in the same manner?

First we need to understand why DRS is used. It used for howlers like Bhajji had, Raina. This was a close decision so there is not much to talk about it. DRS is a welcome addition, but we need to make sure it is used i full form with Hot spot and hawk eye, snicko, etc. The purpose of DRS is reducing howlers. You cannot make an issue of a close decision like Hughes. It was not a howler, umpire had given him out, now as Hughes is an Aussie, so they have raised questions on Hawk eye. You need to question the howlers.

[daryl1985]

Hawk-eye is not reliable imo. I saw Harbhajan get an lbw decision against an WI batsman in June. When they looked at Hawk-eye it looked like the ball was missing off-stump but hawk-eye had the ball going straight on when the ball clearly spun just before hitting the pad.

[Trichromatic]

First we need to understand why DRS is used. It used for howlers like Bhajji had, Raina. This was a close decision so there is not much to talk about it. DRS is a welcome addition, but we need to make sure it is used i full form with Hot spot and hawk eye, snicko, etc. The purpose of DRS is reducing howlers. You cannot make an issue of a close decision like Hughes. It was not a howler, umpire had given him out, now as Hughes is an Aussie, so they have raised questions on Hawk eye. You need to question the howlers.

Well, there is no way of differentiating howlers with other decisions. A better way would be this. Umpires should always be making decisions. All these technologies should just be used as a help for umpires. 1. Allow umpires to review their decisions on their own.

Why can't we tap into technology if the match official is missing a piece of information, and is it right that the match official has to make a decision before technology can be used?" Taufel said.

2. Third umpire should make decision on the basis of what he sees in replays. If hawk-eye shows that the ball will miss the stumps, but third umpires feels that it should have been out then he should have right to give that as out. 3. Make sure that rules are same everywhere.

From the training perspective we did with the third umpire accreditation module it is very difficult, because there is no consistency of inputs," Taufel said. "How do I train and develop a third umpire when I don't know what technology tools are going to be available on the day?

[Lord]

Hawk-eye is not reliable imo. I saw Harbhajan get an lbw decision against an WI batsman in June. When they looked at Hawk-eye it looked like the ball was massing off-stump but hawk-eye had the ball going straight on when the ball clearly spun just before hitting the pad.

hmmm first Bhajji now Dilshan,maybe Hawkeye works on reputation:hmmm:

[vamos_rafa]

There was another article where an official from CA questioned the DRS system also. By the way, where oh where are those preaching *****holes like Holding/Atherton/Botham etc now when they openly criticized Indian cricket, the BCCI, the India team for not fully accepting DRS? Those jokers kept saying it at EVERY opportunity, but will they now respond to this article in the same manner?

No, but the BCCI is also damaging the cricket by IPL and the buddhas you named are for the betterment of Circket.

[vamos_rafa]

I was never fully content with the usage of DRS and this further enhances my point of contention.

[achilles]

Hate to be a cynic like Ian Botham but I think Taufel has "sold-out" to the BCCI. Oh ya, I will absolutely love rubbing this response from Taufel into the faces of the Brits and the Aussies who will now conveniently do a 360.

[james]

Hate to be a cynic like Ian Botham but I think Taufel has "sold-out" to the BCCI.

After the test when he gave Dravid out wrongly, do you really think he has sold out to the BCCi. If anything i feel everyone is going against the BCCI.

[achilles]

After the test when he gave Dravid out wrongly, do you really think he has sold out to the BCCi. If anything i feel everyone is going against the BCCI.

I think it is all politics of convenience. And some of our esteemed friends from Sky and Channel 9 specialize in that.

[CG]

Fact is hawkeye shows a straightline path after impact as I described in one of my threads.

[Cricket Tragic]

Yeah, it looked ridiculous.

[Clarke]

Hughes was given out lbw on the second evening when he attempted to sweep Tillakaratne Dilshan. Replays indicated that the delivery had spun appreciably from around middle stump towards off, but the Hawk-Eye predicted path had the ball going straight on with the angle to strike leg stump.

Where is the turn :hmmm:

Hate to be a cynic like Ian Botham but I think Taufel has "sold-out" to the BCCI.

You should join the green ghetto as a writer.

[rkt.india]

i dont think dilshan turns the ball much. his deliveries mostly go straight on.

[Robelinda]

They aren't using the proper system as the Aussie board would use, its a cheap knockoff hawk eye.

[Stuge]

They aren't using the proper system as the Aussie board would use' date=' its a cheap knockoff hawk eye.[/quote'] Pirated Hawk eye lol :hysterical: