The age old question...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Predator_05]

Didn't Austrlaia lose their last 8-9 wickets for 70-80 runs at Calcutta in '01 and then in the Chennai test again their last 7 wickets for 50-60 runs when Hayden scored his double century or again at Adelaide losing the last 7 for 80-90 runs or at Chennai in '04 lost the last 8 for 40-50 runs? Not saying it would have happened in the WC final but chances were certainly higher of it happening if Ponting was given out than when he wasn't.

In their 1996 World Cup match vs India at Mumbai, Australia were 205/3 at the end of the 41st over. Now one could claim that they were DESTINED to score 100 in the final 9 overs of play (their run rate had been mounting in the last 5 as Mark Waugh was hitting everything he saw) but somehow, SHOCK HORROR, they lost their next 7 wickets for just 53 runs. :whatchutalkingabout

[The Outsider]

They collapsed quite spectacularly in Yuvraj's ODI debut as well losing their last 7 wickets for around 80 runs in a knockout match and another incident I remember is in the TVS cup after the WC when they lost their last 9 for around 100 runs.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Some more Aussie collapses against India in ODIs : 1. Collapse from 3-203 in 31 overs to 268 all out in 45 overs at Kochi '98. 2. Collapse from 3-156 in 31 overs to 9-264 in 50 overs at Sharjah '98. 3. Collapse from 1-145 in 25 overs to 263 all out in 48 overs at Dhaka '98. 4. Collapse from 1-150 in 27 overs to 8-252 in 50 overs at Colombo '99. 5. Collapse from 3-174 in 27 overs to 255 all out at Bangalore in '01. 6. Collapse from 3-171 in 30 overs to 7-285 at Mumbai in '03. 7. Collapse from 4-232 in 38 overs to 288 all out at Melbourne in '04. 8. Collapse from 4-204 in 33 overs to 284 all out at Brisbane in '04.

[The Outsider]

Just went through most of the thread and I must add that if someone thinks technology would not have changed the course of a WC knockout match needs to look at Cronje's dismissal in the '99 SF in that wonderful Warne spell. Now what are the odds on : 1. Cronje scoring one more run. 2. South Africa scoring 22 runs off 13 balls. I know where I would place my money.

[Ram]

Just went through most of the thread and I must add that if someone thinks technology would not have changed the course of a WC knockout match needs to look at Cronje's dismissal in the '99 SF in that wonderful Warne spell. Now what are the odds on : 1. Cronje scoring one more run. 2. South Africa scoring 22 runs off 13 balls. I know where I would place my money.

This is speculation at its best.

[The Outsider]

This is speculation at its best.

Ofcourse it is, that's why I am talking about odds.

[King]

I'd say use TV replay definitely for judging inside edges. Hot spot is a great tool to detect whether the ball's hit the bat or not. I have my doubts about hawk eye though. ICC must take away variables from the LBW law and make amendments so that it doesn't look a law written by some old drunk.

[Donny]

The poll question is too general. A very simple piece of technology the umps could be accessing immediately, either by a hand held device or referral to the 3rd. ump (bigger screen) is the 'tramlines' view we (the TV viewers) get within 2 or 3 seconds. This would eliminate the lbws given when the ball pitches outside leg or hits the pad outside the line of the off stump, as in the Dravid dismissal on day 4 of the Test just finished.* I also agree with Ravi re. hot spot. If this is proven to be failsafe, we'd see more correct decisions made on lbs and nicks. Hot spot would clarify this one. When bat and pad are close together when the ball hits, umps will usually give it not out, as they should, because doubt exists. Two classic examples where hot spot would have been vital: Courtney Walsh's 500th. wicket. Walsh bowls to Kallis. Big appeal for lbw. Given out. Much celebration on the field and in the crowd. Shortly after, the big screen replay shows an inside edge. An audible groan goes around the ground. An Ashes Test at the MCG. Not sure of the players but it's irrelevant. Aussie batsman flashes well away from his body. Bowler not particularly interested but the cordon and other fieldsmen close to the bat all go up, convinced it was a snick. Ump looks puzzled and gives "Not out" because he saw no deviation and heard no sound. Correct decision. The reason he heard nothing as the ball feathered the bat was the Barmy Army's chanting/singing/yelling whatever. They were situated behind the 3rd. man position and fairly close to the fence. Hot spot would've told the story. *To clarify, before I get jumped on. The batsman can still be out if the ball hits outside the line if the ump considers he wasn't playing a shot and the ball would've hit the stumps.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

A question to those who feel further technology should not be introduced - do you support revoking technology for run outs and stumpings. If yes why' date= if no why not?

Not at all! Lines calls are black and white,it's either this way or that way while LBWs are totally different. p.s i am only against the over reliance on technology.

[King]

A very simple piece of technology the umps could be accessing immediately, either by a hand held device or referral to the 3rd. ump (bigger screen) is the 'tramlines' view we (the TV viewers) get within 2 or 3 seconds.

Top idea that :thumbs_up: In this age and time I wouldn't reckon it is hard to come up with a device that will show the reply in a hand held device (something like iphone) in an instant. Wonder why none thought about that before. You should patent this one mate. Yup the hot spot can also help in getting a lot of caught behind right as well along with LBWs.

[The Outsider]

Not at all! Lines calls are black and white,it's either this way or that way while LBWs are totally different. p.s i am only against the over reliance on technology.

Determining whether a ball pitched in line with the stumps or hit the batsman in line with the stumps are line calls as well and can be determined within a couple of seconds.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

A question to those who feel further technology should not be introduced - do you support revoking technology for run outs and stumpings. If yes why' date=' if no why not?[/quote'] Not at all. This has been done for a long time and no reason why it should be revoked. Why? Are the umpires in BEST position when it comes to run out or stumping? Errr no. From a square leg umpire's position(which is vital during stumping) the view can be blocked due to batsman's stance. The crucial part is that even if the batsman's bat was on top of crease he is deemed out. Now surely we can all agree that it would be practically impossible to check that kind of detail from square leg. Same with run outs. It is rarely, if ever, that the umpire is in the situation where his vision is not blocked by a batsman, fielder, bowler or all of the above. And the last, but perhaps most important, is the fact that when it comes to run out/stumping the question is clearly black and white. You are either OUT or NOT OUT depending on the position of the bat. Nothing else - did you edge the ball, was the ball a no ball, was it missing leg stump etc etc are not even a question. There is no way a Hawk Eye, Hot Rod or whatever it is called is going to goof that up. On the other hand same questions are very valid when it comes to lbw or close catches. See the difference? xxx

[The Outsider]

Not at all. This has been done for a long time and no reason why it should be revoked.

If we introduce technology for other decisions, 10 years down the line they would also have been in place for a long time.

Are the umpires in BEST position when it comes to run out or stumping? Errr no. From a square leg umpire's position(which is vital during stumping) the view can be blocked due to batsman's stance. The crucial part is that even if the batsman's bat was on top of crease he is deemed out. Now surely we can all agree that it would be practically impossible to check that kind of detail from square leg.

Is it practically possible to check whether a 90 mph pitches exactly in line with the stumps or hits the batsman exactly in line with the stumps specially when the umpire also has to look at the no ball?

Same with run outs. It is rarely, if ever, that the umpire is in the situation where his vision is not blocked by a batsman, fielder, bowler or all of the above.

It is also very common to see umpires not standing exactly in line with the stumps. Ravi posted a clip of Tauffel doing so in Dravid's wrong dismissal. Many a times we have also see the bowler in his follow through blocking the umpire's vision

And the last, but perhaps most important, is the fact that when it comes to run out/stumping the question is clearly black and white. You are either OUT or NOT OUT depending on the position of the bat. Nothing else - did you edge the ball, was the ball a no ball, was it missing leg stump etc etc are not even a question. There is no way a Hawk Eye, Hot Rod or whatever it is called is going to goof that up.

I think Hawkeye can judge better than any human being but even if we ignore that for now submit to your technophobic views where is the ambiguity and judgement calls in finding out where the ball pitched or hit the batsman. Atleast, that much information can be used to enhance the decision making ability of the umpires wouldn't you agree. That itself will resolve a lot of wrong leg before decisions.

[Lurker]

If we introduce technology for other decisions, 10 years down the line they would also have been in place for a long time.

Why wait 10 years? We can do it tomorrow, provided there is value in that. Has been my argument all along. Do it where you can justify using it, not merely for the heck of it.

Is it practically possible to check whether a 90 mph pitches exactly in line with the stumps or hits the batsman exactly in line with the stumps specially when the umpire also has to look at the no ball?

Most of the good umpires do that every day for 80 plus overs(about 500 delivries including wides/noballs etc) don't they? Your point would have been valid if elite umpires would make mistakes on 50, even 25 of them. Turns out they are at fault at about 2-3, if that, an abysmally low rate by any mathematical angle. Not to mention the very fact that technology, like Hawk Eye, are yet to be proven as foolproof. It beats me right now but I do remember seeing a replay(of a man being clean bowled) where hawk eye missed the stumps. Sure such incidence are far and between but they are there.

It is also very common to see umpires not standing exactly in line with the stumps. Ravi posted a clip of Tauffel doing so in Dravid's wrong dismissal. Many a times we have also see the bowler in his follow through blocking the umpire's vision

How frequent is that? Umpires not standing in line with stumps? Again we will have to go by %ages since we are talking in generalisation - be it umpires or technology. I say most, if not all, umpires stand in line with stumps.

I think Hawkeye can judge better than any human being but even if we ignore that for now submit to your technophobic views where is the ambiguity and judgement calls in finding out where the ball pitched or hit the batsman. Atleast, that much information can be used to enhance the decision making ability of the umpires wouldn't you agree. That itself will resolve a lot of wrong leg before decisions.

Not sure where that whole technophobic rant came from but hey we live in an Internet Judgemental world so be my guest on that. About the issue with wrong leg before decisions. Again wrong leg before based on what?? Hawk eye? Is Hawk Eye 100% correct? If not then whats the point arguing about it? By the way it beats me that you completely forgot to acknowledge/discuss the very question you had asked answer for. Essentially how is run out/stumpings different from lbw. Do you agree/disagree with what I have to say about technology on your question? xxx

[Cricketics]

may be tech should be used like this.. as soon as ball hitz the pad.. the giant screen in the ground would pop up with a decision, showing hawk-eye.. rather then the main umpire taking his walky-talky out and talking to the third umpire to play it on tv screen, which would turn out to be big delay..