Its not cricket - Article by Lurker

[King]

These articles appear on the main page but a lot of guys just visit the forums and not the main page so we are posting this article on this forums to ensure it gets good enough looks by our posters. Its not cricket It was the finals of 1983 World Cup. Against a very strong West Indian bowling attack of Roberts, Holding, Marshall & Garner India had managed to score about 160 for the loss of nine wickets with last man Sandhu joining Syed Kirmani in the middle. They managed to eke out another 20 runs when in a moment of frustration Malcolm Marshall bounced Sandhu and hit him in the head. He was quickly reprimanded for doing so by the umpire Barry Myers and I can still remember TV commentator saying mournfully, "This is not cricket. He would not be batting as the last man if he could play those. This is not cricket". Fast forward 20 years, this time India is playing South Africa. South African pace bowler Andre Nel bounces India's tail-ender Sreesanth. Then he walks in towards the batsman, makes a symbol on his heart and shouts "You dont have the heart for this". The gesture, and the words, was seen/heard by the umpires, match referee and the commentators. The umpires kept mum, did not do so much as reprimand Nel, while commentators on air mentioned, gleefully I must add, "He is a lively character, isnt he?". That Sreesanth decided to take matters in his own hands and hit six off the next ball, then do a war-dance infront of Nel is part of Indian folklore now. What does remain tantamount to any cricket fan who has watched cricket across decades is to moan - This is not cricket. And so when I read today that Michael Hussey stood his ground knowing very well that he was out it did nothing to make me feel optimistic about the state of cricket. To be fair to Hussey he is not the first player not to walk - Ian Chappel never walked and neither did Viv Richards, but it is also true that walking is part of romance of cricket. The part that makes cricket the gentleman's game, the sport where you can take your family,the sport where umpires are considered Gods and their decision final. Of course with time many of these have become diluted for the worst. And hence perhaps the most popular phrase in the cricket today is "It is part of the game". I wonder if the phrase has been used more anytime in the history of this most lovely of sports. To an extent I can understand Mike Hussey's position of "The umpires are here to do the job and I only comply with them". Fair enough but that sounds so very hollow specially if you consider how Aussies as a team pressurise umpires into giving decisions when they are bowling. It is one thing to appeal and completely different to do a war-dance, which Aussies often do. I may seem to go over the to here but my guess is someone like Shane Warne has "received" atleast 50-100 wickets based on this "aggression". And therein lies the problem. Today's cricket has become so one-sided that Australia almost gets away with murder. And other sides do nothing but blindly ape them. The idiom of "play hard and enjoy the game" has now been changed to "sledge hard and win no matter what". Gone are the days when the players would play good hard clean cricket and enjoy each others company at the end of the day. Gone are the days when a West Indies team led by Frank Worrell won every single Aussie heart down under with sheer gamemanship. I am talking about 1960-61, one of the greatest ever series, which included amongst other the Tied test. There were great players on either side but the game was played clean and you would be hard pressed to find a single ugly situation. Players impressed the spectators with their gamesmanship, the gamesmanship completely different to what was preached by Steve Waugh and co later on. SO what is the solution? Some say technology. I am not convinced though. See if technology was the answer the best runners would be produced on the treadmills and not in African desert or high mountains of Colorado. If technology was the answer then today's batsmen would have much better technique than those 50 year back. The solution lies in playing the game the honest way, without looking for caveats like "its part of the game". Otherwise technology would run this game and cricket would lose its soul. In many ways it already has. When Windies pacemen Chalie Griffith was called for chucking he was sent packing home by Frank Worrell. When umpires raised doubts about Aussie pacemen Ian Mckiff he got the boot by Benaud. Neither ever raised doubt over umpires even though they were not from their own country. Now compare this with today where every country has a "chucker" in its ranks and then goes about to show how other country are plainly jealous and the bowler's action is perfectly fine. Given a choice would you much rather have Frank Worrell/Benaud's cricket or Ponting/Inzamam's cricket? And so I am suprised when I see headlines like "The truth is out there, Hersch" while no article would be written about Hussey's act. Lets make one thing clear - Gibbs racist action, as deplorable as it is, is not going to kill cricket, the action of the likes of Hussey will, and have, kill it. I would love to see senior cricket writers - Sunny Gavaskar, Benaud, Peter Roebuck, Scyld Berry - write, "The truth is out there Hussey - you are a cheat". If senior players, experts, do not raise it who else will? Fred Trueman mentions an anecdote when he played against Australia. In the match there was biased umpiring by Aussies and one of the batsman(beleive it was Colin McDonald) got so frustrated, he went to Fred and said, "Jeez Fred I am fed-up, bowl me a fast one on middle stump". Fred did so, Colin stayed put and was bowled hook-line and sinker. Fred Trueman mentions it as the easiest wicket in his career. Give me that cricket. xxxx

[Dhondy]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Read it yesterday. Straight from the heart, albeit a bit idealistic. I would never blame a batsman for not walking. When you are playing for your country, you stand your ground and wait for the umpire to do his job. That's what he is there for. Your job is to win.

[King]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker I quite like the good old fashioned cricket by playing with all honesty but it is simply not realistic to change players at this point in time particularly with so much money involved. Gone are the amateur days and a little decision can go a long way in making or marring a player's career. I have played fair bit of cricket and I didn't use to walk even if I nudged straight to gully in my teen days. That was simply becuase I didn't want to get out. Now I am more than happy to walk but as I said the players' syche differs over their career. If every player was forthright and honest you wouldn't need a umpire do ya? Technology may not be the ultimate answer but it is definitely consistent. Still certain runout, stumpings and catchings may not get the best decision but lest it has reduced the number of bad decisions by a mile. I can't fathom a close run out decision without the aid of the technology these days and to prove that the umpires moe often go for the technology. That clearly says the umpires trust the technology more than themselves. Few umpires were not even ready to accept technology when ICC introduced the third umpire but now we know the umpires go for it at the slightest of doubt. There are no freebies at the international level, it's as simple as that.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker -- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Fabulous writeup Lurker. Practically speaking, I would much rather see technology in action than waiting for players to walk. For one, players will know if they knicked a delivery, but they won't know lbws for sure.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Good Job Lurker . Nice!

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Nice read but too traditional viewpoint for my liking.. only thign permanent in thsi wold in change as long as we keep striving for that change to be for better it should be more than welcome and technology does insure thesame..... Who wants to rely on umpiring idiosyncracies when better and most importantly a consistent alternative across the board is available

[MundaPakistani]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Excellent write-up lurker but i disagree with a lot of your points 1- Back in the 70s and early 80s the quality of the protective gear was no way near as good as it is today so that's why the umpires were worried about injures. I reckon in today's world the tail enders should develop enough skill to avoid hostile pace bowling and if they can't then it's not the bowler's fault. 2- Gibbs's action was far worse than Hussey's or Cook?s ( Headingly test match) because Gibbs created a situation where he involved the fans in a very negative way....his comments also prompted his father to say "We don't want Pakistanis to come at our grounds". So Gibbs has now not only disrespected the opposition by talking trash about their country but has also caused an unfriendly atmosphere among the fans and there is nothing worse for the game than unhappy fans. I agree with you on the point that there shouldn't be a total reliance on technology because there are certain features of the game that can't be gauged by the watchful eye of a camera....that's why i get slightly annoyed when people say something like" oh the Hawk eye says that the ball would have clipped the leg stump but the umpire gave it not out....what a terrible umpire". There is just a lot more to an LBW decision than clipping and slipping!

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker -- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Hawkeye vs blind umps - not much to argue about. Look at the case of the fatso ump (Peter Parker?) missing the Prince leg before totally this morning off Kaneria - no clipping, no slipping, hitting middle and leg and the guy misses it.

[MundaPakistani]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker It's an excellent device but it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases where batsman has been bowled yet the hawk-eye has the ball missing the stumps. Secondly in the LBW decisions it doesn't consider where the ball has impacted the pad nor does it consider the shot the batsman was trying to play(yes i think it's important) .For hawk eye a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward and playing with a straight bat is the same thing as a batsman being caught at the crease playing an ugly swipe to the leg side...the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not enough. My take on this that there should be a challenge system where each team should be allowed to challenge one bad decision per innings and if the team is correct then they get to keep their challenge(like in tennis)....this would avoid blatant injustice like A Cook's non caught behind during the Headingly test match. How ever for all other decisions i still feel that the on field umpire is the best judge.

[King]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker MP, are the umpires 100% accurate and more than anything are they consistent? Absolutely not. They have their own ideas and mood swings. Hawk eye for sure will not have such mood swings. Hawk eye even considers the pitch type, the bounce et al. I don't reckon they should use hawk eye completely but they can have a good look at where the ball was pitching and the height of the ball. This will make the decision making lot more easier. Caught behinds are a must to be honest, of late I have seen so many caught behinds not given. The umpires must be really deaf not to hear the apparent nick. Wonder whatever happened to the ear plugs connected to the stump mic they used to wear.

[talksport]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Who cares accuracy ..... Consistency is guaranteed. Accuracy can be improved

[jf1gp_1]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker great article you have to send it to some of those so called pros who write nothing but bathroom gossip.

[Bumper]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker Great great writeup. A bit too much old skool, to fit modern fan's thoughts. Given the numerous umpiring blunders robbing batsmen, i wouldnt fault anyone for not walking. Technology is the answer, even when it is not perfect, its still better than human elements.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker

It's an excellent device but it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases where batsman has been bowled yet the hawk-eye has the ball missing the stumps.

Which TV gives you hawk eye info in case of bowled mode of dismissal.

Secondly in the LBW decisions it doesn't consider where the ball has impacted the pad nor does it consider the shot the batsman was trying to play(yes i think it's important)

. definition of LBW is leg before wicket I wonder where from what kidn of shot batsman is playing comes in the picture. I think this idea migth have come into your mind basedon how umpires take decision. Yes umpires get fooled by the type pf shts being played extent of shuffling across but hawk-eye is well equipped not to be swayed unafiarly by these redudant informations. Regarding where does pad get hit you are wrong the very fact that it tracks the trajectory everything gets taken care of.

For hawk eye a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward and playing with a straight bat is the same thing as a batsman being caught at the crease playing an ugly swipe to the leg side...the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not enough.

Again opinions aside basic definiton of LBW is exactly what hawk-eye does, you are trying to incorporate umpires human frailties where they get influenced by stride forward and more oftne than not rule not out into LBW decision which should never have been the case had umpire been efficient like machine........In fact u are expecting hawk-eye to adopt the weakness of human eye and mind and that defeats the purpose of hawk-eye in first place.

My take on this that there should be a challenge system where each team should be allowed to challenge one bad decision per innings and if the team is correct then they get to keep their challenge(like in tennis)....this would avoid blatant injustice like A Cook's non caught behind during the Headingly test match. How ever for all other decisions i still feel that the on field umpire is the best judge.

Challamge concept is fine but on-field umpires will never be able to match hawk-eye either in accuracy of consistency..

[yoda]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker

It's an excellent device but it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases where batsman has been bowled yet the hawk-eye has the ball missing the stumps.

You kidding me? It is prolly about 99% accurate and that's good enough for me.

Secondly in the LBW decisions it doesn't consider where the ball has impacted the pad nor does it consider the shot the batsman was trying to play(yes i think it's important) .For hawk eye a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward and playing with a straight bat is the same thing as a batsman being caught at the crease playing an ugly swipe to the leg side...the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not enough.

That's why we are not saying use hawk eye and send all umps (on field and 3rd ump) home. Use hawkeye for whether it is going to hit the stumps. Use the other replays to decide if ball is pitched in line and if hits in line. Use them in conjunction. Much much better than sitting on our asses and watching farce after farce. And in some series, these umpiring decisions have indeed made things so bad that one has to wonder if the entire series result would have been different if those decisions were "correct".

My take on this that there should be a challenge system where each team should be allowed to challenge one bad decision per innings and if the team is correct then they get to keep their challenge(like in tennis)....this would avoid blatant injustice like A Cook's non caught behind during the Headingly test match. How ever for all other decisions i still feel that the on field umpire is the best judge.

Challenge is meaningless if you aren't willing to use technology. Who are you going to challenge? The on field ump?

[MundaPakistani]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker

Which TV gives you hawk eye info in case of bowled mode of dismissal.

I heard they showed it one of S Africa's games last year.

definition of LBW is leg before wicket I wonder where from what kidn of shot batsman is playing comes in the picture. I think this idea migth have come into your mind basedon how umpires take decision. Yes umpires get fooled by the type pf shts being played extent of shuffling across but hawk-eye is well equipped not to be swayed unafiarly by these redudant informations. Regarding where does pad get hit you are wrong the very fact that it tracks the trajectory everything gets taken care of. Again opinions aside basic definiton of LBW is exactly what hawk-eye does, you are trying to incorporate umpires human frailties where they get influenced by stride forward and more oftne than not rule not out into LBW decision which should never have been the case had umpire been efficient like machine........In fact u are expecting hawk-eye to adopt the weakness of human eye and mind and that defeats the purpose of hawk-eye in first place.

I assume that the LBW law was originally designed to reward a bowler who had beaten the batsman with his guile and would have had him bowled had the leg not been in the way.... hence in order for that to happen a batsman must be comprehensively beaten and IMO a batsman with a big stride forward in not comprehensively beaten (unless he is not offering a shot). On the other hand if the batsman is struck on the back foot then it means that the bowler has been able to defeat the batsman in a way that he has misjudged the length.

Challamge concept is fine but on-field umpires will never be able to match hawk-eye either in accuracy of consistency..

The challange system will cover the basic blunders so the teams will never feel that they were deprived of obvious wickets but for all the other decisions i trust the on-field umpire to understand the complexity of the game much better than a machine.

[MundaPakistani]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker

Challenge is meaningless if you aren't willing to use technology. Who are you going to challenge? The on field ump?

I think i have already addressed everything you said except this. Yes you challenge the on field umpire e.g yesterday Kaneria thought he had Prince plumb in front and the umpire didn't give it out so had there been a challange system Kaneria would have walked up to the captain and told him that he is quite sure that the guy was out? the captain then would have went to the umpire and requested a challenge! For the challenge use the Hawk-eye or what ever other device is available at the ground.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: Its not cricket - Article by Lurker -- Removed on request of the user --