Stupid umpiring decisions affecting the outcome of the match and entertainment of the audience

[chakde]

I am soooo enraged at this! 2 recent examples: 1) yuvraj decision in the 5th ODI against pak -> shastri gave him out when he wasnt.... he was just starting to get going after his half century.... u never know but india cudve still won if he was there a while longer 2) sangakarra decision in the 2nd innings in the 2nd test against aus -> rudi gave him out when he wasnt.... a beutiful innings cut short with rudi's arthritic finger!! u never know by the way sanga was going... they cudve won against the aussies! what say u guys?? i think technology surely has a place against the umpires' stupid egos!!!

[Bongosamaj]

what say u guys?? i think technology surely has a place against the umpires' stupid egos!!!

If you want technology to rule the roost, the option is simple- start following tennis. its not very well applicable in cricket's case and trust me, you are talking to a tecchie here.

[Predator_05]

its not very well applicable in cricket's case and trust me, you are talking to a tecchie here.

Why not ? Can't you use a 3rd ump to make the call on close LBW decisions ?

[chakde]

If you want technology to rule the roost, the option is simple- start following tennis. its not very well applicable in cricket's case and trust me, you are talking to a tecchie here.

they should have at least referred these 2 decisions to 3rd umpires or i think there is a place for the 3rd umpire over ruling the on field umpired in cases like these... especially dismissals involving catches.... i suppose lbw decisions can b argued forever but decisions about catches should be clear cut

[Guest Hiten.]

Why not ? Can't you use a 3rd ump to make the call on close LBW decisions ?

if you're willing to watch cricket games for an additional hour then it will alright to use technology. but then not many are accustomed to following 8 hour game anyways.... following a 9 hour game will be nothing but asking them to climb Himalaya's

[Yuvraj4Captaincy]

if you're willing to watch cricket games for an additional hour then it will alright to use technology. but then not many are accustomed to following 8 hour game anyways.... following a 9 hour game will be nothing but asking them to climb Himalaya's

1 hr dont make much of a diff when u watchin 8..its only 9...so like 10% increase and if thats much of a problem..make the game 40 overs each but make it perfect.

[Guest Hiten.]

1 hr dont make much of a diff when u watchin 8..its only 9...so like 10% increase and if thats much of a problem..make the game 40 overs each but make it perfect.

Buddy, I have no problem watching cricket for 9 hours. For me, its more the merrier. But ICC wants to spread cricket (if not, they're suppose to), it will be pain in the ass for them to attract audience to follow a sport which is noting but another 9-5 job shift why do you think, soccer is most viewed/followed sport. Because it is really short (in terms of time). Soccer/cricket were originated almost at the same time and in the same country, but somehow soccer gained more popularity than cricket.

[Bongosamaj]

Why not ?

Because to do it with any significant noticeable gain over using human umpires would involve inventing tracking and simulation technology that not even the MILITARY has.

Can't you use a 3rd ump to make the call on close LBW decisions ?

no.

[Bongosamaj]

they should have at least referred these 2 decisions to 3rd umpires or i think there is a place for the 3rd umpire over ruling the on field umpired in cases like these... especially dismissals involving catches.... i suppose lbw decisions can b argued forever but decisions about catches should be clear cut

yet it isn't clear-cut. There are inconclusive third umpire referrals to catches too- the type Jonty used to pull off. Frame-rate is a limiting factor- you CANNOT always find the exact frame of reference from the footages because video technology is digital, digital is discrete and not continuous distribution of data.

[The Outsider]

Let's see human eye extrapolates, hawkeye extrapolates and you are claiming human eye extrapolation is more accurate than a mm or something. Can you provide some scientific references for it? And use of technology is not only hawkeye, simple things like whether the ball pitched in line or hit in line are botched up by umpires which a simple replay can correct. No need of hawkeye for that.

[Bongosamaj]

hawkeye extrapolates and you are claiming human eye extrapolation is more accurate than a mm or something

no but the human BRAIN's extrapolation often is more accurate than a mm. The eye is not doing the extrapolation, the brain is. The eye is simply a data-port.

, simple things like whether the ball pitched in line or hit in line are botched up by umpires which a simple replay can correct.

Its not as cut and dried as you are making it sound. As i said, to make it cut and dry, you'd really need to establish the perfect frame of reference. So where exactly is the camera sitting and what exactly is its angle to the pitch, does the pitch have a slope etc etc ? All these extrapolations/simulations the human mind does better than a software. but bottomline is, i know for a FACT that tracking technology is nowhere near good enough to merit its inclusion in cricket, not unless you want each and every ground to invest several million dollars in army-grade equipment that the govt. wont let you have anyways.

[chakde]

i am happy with the on field umpired taking lbw decisions..... i am mainly concerned about fielders claiming catches when it simply wasnt a catch or the bat wasnt involved.... these decision the 3rd umpire should intervene. The main problems with the aforementioned examples is that it changes the WHOLE situation of the match and entertainment for cricket lovers like us is cut short.

[Bongosamaj]

The main problems with the aforementioned examples is that it changes the WHOLE situation of the match and entertainment for cricket lovers like us is cut short.

It doesn't change it for me- for i can accept it. Thats all it takes, really- that umpires will sometimes bollox up and f*ck over a game. That is part of the game too. No different than your favourite sitcom throwing in a lame twist that you didnt like/doesnt make sense to you.

[chakde]

It doesn't change it for me- for i can accept it. Thats all it takes, really- that umpires will sometimes bollox up and f*ck over a game. That is part of the game too. No different than your favourite sitcom throwing in a lame twist that you didnt like/doesnt make sense to you.

its not a matter of whether you (or an individual) can take it or not.... its about fairness in the game. I would, and I'm sure a lot of people would, like to see games which are fair and won because of talent and work put in and not because of poor umpiring decisions... that is the point im trying to put across

[The Outsider]

no but the human BRAIN's extrapolation often is more accurate than a mm. The eye is not doing the extrapolation, the brain is. The eye is simply a data-port.

So your brain can ascertain to within a mm where the ball would have been 3 yards after hitting an obstacle 20+ yards away?

Its not as cut and dried as you are making it sound. As i said, to make it cut and dry, you'd really need to establish the perfect frame of reference. So where exactly is the camera sitting and what exactly is its angle to the pitch, does the pitch have a slope etc etc ?

As long as the camera is behind the stumps, it's height does not matter if all you are trying to ascertain is whether the ball hit in line or not. There won't be any parallax in that case. How difficult is it to place a camera directly behind the stumps? Which pitch in the world has so much slope as to affect the accuracy of where the ball hit. Lord's has perhaps the greatest slope which is a few feet from one end to the ground to the other which would translate to something tiny over the width of the stumps.

but bottomline is, i know for a FACT that tracking technology is nowhere near good enough to merit its inclusion in cricket, not unless you want each and every ground to invest several million dollars in army-grade equipment that the govt. wont let you have anyways.

Please show me one scientific study which shows a human being capable of extrapolating to better than a mm in the conditions I mentioned above and then I might give some weight to your "FACT".

[chakde]

hey guys, come on now. lets discuss this in a mature way.... no need to take shots at each other.

[Anakin]

The point is even if technology is 90% accurate, it'll be same for everyone, while human chumps are not like that.

[The Outsider]

With practice, fairly easily. Human brain handles far more precise work in certain fields of work anyways.

Ok, despite you having given no scientific evidence let's assume it is fairly easy to do so. Do you think the umpires we see day in and day out have been able to master this easy task.

Dear man, are you familiar with the concept of parallax ?

If there is a line joining point A and B(the two stumps) and I am right behind that line, where does parallax come into the picture if all I am trying to measure is whether some event(ball pitching on the same plane as the camera) took place to the right or left of that line?

No need- i am sure Dhondy can arrange for your tea session with a brain surgeon.

Dhondy will say what he wants to at his appropriate time, why don't you give me some scientific references bolstering your claim of more than a mm accuracy of a ball at 90 mph 3 yards after hitting an obstacle 20+ yards away from you?

[Anakin]

You are now alleging not just incompetency but ulterior motives here when you imply that 'human chumps' wont keep it the same for everyone. Well, in that case, what makes you think it will be the same if technology is introduced ? There will still be a guy sitting behind the console with his finger over the red/green button. Again, boils down to the human pressing the out/not-out switch. So if there are ulterior motives, it stands to reason that all that happens is the umpire with the ulteriror motive is now sitting behind a console in a dank room and not in the middle of the pitch. IMO, thats an even worse scenario, since the effective charge of ulterior motives is not negated but the new process is given an even stronger veneer of authenticity.

I could give a damn whether they have ulterior motives or not, the reality speaks for itself. And although there'll be a guy sitting in front of the tv making the final decision, the same thing will be viewed by millions of people, thus more transparency. I don't see how you can get away with day light robbery in situation like this. Let me know how chumps like Bucknor can get away with giving out when there is daylight between bat and ball in replays or huge inside edges.

[The Outsider]

yes.

Then why do you we get so many poor decisions. Refer to Rajeev's video thread for the India Pakistan series.

Because your camera lens is not sitting right on ground level over a super-smooth billiards-table surface. The line of sight is NOT directly orthogonal in all instances unless you figure out a way to make the pitches perfectly flat and the camera perfectly orthogonal and with no angle to the pitch(theoretically impossible unless you have the lens sitting exactly on ground level with its aperture width exactly the same as a cricket ball). Ie, even if its in a straight line, whether the camera is at 1 foot over ground level or 6 feet over ground level quite obviously creates different measurement readings due to parallax.

How hard is it to make a camera sit really close to the ground so that the error in parallax will be much less than the size of the ball, which is the only accuracy you are striving for in this experiment. It is fairly easy.

More than a mm accuracy is irrelevant- since hawkeye HAS spit out some rather wild figures from time to time, essentially outfoxed by what the ball was doing and the particular delivery not fitting with its parameters.

There are some aberrations everywhere. When I say an accuracy of one mm, I am obviously referring to some statistical ensemble.

You asked for the ability of human mind to handle accuracies in the order of one millimetre. I gave you one of the most obvious example- brain surgeons.

Brain surgeons work at much smaller distances than 20 yards and their subjects of operation do not whiz around at 90 mph. Same goes for you MEMS lab example.