Jump to content

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

chakde

By chakde
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

Anakin Newbie

Anakin

Posted
Posted
but the same thing already IS viewed by millions and you are questioning its transparency!
OMG, you're so right. I should have mentioned the same thing will be viewed by millions before the idiots make the decisions. Good attempt at spinning dude, try again. Also I'm sure your fertile mind can come up with some realistic scenarios of how chumps could give Sehwag out lbw (with HUGE inside edge) or SRT out caught (too many to list) AFTER viewing the replays with available technologies and still get away with it. On the same note, let me know how the run-out thing turned out to be so far.
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
because there is no such thing as a perfect & infallible process. Even my computer crunches data incorrectly sometimes- ie, happens!
When did I say perfect or infallible. In some of the matches I have seen umpires have got around 30-40% of the decisions requiring a bit of judgement wrong.
Not very hard, but the accuracy of parallax and the corrections made by the device is not proven to be at a higher order than a human standing behind the stumps.
How hard is it to conduct a study of the accuracy of such an arrangement with some of the best umpires in business? Fairly easy.
An ensemble valid only in select cases, ie, when the ball isnt doing something crazy.
We can never say for sure whether the ball would have done something crazy after it has hit the pads because such an event is never observed by definition. Hawkeye and umpire do the same thing - extrapolate the trajectory of the ball assuming it would not have done something crazy.
True. But the comparison is not between the eye and the hawkeye. It is between the human BRAIN and hawkeye software. This is not a question of which data port is more accurate, it is a question of which processor is more accurate- the human mind or the software.
Which is why I am asking you about a relevant human example where they make mm accurate judgements at 20+ yards on objects moving at 90 mph?
Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted
in a remarkably different functionality- the purpose of the hawkeye in TENNIS is NOT the same as in cricket and if the purposes in cricket were the same, i'd have no problems with it. For then hawkeye would be used for a beep-test on no-balls. But in the function hawkeye is being suggested here - for lbws - it is most definitely not a conclusive piece of technology.
The basic purpose is the same - extrapolation. If hawkeye extrapolates better than humans in tennis then hawkeye also extrapolates better than humans in cricket. It's fairly simple in the end - where do you think the ball would have been had it not hit the pads? Both hawkeye and umpires extrapolate from thereon and hawkeye does a better job of extrapolation at the distances and speeds we are concerned with. With that, time to catch some sleep.
Link to comment
chakde Newbie

chakde

Posted
  • Author
Posted

hmmm... this whole discussion has moved away from what i meant..... ok how abt this... Should 3rd umpire (be allowed to) intervene when a batsman is given out CAUGHT when he clearly isnt?? (p.s: for lbws itll b very controversial, but for CATCHES there shouldnt be any porblem [+ if its really hard to c, for whatever reason, then benefit of doubt to batsman]) My vote is YES. What do u goys think?

Link to comment
Chandan Newbie

Chandan

Posted
Posted
Just have an appeals system and be done with it.. Allow 3 referrals per team' date=' and benefit of doubt goes to the batsman.. end of.[/quote'] I agree completely. Three appeals per inning to fielding captain as well as batsman. If a wrong challenge is made, the captain/batsman loses one challenge, else the right to challenge for three times remains. What do you say?
Link to comment
varun Newbie

varun

Posted
Posted
I agree completely. Three appeals per inning to fielding captain as well as batsman. If a wrong challenge is made, the captain/batsman loses one challenge, else the right to challenge for three times remains. What do you say?
Hmm.. that'll be a good idea if the number of appeals per innings were more than 3.. say around 5. But if it's just 3, then penalizing is a bit OTT.
Link to comment
varun Newbie

varun

Posted
Posted
That is just to ensure that they don't go on challenging every time a bowler goes up in appeal or every time the ball strikes the batsman's pads! Why do you think that'd be unfair?
Well they won't go on challenging every time anyway, 'coz they just have 3 appeals per innings. If they had more however, they might do exactly what you say, and then it'll be good to have the penalty system like you mentioned IMO. But us worrying about the intricacies of such a system is a futile exercise. Such a system might will undermine the authority of the on-field umpires and that's something that the ICC absolutely doesn't want.
Link to comment
Zap_Brannigan Newbie

Zap_Brannigan

Posted
Posted

Every single decision should be appealable and 3rd umpire can change any decision decision. When an appeal is made for a catch or a lbw, and the field umpire refuses to uphold it, the 3rd umpire can get a cpl of replays even before the appeal is over. If he feels that there is a chance of a wrong decision, he can hold up play, review the replay in detail and make the decision. Even though hawkeye,snickometer are all not perfect, they are consistent, which is more i can say for umpires. The game is not gonna be held up for long like people say it is. Remember the same argument was used for runouts too. The game is better bcos if that. The onus should be placed on the bowlers to reduce the time they take to bowl a ball and even if it adds an extra 30 mins or so, it would atleast give us the deserved winner and not australia.

Link to comment
The Outsider Newbie

The Outsider

Posted
Posted

The way I see it after this referral system was tried in the English county season and was not a success is that the problem lies not in the technology available but in the old school thought surrounding the game ie. undermining umpire's authority, challenging decisions etc. There were many decisions during the county season which should have been overturned but the third umpire did not do so because he would have been handing out a statement that his on field colleague is inept. That has to change. Third umpires and technology need to be viewed as friends and helpers of on field umpires and not a revisionary board and it must be made clear to the umpires that if their decision does get overturned during a review it won't be help against their careers.

Link to comment
HouMac Apprentice

HouMac

Posted
Posted

The option of referring to the third umpire IMO should be given to the batsman. If he's out caught and he doesn't believe he nicked it(which the batsman always knows), then he should have the authority to tell the on-field umpire to check with the 3rd umpire. Same goes for LBWs, but ONLY if the batsman believes he nicked the ball. No LBWs IMO should be referred to the 3rd umpire if the batsman believes the ball was going down leg, or too high, or it it struck him outside the line of off stump. Then it becomes a case of interpretation/opinion and it could seriously ruin the game(Hawk Eye is NOT 100% accurate). BUT there's no excuse today for technology not being used when the bat is in play during catches and lbws because these are two areas when the player always knows whether he's out or not.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...