Umpring and the use of Technology in Cricket : A Discussion

[Holysmoke]

How many of you people think that LBW decisions should be made with the use of modern technology and TV replays. If you dont feel that way, then you shouldn't ever complain about wrong decisions like these, because as long as the human element is there, mistakes are going to be made. And no, they don't even out in the end

[ludhianvi]

to be fair, bucknor did give sresanth the benefit of the doubt, if any off monty in the last partnership

[Donny]

but' date=' what i still dont understand how bucknor can take 0.5 secs to say not out and 5 secs to say out. it is clearly illogical that the thought processes are different![/quote'] Not correct. It's quite logical. There are several factors an umpire must take into account. If, in the case of an lbw appeal, the first aspect (for instance, the ball pitches outside leg) rules out the appeal, the other aspects just don't come into the equation. It's a quick "Not out". If, using the same ball as an example, the ump adjudges it to have pitched in line, he then has to apply the next aspects - was the ball swinging/cutting? if so, would it have missed/hit the stumps ? was it spinning ? would it have bounced over ? was there an edge etc. So, fairly easy to understand why an ump may need some seconds to put up his finger for an "Out".

[observer1]

Not correct. It's quite logical. There are several factors an umpire must take into account. If, in the case of an lbw appeal, the first aspect (for instance, the ball pitches outside leg) rules out the appeal, the other aspects just don't come into the equation. It's a quick "Not out". If, using the same ball as an example, the ump adjudges it to have pitched in line, he then has to apply the next aspects - was the ball swinging/cutting? if so, would it have missed/hit the stumps ? was it spinning ? would it have bounced over ? was there an edge etc. So, fairly easy to understand why an ump may need some seconds to put up his finger for an "Out".

except perhaps for scenario 1, will it not take him an equal amount of time and thinking to weigh all the factors and say 'not out'? it seems strange that he can make his mind up about swing/cut/missing stumps/over the wicket in half a second to say 'not out' and make a pretence for a 10 times that amount of time to say 'out'. if u say 'out' is a more grave decision and deserves thinking more, that is fallacious

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

Observer1, perhaps if you actually understood scenario 1 ?? Try reading it again.

[observer1]

donny - no need to get facetious - i am sensitive to that kind of stuff. scenario: india 277 for 9. paneasr bowls to srresanth. appeal for lbw. ball pitching on leg, bucknor shakes head within 0.5 seconds no question of ball pitching outside leg. so, he made the assumption it didnt have enough bite to turn towards middle. within 0.5 sec. however, if he thought it was going to hit middle it appearsa it takes him 3 secs. apologies for typing errors _ an attention seeking 3 month old threatening to be sick forces me to type onehanded

[Donny]

You are quite right. I apologise. My first example gave a clear example of how quickly it can be called, "Not out" I cannot work out the gist of your scenario. Simplify please.

[observer1]

No worries Donny. Do you remember an Indian umpire called Jayaprakash - he was vilified because he got some decisions wrong. His wrong decisions looked 'wronger' because he, quite simply, had the fastest draw in the west. His 'out lbws' used to be given in 0.5 sec, just as Bucknor's 'not outs' are give. JP used to look awful on Hawkeye when he gave someone out and it wasnt substantiated. Bucks takes about the same amount of time to consider whether a batter is 'out' or 'nout out'. It is just the melodrama associated with it,( or perhaps he has an occult neurological problem that makes it take more time to move the muscles in his shoulder and hand) which makes it look like he is a thinking umpire. The scenario I wrote about happened 30 min ago. Sreesanth was OUT. Bucknor shook his head vigorously in 0.5 sec. If only he had thought about it properly, he might have given Sreesanth oout, and England would have had their well-deserved win by now.

[Donny]

Ok. I didn't see this piece of play but, going on your description, Bucknor didn't have any need for further thought once he'd either seen doubt or something else to indicate it was not out. End of story. At that point, he shakes his head. There's nothing else to think about if one of the first considerations indicates a negative.

[The Outsider]

Donny, have you ever seen Bucknor say no to an appeal after 5 seconds?

[observer1]

Donny' date=' have you ever seen Bucknor say no to an appeal after 5 seconds?[/quote'] PRECISELY my point.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

Donny' date=' have you ever seen Bucknor say no to an appeal after 5 seconds?[/quote']

PRECISELY my point.

even to the plumbest of LBWs mind you ...

What are you guys trying to prove?:confused_smile:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[gs]

that Bucknor is craap ... isnt it obvious ?

Amen Bheem!

[Donny]

For the Attention Of On the commentary thread you said that Taufel's LBW call on Dravid was correct. Looking at the pic, do you still believe that ? If you still aren't convinced, i can provide a video clip of the incident and the subsequent replays Even Nasser Hussain said it was a "questionable decision", yet you say that it was right because you saw the "finger go up" ?

1. I didn't say it was correct. 2. Thanks for the pic. It clearly shows this was not an 'atrocious' decision. Those of you who claim to have seen it in real time and say it was way outside the line are proven wrong by the pic. There is little or no gap between the ball and the off stump. 3. Wrong again. I didn't say it was right. I said he was out because I saw the finger go up. I played, captained and coached for many years and always instructed my players to accept the umpire's decision. As long as we have human umpires, that should be the case - if for no other reason than this: any amount of complaining, tantrum throwing, bit ching, righteous indignation etc. will not change the decision. Whenever (or if) one of my batsmen came off the field, complaining about their dismissal or saying, "I wasn't out!", I would ask them to look in the scorebook. End of story. Get on with the game.

[The Outsider]

What are you guys trying to prove?:confused_smile:

Not trying to prove anything. Just asking a question why Bucknor takes 5 seconds to give someone out and a second to give someone not out and how come there is not a single incident that I can recall when Bucknor gave someone not out after deliberating for 5 seconds.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --