Umpring and the use of Technology in Cricket : A Discussion

[MundaPakistani]

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.

I think Donny has explained that quite well.

[The Outsider]

I think Donny has explained that quite well.

My IQ is kind of low because I don't understand Donny's posts when he doesn't respond to my posts.

[Donny]

Donny ? do you now understand why None of the indian fans have any trust in the umpires ?

Because they set the situation up to cover losses ?

[Donny]

Which is why I asked you in the very begining of this discussion (albeit on a different thread here --> http://www.indiancricketfans.com/sho...facknor&page=3 ) as to what you would accept as proof and whether Fair Play and level playing field mean anything to you at all ... turns out it doesnt mean anything to you afterall. The reason why the batsmen is listed out in the score-book is because of the umpires incompetence and or his bias. Those are not acceptable to many here and the only reason why a batsmen needs to be out is if he is "really" out. Feel free to ask why it needs to be that way.

I really tried to understand this mumbo jumbo but failed. :hmmmm2::dontknow:

[MundaPakistani]

My IQ is kind of low because I don't understand Donny's posts when he doesn't respond to my posts.

I was referring to this post Shwetabh.

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".

[The Outsider]

MP, atleast in a few cases the scenario should have been that Bucknor wasn't sure of the decision till the end of those 5 seconds, correct? I am only asking for a handful of such examples when he wasn't sure and ruled in favor of the batsman.

[varun]

Lets consider the following scenarios Scenario 1: Tough Decision Bowler: howazzzaaattt ? Umpire: 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.. OUT !! Scenario 2: Easy Decision Bowler: Howazzaatttt ? Umpire: 5.. NOT OUT ! Scenario 3: Easy Decision Bowler: Howazzatttt ? Umpire: 5.. OUT ! Scenario 4: Tough Decision Bowler: Howazzatttt ? Umpire: 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.. NOT OUT !! I believe shwetabh is pointing out that Scenario 4 rarely occurs with Bucknor which is a bit strange.

[Donny]

and how come there is not a single incident that I can recall when Bucknor gave someone not out after deliberating for 5 seconds.

Mate, do you seriously expect us to believe you've seen every Bucknor decision since he started in Tests in 1989 ??

[MundaPakistani]

Ok! I am slightly confused at what's the main point of this disscusion so let me try to simplfy things.. Reasons why i think total reliance on technology is a bad idea because First of all it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases when batsman has been bowled yet the Hawk eye has the ball missing the stumps.... then there have been bat and pad cases where the batsman has admitted of hitting the ball yet if you look at the replays you will never know that. Secondly in the LBW decisions Hawkeye doesn't consider the shot the batsman was trying to play(yes i think it's important) . The law written in the book should only be used as a guide line e.g if i was the umpire then there will be quite a few cases in which even if i am not sure that the ball had hit the batsman in line with the stump but i am convinced that the bowler has 'defeated' the batsman then i will waste no time in raising my finger. Simiarly if i see the batsman has a decent stride forward and is willing to use his bat then i might not give him out...it's this human interpretation factor which should always be the part of the game.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 good enough.

[The Outsider]

Mate' date=' do you seriously expect us to believe you've seen every Bucknor decision since he started in Tests in 1989 ??[/quote'] No I don't and never claimed that I have. I would be more than happy to increase my knowledge of the great game and it's great umpires if you can point me to a few times where Bucknor has waited 5 seconds before giving a batsman not out.

[MundaPakistani]

MP, atleast in a few cases the scenario should have been that Bucknor wasn't sure of the decision till the end of those 5 seconds, correct? .

Yes fair point!

[King]

Anyone that backs Bucknor hasn't a clue about umpiring. He is one of the worst umpire there has ever been and has contributed to the much loss of confidence in umpires single handedly. That said there is no point in deliberating the umpiring decisions anymore. England bore the brunt of bad umpiring decision. Dhoni was gone for all money but was ruled not out by Bucknor. Dhoni was struck on the back foot, the ball pitched in line and clearly he was gone. It needed no second look to understand that. 22 yards isn't much and it isn't hard to get 9 decisions out of 10. The LBW laws are pretty clear, the ball has to pitch in line and has to hit the batsman in line usually particularly on front foot. Only on rare occasions when the ball pitches outside the line and hits the batsman in front of the stump while on the back foot or when not playing a shot it should be given out. Above all "Benefit should go to the batsman" is the adage. I guess Taufel forgot that completely when he gave Rahul Dravid out. BTW the umpires and the match officials are answerable. They are not umpiring for charity or for fun sake. They are professional umpires and when they bungle they will have to face criticism. If everyone should simply sit back and say they are humans they will commit mistake then why have highly paid professional umpires in the first place? Just like the players and the rest are put under the scanner the umpires have to go through the grind too.

[varun]

First of all it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases when batsman has been bowled yet the Hawk eye has the ball missing the stumps.... then there have been bat and pad cases where the batsman has admitted of hitting the ball yet if you look at the replays you will never know that.

Neither are runout decisions always conclusive. If the umpire feels there is doubt, he can refer to the 3rd umpire to find out what hawkeye says where the ball is headed, or if the ball hit the batsman outside the line, or if the ball landed outside the legstump, etc.. whatever he is concerned with.. Similarly he can find out the snicko.. etc. for edges. IT's supposed to be a helping aid to the umpire and finally it's the umpire's job to give the batsmen out or not out. It will however slow down the game a bit I agree, since run-out appeals are much less frequest than lbw/caught appeals

[Donny]

Seems you're in the minority on this one, Ravi. "Widely respected and instantly recognisable (with his characteristic of nodding gently before raising the dreaded finger), "Slow Death Bucknor" has umpired in more Test matches than anyone else, breaking Dickie Bird's record in 2002, and in March 2005 he became the first umpire to stand in 100 Tests, and only David Shepherd and Rudi Koertzen have umpired more ODIs. Bucknor also stood in five successive World Cup finals (1992 to 2007), the middle three with Shepherd." From his Cricinfo profile.

[The Outsider]

^ better to be in the minority than to have voted for Bush.

[Donny]

"Mate' date=' do you seriously expect us to believe you've seen every Bucknor decision since he started in Tests in 1989 ??[/quote']

No I don't and never claimed that I have.

Then what, if any, validity is there in you stating, "and how come there is not a single incident that I can recall"

[King]

Seems you're in the minority on this one, Ravi. "Widely respected and instantly recognisable (with his characteristic of nodding gently before raising the dreaded finger), "Slow Death Bucknor" has umpired in more Test matches than anyone else, breaking Dickie Bird's record in 2002, and in March 2005 he became the first umpire to stand in 100 Tests, and only David Shepherd and Rudi Koertzen have umpired more ODIs. Bucknor also stood in five successive World Cup finals (1992 to 2007), the middle three with Shepherd." From his Cricinfo profile.

I've been watching Bucknor umpire since 1992. Since that day to till date he improvement is pretty much NIL. As for Crickinfo, that is some dude's opinion just I have one.

[CC1981]

Seems you're in the minority on this one, Ravi. "Widely respected and instantly recognisable (with his characteristic of nodding gently before raising the dreaded finger), "Slow Death Bucknor" has umpired in more Test matches than anyone else, breaking Dickie Bird's record in 2002, and in March 2005 he became the first umpire to stand in 100 Tests, and only David Shepherd and Rudi Koertzen have umpired more ODIs. Bucknor also stood in five successive World Cup finals (1992 to 2007), the middle three with Shepherd." From his Cricinfo profile.

Or maybe cricinfo is in minority here, toting the corporate line ? Gee..like...that doesnt happen, ever, eh ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Then what' date=' if any, validity is there in you stating, "and how come there is not a single incident that [b']I can recall"

I think the answer to your question lies in the bold part. As I have been saying for half of this thread do show me some instances where he has waited for 5 seconds and then given the batsman not out.....