Umpring and the use of Technology in Cricket : A Discussion

[Guest BossBhai]

Umpring and the use of Technology in Cricket : A Discussion -- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

Or turned around Most Ausssies like you are perfectly aware that the system works just fine in their favour and will hence do the facetious song and dance with cliches galore.

that is your opinion. In your opinion, the umpiring is biassed against India- in Donny's opinion, it isn't. Neither of you are going to solve this by discussion, since it is an opinion, not a provable fact, unless you hook the umpires up to a polygraph test and grill them.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

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.

Ravi from what i have observed is that he is a fairly competent umpire who for number of years (92 to around 99/00) wasperhaps the best umpire in the world. Now having said i would also agree that in recent years he has given a few 'shockers' and a lot of them have come against IND.

[King]

Ravi from what i have observed is that he is a fairly competent umpire who for number of years (92 to around 99/00) wasperhaps the best umpire in the world. Now having said i would also agree that in recent years he has given a few 'shockers' and a lot of them have come against IND.

MP please understand I'm not talking for India here. I'm talking about Bucknor in general. Even in the 1992 world cup he stuffed up the decision of Alec Stewart if you remember. That edge could have been heard in the crowd. I've seen him stuff decisions daily in test matches here in NZ.

[The Outsider]

MP please understand I'm not talking for India here. I'm talking about Bucknor in general. Even in the 1992 world cup he stuffed up the decision of Alec Stewart if you remember. That edge could have been heard in the crowd. I've seen him stuff decisions daily in test matches here in NZ.

Top post, Ravi. I was amongst the first ones to say that the umpiring in this test has favored India if anything but when legitimate criticism of a thoroughly incompetent umpire is attacked as blind patriotism it becomes difficult.

[CC1981]

there are such things like cameras hawk eye ... apologies by the frigin umpires themselves ... ICC's OWN admitance that Bucknor is craap ... etc etc ... but if suffereing from HISS no form of any scientific evidence can get in the way.

There is no such thing as tallying the hawkeye 'decisions' in order & matching them up against the umpires and then seeing whether there is 'random errors' from the umpire or whether there is any data suggesting bias towards one side. Umpires have apologized for errors in the past- never for bias against a side. An individual error or a single bad match (for which the said apologies were issued) by no means indicates bias. As far as scientific evidence goes, i think its safe to say you are not qualified to debate this with an engineer. There is no scientific evidence to corroborrate bias from an umpire or two. Only your opinion and some isolated observations. You are good at data mining. Not statistical analysis, i am sorry to say.

[Donny]

a. Batsman is "really" OUT when he is actually out. b. Incompetent umpires having brain farts does not equal to out.

a: Wrong. The batsman is out when either the umpire says so or he walks. b: Yes it does. Read the scorecard. Why keep banging your head against a brick wall ?

[King]

I guess you people find it hard to understand the standard of umpiring we are having to live with particularly in the shape of Steve Bucknor. He has stuffed about 5-6 decisions in this game and randomly. It really did help India that the umpiring was of dismal standard. Here are just 3 of bad decisions I'm putting together. I couldn't find the other highlights right away but will make effort to upload the other 3 bad ones too. For now have a look and tell me were these that hard to judge even without replies and stuff. The first one was pitching way outside the off stump. Hit Rahul Dravid outside the off stump just above knee roll. Now which umpiring manual says an umpire can give that out? If you guys cannot comprehend this, you should try umpiring out in the middle and see for yourself. No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump. Less said about the second and third decisions the better. Monty is bowling from around the wicket and is pitching on line. The ball isn't turning enough on that pitch and clearly Dhoni was struck on the back foot. Sreesanth was so plumb in front there is no way an umpire cannot give those out.

Wait for the video to load

Launch in external player

[Donny]

Or turned around Most Ausssies like you are perfectly aware that the system works just fine in their favour and will hence do the facetious song and dance with cliches galore.

Hey, Bheemy. Do you know facetious is one of only two words in the English language having all the vowels - and in order ? Most Aussies like me ?? :haha:

[Donny]

You still don't get it, Ravi. 1. Umpires are humans. 2. Humans make mistakes. 3. What's the point of incessantly going back over and over certain decisions ? Especially when they were as close as the RD one. Have you ever had one reversed by doing this ? 4. "No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump." You'd better check the Laws mate. This, in itself does NOT negate an lbw. 5. I am not sticking up for Bucknor but for umpires. As a ticketed umpire of over 300 games, I'm quite happy to defend them as I know what's it's like to actually do the job.

[CC1981]

1. Umpires are humans. 2. Humans make mistakes.

Time for hawkeye & snick-o to take over, me thinks. If not anything, it'll atleast put an end to the continuous whining.

[The Outsider]

ICC is forcing humanity upon us. There are millions of non profit organizations taking care of the blind and stupid. Let them do their job.

[King]

You still don't get it, Ravi. 1. Umpires are humans. That gives them license to commit non stop mistakes does it? Do you reckon they are accountable for the decisions or not? I think they are as accountable as the next bloke. They aren't doing it for charity mate, they are paid well enough and the reason they are paid well enough is to ensure they get it right often than not. There are hardly few decisions they need to make anyways. Most batters get out either caught out or bowled. Very few decisions are required to be made as an umpire. 2. Humans make mistakes. Sure thing, they do. How many mistakes a game is acceptable for you? 3. What's the point of incessantly going back over and over certain decisions ? Especially when they were as close as the RD one. Have you ever had one reversed by doing this ? No you cannot reverse it but that said why can't you question it? As you know international cricket is not played in backyard and a lot rides on these games. These umpires can make or mar one's career. If you continue to prescribe they are humans and we should move on, where is the improvement coming from? The umpires will only get complacent and will enjoy the full license to do their job at their will whether they are doing a decent job or not. Forgot to mention before, Taufell stuffed up Pietersen's straight forward decision too. The decision was reversed indeed after the technology proved him otherwise :tounge_smile: 4. "No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump." You'd better check the Laws mate. This, in itself does NOT negate an lbw. I'm absolutely certain the ball pitches outside the off, the batsman plays a shot and the ball hits high enough the benefit should go to the batsman not the bowler. There is no hard and fast rule for it as you would know the ICC are inept even at clearly mentioning that in the law. The law am sure mentions anything that pitches outside the leg is pretty much not out. The only ones that can be given out are either the ones that pitch in line or outside the off stump. For one to give the that pitches outside the off out, the batsman should not offer a shot. In such a case the umpire can give the batsman out if the ball is going to hit the stumps. Now as for the one that hits the pad when the batsman plays a shot, there are many variables that have to be considered. Firstly the swing, height, angle from which the ball was delivered , whether the ball struck the batsman on the front foot or the back and other variables. Now going by your logic, the umpire can give anything pitching outside the off as there are so many variables involved. I've had my share of umpiring lessons Donny and I only say something when I feel strongly about it. 5. I am not sticking up for Bucknor but for umpires. As a ticketed umpire of over 300 games, I'm quite happy to defend them as I know what's it's like to actually do the job. I don't go around saying something without much knowledge about it. I have played, studied, read and practically done enough to know the laws of cricket. As much as you are passionate about cricket I'm too mate :teeth_smile: BTW I've done enough umpiring too and I know how good your vision is when you are standing between 22 yards. Oh BTW when you umpire they don't put you in a five star hotel, pay you handsomely and don't accord you training. These umpires that you back are given all that privileges and more. Just that they need to do a better job that is all I'm saying. Otherwise use the technology, it has only helped anyways.

[Chandan]

You still don't get it, Ravi. 1. Umpires are humans. That gives them license to commit non stop mistakes does it? Do you reckon they are accountable for the decisions or not? I think they are as accountable as the next bloke. They aren't doing it for charity mate, they are paid well enough and the reason they are paid well enough is to ensure they get it right often than not. There are hardly few decisions they need to make anyways. Most batters get out either caught out or bowled. Very few decisions are required to be made as an umpire. 2. Humans make mistakes. Sure thing, they do. How many mistakes a game is acceptable for you? 3. What's the point of incessantly going back over and over certain decisions ? Especially when they were as close as the RD one. Have you ever had one reversed by doing this ? No you cannot reverse it but that said why can't you question it? As you know international cricket is not played in backyard and a lot rides on these games. These umpires can make or mar one's career. If you continue to prescribe they are humans and we should move on, where is the improvement coming from? The umpires will only get complacent and will enjoy the full license to do their job at their will whether they are doing a decent job or not. 4. "No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump." You'd better check the Laws mate. This, in itself does NOT negate an lbw. I'm absolutely certain the ball pitches outside the off, the batsman plays a shot and the ball hits high enough the benefit should go to the batsman not the bowler. There is no hard and fast rule for it as you would know the ICC are inept even at clearly mentioning that in the law. The law am sure mentions anything that pitches outside the leg is pretty much not out. The only ones that can be given out are either the ones that pitch in line or outside the off stump. For one to give the that pitches outside the off out, the batsman should not offer a shot. In such a case the umpire can give the batsman out if the ball is going to hit the stumps. Now as for the one that hits the pad when the batsman plays a shot, there are many variables that have to be considered. Firstly the swing, height, angle from which the ball was delivered , whether the ball struck the batsman on the front foot or the back and other variables. Now going by your logic, the umpire can give anything pitching outside the off as there are so many variables involved. I've had my share of umpiring lessons Donny and I only say something when I feel strongly about it. 5. I am not sticking up for Bucknor but for umpires. As a ticketed umpire of over 300 games, I'm quite happy to defend them as I know what's it's like to actually do the job. I don't go around saying something without much knowledge about it. I have played, studied, read and practically done enough to know the laws of cricket. As much as you are passionate about cricket I'm too mate :teeth_smile: BTW I've done enough umpiring too and I know how good your vision is when you are standing between 22 yards. Oh BTW when you have umpired they won't put you in a five star hotel, pay you handsomely and don't accord you training. These umpires that you back are given all that privileges and more. Just that they need to do a better job that is all I'm saying. Otherwise use the technology, it has only helped anyways.

Superb post Ravi. I agree with every bit of what you've said!!:regular_smile:

[Donny]

Well, Chandan, you mustn't understand the rules either. Ravi wrote: "The law am sure mentions anything that pitches outside the leg is pretty much not out." No pretty much about it. If the ump judges this to be the case, it's not out. No matter what the ball might have done after that. "Now going by your logic, the umpire can give anything pitching outside the off as there are so many variables involved." My logic ? How do you come to that conclusion ?? What I said was: "This, in itself does NOT negate an lbw." in rererence to you saying, ""No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump." Ravi, it would help debate if you didn't exaggerate to make a point. As in: "1. Umpires are humans. That gives them license to commit non stop mistakes does it?"

[King Tendulkar]

Some humans make more mistakes then others

[varun]

Nice post ravi. Don't agree with this though:

For one to give the that pitches outside the off out' date=' the batsman should not offer a shot.[/quote'] If the ball pitches outside the off, the batsman can still be given out if the ball hits the batsman's pads in line with the stumps. If the ball pitches outside off and hits outside off, he can be given only if he's not offering a shot.

[observer1]

Thanks folks for the support. I dont think, and have never thought that there is overt bias in umpiring decisions since the 90s. If there is bias on part of the umpire, he at best, shows it otherwise - the Bucknor sucking lolly looking at Dravid scenario etc. The point I was trying to make was that Bucknor is at best mediocre, and is made to look far better than he is. He waits for long before raising his finger, and, as a result, people assume that a lot of thought has gone into the actual 'out' process. As Varun put it scientifically, I have never seen him show evidence of such deliberation before he makes a 'not out' decision. Yes, there are iinstances such as Giles and Panesar appealing for balls pitched oustide leg that take less than half-a-second to negate. However, how did this guy weigh in 'pitched on stumps, was it turning enough, was it going straight on, was it going over the top, was Sreesanth too far forward' in about 0.4 seconds - the time it took for Panesar to turn back and scream? And, then, give the batter NOT OUT - a WRONG decision if you took Hawkeye into account, (and right if you took conventional umpiring) And, the same umpire, against Ganguly, using the same thought processes 'was it pitched on stumps, was it swinging enough, was it going over the top' takes about 3-4 seconds - and then gives out for the ball kissing the top of the stumps. Again, right if you take hawkeye, but wrong for conventional umpiring. And, the commentators hype him to be one of the best because he deliberates! The problem with his approach is that it looks so intellectual on the surface that the less senior umpires (Aleem Dar) are falling into this trap.

[King]

Well, Chandan, you mustn't understand the rules either. Ravi wrote: "The law am sure mentions anything that pitches outside the leg is pretty much not out." No pretty much about it. If the ump judges this to be the case, it's not out. No matter what the ball might have done after that. "Now going by your logic, the umpire can give anything pitching outside the off as there are so many variables involved." My logic ? How do you come to that conclusion ?? What I said was: "This, in itself does NOT negate an lbw." in rererence to you saying, ""No way can you not see the ball was pitching way outside the off stump." Ravi, it would help debate if you didn't exaggerate to make a point. As in: "1. Umpires are humans. That gives them license to commit non stop mistakes does it?"

That is exactly what you said Donny. When I said umpires commit a lot of mistakes you said they are humans. Now you tell me what do you want me to make of it? I never said they are aliens :regular_smile: BTW you completely ignored the umpiring errors I pointed out in this game.