Umpring and the use of Technology in Cricket : A Discussion

[varun]

As this super umpire doesn't exist' date=' it would be appreciated if you'd address my questions so we can continue the discussion.[/quote'] This is where we differ I'm afraid. In my opinion, the super umpire as I described above exists. He is any normal umpire that is armed with technology. The technology is so powerful that even a naive television spectator armed with it is at many times a better judge than the umpires on the ground. So is it fair to the umpires that they are the only ones that don't have the services of technology when everyone else watching the match does ?

[Donny]

Obviously, he doesn't exist. It was you who referred to 'him' as hypothetical. We don't differ at all in that aspect as I've made it clear the present umps could easily (and should) have access to some of the technology we, as TV viewers, have but that's NOT what we're dealing with here. My request for clarification was valid as all the people I mentioned can have many and varied opinions about decisions given by the existing umpires.

[varun]

Obviously' date=' he [i']doesn't exist. It was you who referred to 'him' as hypothetical.

I apologize, of course he doesn't exist.. yet. For run-out decisions however, he does exist, and may I add does a fine job.

We don't differ at all in that aspect as I've made it clear the present umps could easily (and should) have access to some of the technology we, as TV viewers, have but that's NOT what we're dealing with here.

You asked me 'Getting it wrong in who's opinion'. My answer: Getting it wrong in the opinion of any neutral and knowledgeable person who has access to the technology and knows all the rules of cricket (in essence a cricket umpire with access to technology)

My request for clarification was valid as all the people I mentioned can have many and varied opinions about decisions given by the existing umpires.

Those opinions would be much more varied if they didn't have access to technology. Normally, you will find an almost unanimous consensus among people who have access to the technology. The reason being, that technology can enhance are faculties to such a degree that even less perceptive people tend to make the "right" decision.

[Donny]

At last !! "Getting it wrong in the opinion of any neutral and knowledgeable person who has access to the technology and knows all the rules of cricket (in essence a cricket umpire with access to technology)" Now we can resume from post #201. "What's your opinion about umpires getting a decision wrong ?" It can be answered simply. **** happens. As things stand, we have human umpires. I really think a better than 90% rate of correct decisions is pretty good when you consider they don't have most of the tech help we do. Read this my friend, and get back to me. :regular_smile: I'll supply the link so you can read the full article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/rules_and_equipment/4888328.stm Judgement time. By Pranav Soneji As the case for using technology in international cricket intensifies, umpires are finding their actions are scrutinised more than ever. Television coverage can call upon infinite television replays, slowed down to 1000 frames a second, as well as computer programmes such as Hawk-eye, the "snickometer" and the "red zone" to break down every individual dismissal or appeal. But the man in the middle has only one sighting to decide - and according to the International Cricket Council (ICC), the game's governing body, there is a 94.8% chance that decision will be correct. "If they are getting that many right we have nothing to argue about," said Australia captain Ricky Ponting. But the ICC want to push that figure even higher - without access to further technology. Ever since the Elite Umpires' Panel was established in 2002, top international match officials have had their performances regularly monitored and analysed to improve their already impeccably high standards. The umpires face a seven-step process to analyse their performance after each Test or one-day international: Report of umpire's performance from two captains and match referee sent to ICC Independent assessment of performance by a former international umpire Edit the umpire's decisions onto DVD DVD sent to ICC's independent assessor Independent assessor compiles report of the umpire's performances ICC sends written report and DVD to umpire "If they are unhappy with the critique they can contact the ICC and review whatever is causing the concern." Like cricketers, elite umpires dedicate time a proportion of their time practising in the nets before Test and one-day internationals. These sessions help them gain an insight into the idiosyncrasies of each individual player, as well as improve their judgement skills. "We can check who is close to the no-ball line, who is shuffling, these kind of things are very helpful for us," said Aleem Dar, a veteran of over 29 Test matches. "I go through all my incorrect decisions and dump them into a separate spreadsheet on my laptop to keep a trend of the errors I make," said Australian Simon Taufel, an international umpire since 2000. "I can then see if there is a commonality between all of them and use that information to go back into the nets. "So for example, I see that three out of the last four LBW decisions I got wrong were because the ball pitched outside leg stump. "So the next time I go into the nets, I'm going to be working on balls pitching outside leg stump to correct that judgement." The ICC has experimented with lbw decisions referred to the third umpire, as well as the on-field officials sporting earpieces linked to stump microphones. Neither experiment gained approval from the players or officials. While technology has considerably enhanced television coverage, Taufel remains sceptical about its expansion within the game. South African captain Graeme Smith is another who believes the game is fine in its current state. "That human touch is a part of cricket, as a batsman you have one opportunity to make the most of it, you live and die by your chance," he said. "The umpires have an important role to play. As much as they create frustration they also create happiness too."

[varun]

Thanks for the article Donny. It appears that the author is trying to make the point that umpires are woven into the fabric of cricket, and are as human as the players. The author states that Dar spends as much time in the nets as Flintoff, the umpires work on the mistakes that they made in the previous matches, etc, etc. In short, the article tries to ensure that the viewers realize that the umpires are human (thereby admitting to their fallibility). I'm afraid, this is where the discussion could get philosophical, and subject to personal opinion. At the end of the day, what is the game of cricket about ? Just the batsmen, bowlers, and fielders ? Or is it also about the excitement generated by the seemingly unpredictable nature of the umpire. If scientists were able to create a machine that always gave 100% correct answers, would it still be accepted by the ICC ? It appears that the worry with technology isn't that it provides incorrect answers, but that it dehumanizes the umpires and takes away a part of the game that many people have become used to.

[Donny]

Exactly. I'd certainly be saddened if there were no more Dicky Birds, David Shepherds, Rudi Koertzens, Billy Bowdens and, yes, Morgan Freemans. :wink_smile: I hope they remain a permanent fixture but please, ICC, take some weight off their shoulders !!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

"To say that umpires are integral part of the game is like saying crooked judges are integral part of the society." Rubbish. As are the first two sentences of that post. Absolute rubbish.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

I forgive you, Bheemby. :regular_smile:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kumble_rocks]

Jesus ! Can't we all get along ! :angel_smile:

[varun]

^^ Bump. Since we're talking about the same old topic again.

[Chandan]

And same old topic again!!! It is surprising how often these mistakes have happened and yet, ICC is reluctant to embrace technology!

[Sachinism]

using 3rd umpires for LBW's would just result in a lot of very short games how many times do we see the ball clipping the bails or the stumps as viewes we consider it fair decision when thats given not out if the 3rd umpire comes into plays, he cant exclude part of the stumps and give the batsman the benefit of doubt

[DesiChap]

Time for a player challenge system, feels Steve A STAFF REPORTER

Calcutta: Former Australian captain Steve Waugh admitted that poor umpiring decisions have always been a “grey area” and that is was time a “player challenge system” was introduced. Giving a thumbs-up to the ICC’s soon-to-be-introduced referral system, which allows players to appeal decisions by on-field umpires, the iconic Australian said teams should be allowed to challenge umpiring decisions. He said this in the wake of the controversial Sydney Test that saw a slew of blunders from Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson. “This has always been a grey area and while I have been a great believer in human error being part of cricket because it grounds the game by sticking to its original principles, it also creates talking points and ensures players learn to take the good with the bad in the same manner as life unfolds. “However, the time now seems right for a player challenge system, which the MCC cricket committee has endorsed and hopes to work in conjunction with the ICC to put in to action shortly, particularly now as the TV viewer is exposed to advanced technology that leave umpires exposed and scrutinised as never before,” Waugh wrote in Australia’s The Daily Telegraph. He added that more questions than answers have emerged in the aftermath of a Test match that would be forever tainted with controversy. “Did Harbhajan Singh transgress again and call Andrew Symonds a ‘monkey’ after the two had allegedly shaken hands and looked each other in the eye at the end of the one-day series (In India) in a bid to ensure the same thing would not happen again? On Harbhajan’s behaviour, the 42-year-old said: “Harbhajan, like many in the Australian team, enjoys the verbal jousting out in the middle and is never shy to express an opinion, react to banter or hand out some free advice during a period that has coincided with his stellar success in taking Australia head-on. For that he is a respected opponent. “As is always the case, players know what’s acceptable and what’s not and my belief is that the Australians thought Harbhajan had crossed the line by neglecting a previous conversation, hence the reporting of the incident.” On the three-Test ban handed over to Harbhajan for his alleged use of word “monkey”, he said it would be nice to hear Match Referee Mike Procter’s reasons. “I’d like to know whether the word ‘monkey’ is considered racist and is the word ‘b*****d’ offensive? Again we have a clash of cultures because I’m led to believe the word ‘b*****d’ would start a fight in the Ranji Trophy while in Australia, to be called a ‘lucky b*****d’ is a term of endearment,” he said. “At the end of the day India were appeased with the removal of Steve Bucknor, satisfied that Harbhajan will more than likely play the final two Tests while Australia may yet lose Brad Hogg in a tit-for-tat reaction. “The most likely outcome from all of this will be that from this day forward Test cricket will have lost some of its colour and character because players will be forever scared to utter a word in the middle for fear of retribution.”

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080111/jsp/sports/story_8769344.jsp

[DesiChap]

Software firms cashing in on bad decisions Priyanjana Dutta | CNN-IBN Bangalore: With Steve Bucknor sacked from the ongoing India-Australia series, the ICC has sent out a strong message that the 'Buck' stops here. But back home in India, a slew of software firms are waiting to benefit from the business opportunity arising out of bad decisions. Here's how. For someone also known as the 'Slow Death', Steve Bucknor certainly seemed to live up to his name. And the former World Cup soccer referee also paid for it. Maybe it needn't have been that way. That's right. Where humans fail, technology steps in. At least that's what a slew of software companies are now cashing in on, developing software that can aid umpires and minimise erroneous decisions on the field. "We have data capture analysis called Omega, which captures data on more than 15 parametres for every ball delivered, batsman's strokes, line and length etc. Technology should be used as an aid to coach," says N P Thirukode, the CEO of Stumpvision. Stumpvision, of which India captain Anil Kumble is a director, is one of the many such companies that have already made their mark in umpiring-technology solutions. They helped coaches John Wright and Greg Chappell during their coaching stints for India and currently also power the scoring technology that BCCI uses. So, if to err is human then to set it right is technology. "With the click of a mouse, you can set right umpiring decisions to see how many times the umpire has given bad decisions," says P Sankaran, the CEO of Meru Consultants and Technologies. It's not Steve Bucknor alone who's been in the eye of the storm for bad umpiring decisions. It's something that is probably as old as the game itself. That said, umpiring technology software does help reduce human errors, and its a business opportunity that software firms are cashing in on. The buck clearly stops with the ICC to make use of this technology. http://www.cricketnext.com/news/software-firms-cashing-in-on-bad-decisions/28806-18.html