Should we use technology for better decisions?

[pasag]

I'm coming around to more technology being used but don't like the idea of the batsmen and bowlers having the option to appeal an umpires decision, however the umpire should be able to go to the third umpire for anything they are unsure about and should be able to do it as often as they like, whenever there is the slightest bit of doubt.

Edit: Pretty much what Richard said.

 

[adharcric]

Naah, no need to turn it into tennis.

For me the whole 'completely on the umpire' approach is much better as it's far less clinical. I'd rather the onus was on the umpire to make the correct decision than knowing that they can be overruled by replays, which in turn increases the pressure on the umpires as their mistakes can be shown and affect the game instantly.

The umpires are already under the same pressure that you are concerned about. Every incorrect decision that they make is heavily scrutinized by the media and the public and displayed instantaneously on the big screen. We might as well improve the quality of the competition in the process.

 

[adharcric]

NO, umpires do a good job of it 99% of time. Also Techonology today isn't reliable enough to replace the umpires except in runout/Stumping decisions. And I definately dont want Noball stuff to be handed over to the techonology.

So in regular dismissals like lbw/caught behind - NO

99%? I can assure you that umpire success rate in close decisions is far, far less than 99%. 99% of all 2700 deliveries that can ideally be bowled in a test match is more accurate but that's not very difficult to do.

 

[silentstriker]

Two appeals per team per innings. If you get both right, you get a third appeal.

Anything more would create too many stoppages of play. Overall, anything that decreases the power of the umpire over the game is a positive step. The umpires are there to officiate, they shouldn't have this much power over the outcome. If something is absolutely conclusive, they overturn. If it is not conclusive, then they go with the decision on the field. Karthik shot would have remained an out, Ganguly would have been overturned. What exactly is wrong with that?

For LBW, they would only check where the ball pitched and whether there was an edge. You wouldn't use the predictive power of the hawk eye, as that's a bit of guesswork.

In the end, no one is going to miss bad decisions if we can eliminate at least some of them.

 

[pasag]

Today's case was perfectly conclusive, Karthik did not hit it, regardless of who thought what. As it is in 99.99% of cases.

Karthik said he hit it in a post match interview according to this.

 

[Sanz]

Today's case was perfectly conclusive, Karthik did not hit it, regardless of who thought what. As it is in 99.99% of cases.

You very well prove my point that technology is not reliable enough to be used for such decisions. Karthik himself admitted that he knicked the ball.


"...Karthik's dismissal looked dubious but he admitted to a small nick... "

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandindia2007/story/0,,2145822,00.html

 

[adharcric]

Two appeals per team per innings. If you get both right, you get a third appeal.

Anything more would create too many stoppages of play. Overall, anything that decreases the power of the umpire over the game is a positive step. The umpires are there to officiate, they shouldn't have this much power over the outcome. If something is absolutely conclusive, they overturn. If it is not conclusive, then they go with the decision on the field. Karthik shot would have remained an out, Ganguly would have been overturned. What exactly is wrong with that?

For LBW, they would only check where the ball pitched and whether there was an edge. You wouldn't use the predictive power of the hawk eye, as that's a bit of guesswork.

In the end, no one is going to miss bad decisions if we can eliminate at least some of them.

Spot on.

 

[adharcric]

This whole technology stuff(for lbw and caught behind) is overrated and has created a negative image of modern day umpires, they are under a lot of pressure esp. when they are making decisions against primma donnas of the subcontinent.

Technology is not reliable enough (Today's case, Karthik says he got some bat, but technology says otherwise) to be given that kind of role.

1) Negative image or realistic image? Besides, the object of cricket is not to sanctify and glorify our delicate umpires.
2) How are the "primma donnas of the subcontinent" relevant at all?
3) Technology is quite reliable. Today's case was an exception. Either way, everyone has said that there should be conclusive evidence to overturn a decision (i.e., no hawk-eye).

 

[pasag]

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandindia2007/story/0,,2145822,00.html

Cringeworthy start to that article.

 

[Sanz]

99%? I can assure you that umpire success rate in close decisions is far, far less than 99%. 99% of all 2700 deliveries that can ideally be bowled in a test match is more accurate but that's not very difficult to do.

Dont twist my statement and qualify it by adding 'close decisions'. I was talking about overall decisions and IMO umpires get it right 99% of the time. As far as technology goes, it has been proven that technology is not good enough, when it is really needed to make a decision (e.g.Dhoni out in WI).

 

[biased indian]

Ian chappel in the After game show on TV had an opinion on this
hes said other than line rules ...Run out stumping and boundry related
technology should not be used becuse it i never conclusive.....

he said in this series itself pietersen who was wrongly given out was called back when every one saw the tv replay justice done.but see the case of ganguly every one including the umpire knew he was not out before he left the filed but nothing was done....

so it is better not to use the technology at all as long as it is not 100% possible to give correct decision leave it to umpires to decide....

 

[adharcric]

Dont twist my statement and qualify it by adding 'close decisions'. I was talking about overall decisions and IMO umpires get it right 99% of the time. As far as technology goes, it has been proven that technology is not good enough, when it is really needed to make a decision (e.g.Dhoni out in WI).

Exactly. Getting 99% of overall decisions is not difficult at all. Elite panel umpires are not there to raise their finger on an obvious edge or somebody getting bowled. Close decisions are the only judge of an umpire's decision-making skills.

Oh yeah, go and read my post again. Conclusive evidence.

 

[Sanz]

1) Negative image or realistic image? Besides, the object of cricket is not to sanctify and glorify our delicate umpires.
2) How are the "primma donnas of the subcontinent" relevant at all?
3) Technology is quite reliable. Today's case was an exception. Either way, everyone has said that there should be conclusive evidence to overturn a decision (i.e., no hawk-eye).

1. No, its not realistic image by any stretch. Leave other media out, I have lost no. of counts when here on this forum people have accused umpires of some sort of bias against an individual or against a nation (and I myself have been guilty of that in the past). For example Steve Bucknor has no reason to be biased against India or Tendulkar.

2. It is relevant because the media in the subcontinent makes a hue and cry over every decisions that doesn't go in favor of Tendulkars/Dravids etc. You have to just watch the news to know how they sensationalize it as if umpire is some sort of an evil.

3. IMO technology is not reliable enough, as was evident today and many other occasions in the past.

 

[Sanz]

Karthik shot would have remained an out, Ganguly would have been overturned. What exactly is wrong with that?

According to the technology, Karthik would have been NOT OUT as well. So even today the technolgy was only 50% right, so was the umpire.

 

[Sanz]

Exactly. Getting 99% of overall decisions is not difficult at all. Elite panel umpires are not there to raise their finger on an obvious edge or somebody getting bowled. Close decisions are the only judge of an umpire's decision-making skills.

Oh yeah, go and read my post again. Conclusive evidence.

Define 'Conculsive Evidence' please.

 

[adharcric]

1. No, its not realistic image by any stretch. Leave other media out, I have lost no. of counts when here on this forum people have accused umpires of some sort of bias against an individual or against a nation (and I myself have been guilty of that in the past). For example Steve Bucknor has no reason to be biased against India or Tendulkar.

You can't do much about delusional fans. By the way, I have only seen one instance (apart from Hair-related stuff) accusing an umpire of bias against a country/player from an established member on CW in my time here.

2. It is relevant because the media in the subcontinent makes a hue and cry over every decisions that doesn't go in favor of Tendulkars/Dravids etc. You have to just watch the news to know how they sensationalize it as if umpire is some sort of an evil.

So what? The Indian media is pathetic, you can't base decisions on how they will react. They will churn out controversy and chaos for viewers in India regardless of what's really happening in the cricket world.

3. IMO technology is not reliable enough, as was evident today and many other occasions in the past.

Tell me five of these "many other occasions" in the past, excluding hawk-eye stuff. Can you tell me five in the past year?

 

[adharcric]

Define 'Conculsive Evidence' please.

My bad. Didn't realize you were talking about Dhoni being caught on the boundary in WI. Once again, that's an exception.

 

[Sanz]

1) Technology can show you whether the ball hit the batsman outside the off stump or in line.

Umpire still has to decide if the batsman intended to play a shot or not.

 

[adharcric]

Umpire still has to decide if the batsman intended to play a shot or not.

Yes, he can still do that.

 

[Dasa]

My bad. Didn't realize you were talking about Dhoni being caught on the boundary in WI. Once again, that's an exception.

The point of failure in that case wasn't with the technology anyway, it was with the third umpire.