The future of umpiring?

[James]

Following the absolutely shocking umpiring decisions on day one of the second Test between England and Sri Lanka, where does everyone see the standard of umpiring and where it will be at in 5-10 years?

Will we eventually see a time where there will be two umpires on the field, but they will just be there to single fours and sixes? Will every decision, no ball/wide call, etc go to the third umpire?

 

[Richard]

I hope there will be a time when almost every decision is correct. I hope this comes soon. However, it's very possible to do this in a manner which doesn't involve automatically the third Umpire making the decision. Some simple two-way communication between standing Umpires and Umpire watching the TV screen can ensure wrong decisions are a rarity, and can speed the process up. Will post properly on this later.

One thing I hope against hope doesn't happen is this referrals rubbish. Terrible way to ensure the right decisions are made.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I do have sympathy for umpires, keeping one's concentration all day in often hot & humid conditions is a tough gig, no doubt. They get most decisions right & fair play to them for that.

That said, cricket is a game of natural breaks in play anyway, so for crucial, potentially match-turning decisions (like KP's & Cook's wickets today and Sidebottom's in the first test) which could be easily confirmed/disavowed with reference to a tv replay, an extra 30 second pause is a price I'd be happy to pay.

On Sky's coverage over here Strauss & Key point out that often the third ump spends a fair bit of time deciding if a ball has gone for 4, which, when the batters have generally run 2 or 3 anyway, usually isn't anywhere near as crucial as a wicket-deciding decision. I think that for any decision where an umpire isn't sure he should be able to refer and if (like in rugby league) the tv camera footage isn't conclusive the TMO should be able to say "sorry, can't tell" and refer it back for the umpire's call.

 

[Richard]

We've had this one before, remember? About 3 years ago the ruling was changed from "can refer anything" relating to whether it carried to "can only refer if both were unsighted". And damn rightly, too. I lost count of the number of near-enough certain catches that were turned-down because the TV pictures couldn't provide conclusive evidence - of course they couldn't, they're about 3 times further away from most catches than the standing Umpires are.

It's quite right that TV pictures should not be consulted where the standing Umpire had a good view, because the standing Umpire's view will almost certainly be a superior one to the camera one. Too often doubt is cast by TV replays where there should be none.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's quite right that TV pictures should not be consulted where the standing Umpire had a good view, because the standing Umpire's view will almost certainly be a superior one to the camera one. Too often doubt is cast by TV replays where there should be none.

FFS. Do you even read what people write before replying?

I think that for any decision where an umpire isn't sure he should be able to refer and if (like in rugby league) the tv camera footage isn't conclusive the TMO should be able to say "sorry, can't tell" and refer it back for the umpire's call.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I do.

Very occasionally, that option was there. Never, so much as once, was it used. Always, the third-Umpire would say "doubt, so not out". Not "doubt, so back to you guys".

TBH, I reckon the likely outcome would be the standing Umpire making the referral, because there is doubt in his mind, getting the response "there's doubt in my mind too" and simply saying "not out". If this ever didn't happen on one occasion, I'm fairly sure there'd be the Ian Chappels of this World hurling vitriol along the lines of "he's referred, so he's in doubt, so why the hell is he now giving it out when even 1% of doubt absolutely must go to the batsmen".

I'm far happier with the odd bad decision like today if it's offset by a lack of 30 stupid things where a catch has fairly obviously been taken but is given not-out, which I was heartily sick of by the time that law was, thank God, amended.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes, I do.

Very occasionally, that option was there. Never, so much as once, was it used. Always, the third-Umpire would say "doubt, so not out". Not "doubt, so back to you guys".

TBH, I reckon the likely outcome would be the standing Umpire making the referral, because there is doubt in his mind, getting the response "there's doubt in my mind too" and simply saying "not out". If this ever didn't happen on one occasion, I'm fairly sure there'd be the Ian Chappels of this World hurling vitriol along the lines of "he's referred, so he's in doubt, so why the hell is he now giving it out when even 1% of doubt absolutely must go to the batsmen".

I'm far happier with the odd bad decision like today if it's offset by a lack of 30 stupid things where a catch has fairly obviously been taken but is given not-out, which I was heartily sick of by the time that law was, thank God, amended.

So it's your time-worn "opinions as facts" issue then, huh? Not implementing a law so as to not upset Chappelli & his crotchy ilk is thin, even by your standards.

Personally I don't ever recall one instance of the 3rd umpire referring a decision back to the standing umpires because he wasn't sure and I'm not even sure if the old laws allowed him to do it anyway. The doubt had to go to the batsman. Clearly, with the "foreshortening" problem that cameras have, catches are a seperate issue and I suspect the reason why the ruling was changed, but for line decisions (like Cook's today) the tv footage would've been able to show conclusively that not out was the correct decision. Moreover, with the technology there, I'd hope that umpires would use it if they had an iota of doubt. No one wants to see umpires made to look foolish.

 

[Richard]

So it's your time-worn "opinions as facts" issue then, huh?

Clarification of exactly which sentence you refer to, please.

Not implementing a law so as to not upset Chappelli & his crotchy ilk is thin, even by your standards.

Eh? Where was that remotely my suggestion? The point I was making is that the likes of Chappell would most likely upset the chance of the idea working. Commentators have a huge influence - if an Umpire is criticised by the likes of Chappell (and he almost always manages to get plenty of others on the bandwagon that one) he'll very possibly become reluctant to make a decision of that nature again, thereby rendering the idea pointless.

Personally I don't ever recall one instance of the 3rd umpire referring a decision back to the standing umpires because he wasn't sure and I'm not even sure if the old laws allowed him to do it anyway. The doubt had to go to the batsman.

I know you don't - as I said, there never was one, not once, this is what made it a complete waste of time to have the ruling. The old laws did allow it - though it wasn't always obvious that it was there, oddly (the only time it was obvious was when there was the red\green-light thing - this changed to red\green\white). Even on said occasions, no-one used it, they just said not-out where they couldn't give a definate out.

I'd be hugely in favour of the idea if it was used properly, but it wasn't and I don't see any reason to suspect it would be if it were to be tried again.

Clearly, with the "foreshortening" problem that cameras have, catches are a seperate issue and I suspect the reason why the ruling was changed

It's exactly the reason the ruling was changed, they specifically stated so when the change was made.

but for line decisions (like Cook's today) the tv footage would've been able to show conclusively that not out was the correct decision. Moreover, with the technology there, I'd hope that umpires would use it if they had an iota of doubt. No one wants to see umpires made to look foolish.

Yes, this is obvious - I've never said otherwise.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Clarification of exactly which sentence you refer to, please.

It's quite right that TV pictures should not be consulted where the standing Umpire had a good view, because the standing Umpire's view will almost certainly be a superior one to the camera one. Too often doubt is cast by TV replays where there should be none.

Eh? Where was that remotely my suggestion?

I'm fairly sure there'd be the Ian Chappels of this World hurling vitriol along the lines of "he's referred, so he's in doubt, so why the hell is he now giving it out when even 1% of doubt absolutely must go to the batsmen".

If you aren't suggesting it, why say it?

I'd be hugely in favour of the idea if it was used properly, but it wasn't and I don't see any reason to suspect it would be if it were to be tried again.

Ding, ding, ding.

That's my new "opinions presented as facts" alarm.

Because you don't see any reason is an absolutely horrible reason not to try. You're pre-supposing its failure and, worse, using your presumption to support your contention.

 

[Richard]

Of course I am - I'd not have made the contention if my pre-supposition didn't support it.

I'd be perfectly happy if the idea were tried and were successful - equally, I'd be delighted if some novel method for avoiding dropped catches was tried and was successful. Don't see that either are likely, though, for the reasons I mentioned.

I fail to see how I'm putting anything accross as fact, either - in the second I very obviously stated I'd not be in favour of it, not "it shouldn't be tried because I say so". In the first, all I stated was fact - the view of someone who's 30 yards from the event > that of something that's 90 yards from it. That's no opinion of mine, it's something which is very, very obvious.

If you aren't suggesting it, why say it?

What I did was give a reason why something was likely to be unsuccessful. I did not say "that ruling might upset Ian Chappell so we'd best not implement it". I said "the fact that the Ian Chappell types would criticise it might make it unlikely to be a success, because these people are influential".

 

[BoyBrumby]

Of course I am - I'd not have made the contention if my pre-supposition didn't support it.

But surely you, even you, must see that makes no sense?

Let's take it step by step:

Contention A: you don't think referrals to the 3rd umpire will work.

Evidence to support contention A: you don't see any reason to suspect referrals to the 3rd umpire would be successful.

It's a tautology; you're just repeating your own contention in a slightly different way. It's not any kind of argument. If I can make you understand that (and it's really easy) I'd feel my like my time on earth hasn't been entirely wasted.

I fail to see how I'm putting anything accross as fact, either - in the second I very obviously stated I'd not be in favour of it, not "it shouldn't be tried because I say so". In the first, all I stated was fact - the view of someone who's 30 yards from the event > that of something that's 90 yards from it. That's no opinion of mine, it's something which is very, very obvious.

Ding, ding, ding.

Not always, no. If it was, Harper wouldn't have got Cook's decision wrong when the camera, however much further away it was, was able to show he was mistaken.

So you might think it's something which is very, very obvious, but the reality is somewhat different. So we again must conclude that, yes, it is an opinion of yours.

What I did was give a reason why something was likely to be unsuccessful. I did not say "that ruling might upset Ian Chappell so we'd best not implement it". I said "the fact that the Ian Chappell types would criticise it might make it unlikely to be a success, because these people are influential".

That’s just a flat out lie. You said nothing of the kind:

I'm fairly sure there'd be the Ian Chappels of this World hurling vitriol along the lines of "he's referred, so he's in doubt, so why the hell is he now giving it out when even 1% of doubt absolutely must go to the batsmen".

 

[cover drive man]

Following the absolutely shocking umpiring decisions on day one of the second Test between England and Sri Lanka, where does everyone see the standard of umpiring and where it will be at in 5-10 years?

Will we eventually see a time where there will be two umpires on the field, but they will just be there to single fours and sixes? Will every decision, no ball/wide call, etc go to the third umpire?

Probably not it would severly reduce how much cricket is played in the space of the day I feel.

 

[silentstriker]

Two referrals per innings per team. Will remove the most shocking decisions.

 

[funnygirl]

Good suggestion there by SS .There is no other choice as the umpiring standards are going down day by day .

come on, Doctrove and Rudi in the elite panel?.

 

[Richard]

But surely you, even you, must see that makes no sense?

Let's take it step by step:

Contention A: you don't think referrals to the 3rd umpire will work.

Evidence to support contention A: you don't see any reason to suspect referrals to the 3rd umpire would be successful.

It's a tautology; you're just repeating your own contention in a slightly different way. It's not any kind of argument. If I can make you understand that (and it's really easy) I'd feel my like my time on earth hasn't been entirely wasted.

There's evidence, though, not just said belief of mine, to support said contention. I mentioned, very clearly, what it was that leads me to believe there's no reason to think refer-and-refer-back will work - the way things have happened in the past. At best, you can dispute that the evidence points to what I consider it points to - not that I'm fabricating evidence.

Ding, ding, ding.

Will you stop doing that - for one thing, I ain't got the foggiest WTF you're on about.

Not always, no. If it was, Harper wouldn't have got Cook's decision wrong when the camera, however much further away it was, was able to show he was mistaken.

So you might think it's something which is very, very obvious, but the reality is somewhat different. So we again must conclude that, yes, it is an opinion of yours.

If Harper had been watching with such slo-mos, mats, and all the things TV cameras have, he'd never, ever have given that out. Never. Equally, no-one would have been able to give a certain decision just by watching on TV in normal speed. No chance. And that's not opinion - it's as factual as anything will ever be.

It is, I repeat, not possible to see something clearer from 30 yards away compared to 90. Perhaps with the quid-quo-pro "if you're watching properly", though.

That’s just a flat out lie. You said nothing of the kind:

I said absolutely everything of the kind. I can't really make it any clearer. You have evidently misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[Richard]

Two referrals per innings per team. Will remove the most shocking decisions.

Yet, as I've said so many times, you can easily get rid of all obvious errors, and get a conclusive decision on all but the most inconclusive appeals, and not undermine the Umpire's authority, and not waste a load of time, by having a different system.

The "appeals" idea is an awful one for so many reasons.

 

[grecian]

Two referrals per innings per team. Will remove the most shocking decisions.

Agreed, seems fairly simple to me. Tennis rules isn't it, I don't follow the game that much? I also like the idea that if the appeal is substantiated you keep your referrals, after all England would be on their third by now

 

[NUFAN]

Good suggestion there by SS .There is no other choice as the umpiring standards are going down day by day .

come on, Doctrove and Rudi in the elite panel?.

I disagree. It's just the technology is getter better by the day.

And besides if he had of hit the ball on the ground it wouldn't have happened..

 

[NUFAN]

Agreed, seems fairly simple to me. Tennis rules isn't it, I don't follow the game that much? I also like the idea that if the appeal is substantiated you keep your referrals, after all England would be on their third by now

Nah In Tennis you can do three unsuccessful referrals each set.

 

[Jamee999]

Will you stop doing that - for one thing, I ain't got the foggiest WTF you're on about.

It's the opinions as facts alarm!

If Harper had seen that he'd have been able to tell it didn't carry. The only explanation for him giving it out is that he took the fielder's word having not watched properly.

Cook was the LBW. Pietersen was the dropped catch

It is, I repeat, not possible to see something clearer from 30 yards away compared to 90. Perhaps with the quid-quo-pro "if you're watching properly", though.

TV Cameras can...