The future of umpiring?

[Richard]

Remind me then - how do the things work? It is really impossible to develop them so that there is only a small area in the sensitive spot? The human stride is a big enough thing, even for those with small delivery-strides - and obviously the "sound" would be sounded for a no-ball, not a legitimate delivery. Ergo, you simply need a small area which the foot has to land in (and if the bowler's bowling from miles behind that, a rare enough instance, you just switch it off - and you don't need to look closely to see whether a bowler is moving from miles behind the popping-crease to somewhere near it) and if it doesn't, the noise sounds in the Umpire's ear and no-ball is called.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I guess one potential difference is that with tennis, the sound is made when the ball lands in a certain area. In cricket, we'll want the sound when the foot doesn't land in a certain area. Unless the rule was changed somehow, and maybe you weren't allowed to have your foot touching the line, then the basic premise of Cyclops would need to be reworked for cricketing purposes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Remind me then - how do the things work? It is really impossible to develop them so that there is only a small area in the sensitive spot? The human stride is a big enough thing, even for those with small delivery-strides - and obviously the "sound" would be sounded for a no-ball, not a legitimate delivery. Ergo, you simply need a small area which the foot has to land in (and if the bowler's bowling from miles behind that, a rare enough instance, you just switch it off - and you don't need to look closely to see whether a bowler is moving from miles behind the popping-crease to somewhere near it) and if it doesn't, the noise sounds in the Umpire's ear and no-ball is called.

The sensitive area is beyond the line and anything crossing it will set it off. In tennis you just have a ball but in cricket you don't just have a front foot, you have the rest of the body. The foot also doesn't have to be grounded on the line, it can be in the air above the line and still not be a no ball.
Someone somewhere might be able to come up with something but the tennis cyclops is no where near it.

 

[Richard]

Obviously it doesn't have to be an exact tennis-style cyclops. As I said, though - I find it inconceivable that it wouldn't be possible to design something relatively inexpensive that would do the required job.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, the umpire does not or should not have any authority. He's a guy thats there to make sure everything is going smoothly - this authority business is crap.

 

[Richard]

In order to make sure things are going smoothly, authority is required.

 

[silentstriker]

In order to make sure things are going smoothly, authority is required.

Nope, disagree. Doesn't work like that in other sports.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What I'm on about is that the camera, in itself, is not better than something 60 yards closer when the two are equal.

The fact that it can give better observations with an lbw decision with slo-mos and all sorts of other aids doesn't prove anything. Until you can get cameras hovering over the slips and in the ring, the Umpire is always in a better position to see a catch there than a camera way outside the boundary.

Again, what are you on about?They aren't equal, that's the point. TV replays are better precisely because they can be run at slower speeds and frozen.

Catches are, due to the foreshortening problem, a separate issue. For line judgements like front foot no-balls and where a ball has pitched a camera is demonstrably better.

I personally don't have any issue with catches being referred too, with the cavet that if they can't show definitively the call should be the umpires' to make. Catches are more of a grey area though and it is a shame we no longer seem able to take a player's word for it.

 

[Richard]

Nope, disagree. Doesn't work like that in other sports.

Cricket isn't another sport, it's cricket. There are several things unique to this game.

 

[Richard]

Again, what are you on about?They aren't equal, that's the point. TV replays are better precisely because they can be run at slower speeds and frozen.

Catches are, due to the foreshortening problem, a separate issue. For line judgements like front foot no-balls and where a ball has pitched a camera is demonstrably better.

Of course it is. This is not the issue at stake, though - all which has been rallied between the two of us so far this thread relates to catches.

I personally don't have any issue with catches being referred too, with the cavet that if they can't show definitively the call should be the umpires' to make. Catches are more of a grey area though and it is a shame we no longer seem able to take a player's word for it.

Personally I'd be happier for the benefit of the doubt to go to the fielder; unless there's conclusive evidence it didn't carry, out.

As I said - once a decision is referred from third-Umpire back to standing-Umpires, I can only foresee the decision being n\o.

 

[silentstriker]

Cricket isn't another sport, it's cricket. There are several things unique to this game.

Doesn't mean those things are good, or necessary.

 

[Richard]

Does IMO. It's the way it's always been done, and without very good reason to change it (which there isn't) there's no reason at all to take the risks of doing so.

As I said - what matters is getting the right decisions. You of times seem more interested in taking the authority away from the Umpires than getting right decisions.

What's more, the international level is not the only one. Any change must be possible to apply as far down in the game as possible.

 

[slugger]

if they can use technology to decide upon a successful boundry or unsuccessful then they can use it for every other decision.. honestly how many test matches have gone down to to 4 runs being the difference of winng and losing..

all those wrong decisions that appear to be increasing only demonstrate how many there have always been in a game... technology has improved thus hilighting these inconsistency..

the icc can not continue to ignore this blight on the game...history and tradition or "thats the way it is" is unacceptable and it wont sustain in the modern life..

 

[silentstriker]

Does IMO. It's the way it's always been done,

So?

and without very good reason to change it (which there isn't)

You mean having a fairer game is not a good reason?

You of times seem more interested in taking the authority away from the Umpires than getting right decisions.

Nah, but I would say I am probably still very interested in doing that. There is an unhealthy obsession with the authority of an umpire in cricket.

 

[Richard]

So?

So, what I said in the following sentence.

You mean having a fairer game is not a good reason?

No, it's not, because that's achievable without said undermining.

Nah, but I would say I am probably still very interested in doing that. There is an unhealthy obsession with the authority of an umpire in cricket.

There's far, far more I'd want to worry about than said perception of an unhealthy obsession.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Of course it is. This is not the issue at stake, though - all which has been rallied between the two of us so far this thread relates to catches.

**** me gently. You are seriously taking the piss.

Now I know you don't read other people's posts.

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.

 

[Dasa]

Nah, but I would say I am probably still very interested in doing that. There is an unhealthy obsession with the authority of an umpire in cricket.

Agreed.

 

[Craig]

I'm getting tired of this 'facts as opinions' BS, it is not as though other people don't do it, and yet it is Richard he is the target. Some people should look to get over themselves.

 

[Smudge]

I'm getting tired of this 'facts as opinions' BS, it is not as though other people don't do it, and yet it is Richard he is the target. Some people should look to get over themselves.

Is your post fact or opinion?

 

[Richard]

**** me gently.

No thanks.

You are seriously taking the piss.

Nope.

Now I know you don't read other people's posts.

Wrong.