A leap of faith in technology

[zaremba]

There is an irony with his example.

Yes, as he puts it, "that would be classic"...

I can imagine him watching a team unable to make a 4th referral, rubbing his hands gleefully and chuckling to himself - "This is classic! The irony!"

On a slightly different note, the 3 referrals actually seem to work quite well (albeit with a simpler system) in tennis. The players know that they can't afford to make frivolous referrals, and I'm sure they must whinge less than before about decisions going against them, although I have to admit that I don't watch enough tennis to know for sure.

 

[zaremba]

I seem to remember referrals being tried once before but the third umpire could only answer the exact question, ie if the batsman hadn't actually edged the ball but the catch was referred on the basis of it not carrying, the 3U had to give it out if it had carried, because he could only comment explicitly on why it was referred.

I have two questions:

1-am I making the above up?
2-Will this be the case this time?

Not sure - good question.

As I understand it, in rugby the video ref is meant to answer the specific question asked of him. However that question is sometimes asked very broadly, ie "is there any reason I can't give that try?"

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I seem to remember referrals being tried once before but the third umpire could only answer the exact question, ie if the batsman hadn't actually edged the ball but the catch was referred on the basis of it not carrying, the 3U had to give it out if it had carried, because he could only comment explicitly on why it was referred.

I have two questions:

1-am I making the above up?
2-Will this be the case this time?

You're not making it up entirely. There was a case in Sri Lanka in 2001 where Nassar Hussain caught Russell Arnold at slip but both umpires were unsighted so they called for a reply. The replay clearly showed that Arnold didn't hit it but the third umpire was only allowed to judge whether the catch had been taken and had to give him out when he knew he wasn't. By referring it the on field umpires had already incorrectly decided that he'd hit it.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, as he puts it, "that would be classic"...

I can imagine him watching a team unable to make a 4th referral, rubbing his hands gleefully and chuckling to himself - "This is classic! The irony!"

On a slightly different note, the 3 referrals actually seem to work quite well (albeit with a simpler system) in tennis. The players know that they can't afford to make frivolous referrals, and I'm sure they must whinge less than before about decisions going against them, although I have to admit that I don't watch enough tennis to know for sure.

It's late night and in general, no one is agreeing with me lately, but are you?

I meant to say, that had there been no referral the same poor call could happen anyway, couldn't it? At least with the 3 referrals there are chances of that not happening.

 

[zaremba]

It's late night and in general, no one is agreeing with me lately, but are you?

I meant to say, that had there been no referral the same poor call could happen anyway, couldn't it? At least with the 3 referrals there are chances of that not happening.

Yes I agree with that 100%.

I'm not sure if the point you're making has passed chappelli by, but it seems to be a fairly conclusive answer to what he's saying.

 

[Richard]

You're not making it up entirely. There was a case in Sri Lanka in 2001 where Nassar Hussain caught Russell Arnold at slip but both umpires were unsighted so they called for a reply. The replay clearly showed that Arnold didn't hit it but the third umpire was only allowed to judge whether the catch had been taken and had to give him out when he knew he wasn't. By referring it the on field umpires had already incorrectly decided that he'd hit it.

And on the next tour, there was an almost complete inverse of this when Collingwood was incorrectly adjudged to have edged Muralitharan to (IIRR) silly-point (I forget who the fielder was, probably Jayawardene or Tillikaratne) and the catch was referred. It had carried cleanly, but this time the third-Umpire decided to give it not-out thus "straying beyond his brief" as whoever described it in Wisden put it but getting the decision correct.

 

[Richard]

Should've allowed hotspot IMO. Don't see how it can't be considered foolproof or useful.

Agree with this, and throw in Snicko there as well. Snicko is incredibly useful, though obviously not foolproof, in deciding edges, while as far as I know, Hotspot is pretty much 100% right.

Absolutely. Snicko and HotSpot are both completely foolproof. They reveal facts - unlike HawkEye which merely predicts a probability. There is no reason why both should not be used if TV replays are to be used. If they can't help (and that's going to be damn rare) then they certainly can't hinder. They certainly can't make something which is out appear not-out, or vice-versa.

If it takes 15 seconds to get them on the screen, so be it. It's more than worth it for the chance to either make sure or find-out.

 

[zaremba]

If it takes 15 seconds to get them on the screen, so be it. It's more than worth it for the chance to either make sure or find-out.

I agree. I think that time estimate may be more realistic for Hotspot than Snicko though - I think with Snicko it's a bit longer than that, but I'm not sure precisely how much.

 

[Uppercut]

"Umpires have been around umpiring cricket far longer than Hawk-Eye has existed. Umpires know the bounce, length and height of the pitches they officiate on. I would back any umpire to make more accurate lbw decisions than Hawk-Eye, whether they are 5' or 6'6" tall. Umpires [on the field] will always be in the best position to adjudicate on lbws."
Billy Bowden feels technology can't replace umpires yet, at least for lbws

Billy Bowden is arrogant. It doesn't matter how often you see a ball hit someone's pads, you'll never learn to have a better idea of whether it was going on to hit the stumps. Hawk-eye looks at the swing on the ball, its projection, speed, direction, everything modern physics can establish that would help in the determination of where a ball would have gone had it not stopped. Billy thinks he can, just by looking at balls hitting pads a lot, determine where they might have gone if they hadnt. In reality, i don't believe anybody can estimate an lbw decision better than Hawkeye can.



P.S. Whether it should be used or not is a totally different matter.

 

[tooextracool]

Its about time the referral process has been taken on board. Personally, I dont think catches should be referred to the third umpire given that the third umpire has even less of a chance to spot a mistake than the umpire on the field. Personally, Id much rather trust the word of a fielder because barring the odd exception on the whole that system is the most accurate. In the event of a blatantly obvious mistake ( such as ABD and Rashid Latif) the third umpire should be allowed to intervene to call a batsman back.

 

[tooextracool]

I agree. I think that time estimate may be more realistic for Hotspot than Snicko though - I think with Snicko it's a bit longer than that, but I'm not sure precisely how much.

Snicko is the least accurate out of all the technological gadgets that have been tried. There have been many many occasions when Snicko has registered edges when bat has come nowhere near ball and equally there has been occasions when snicko has registered sounds when the ball has gone well past the bat. I dont think Snicko is reliable enough to be used. In terms of reliability Hawk-eye is right far far more often than any umpire around the world and I have no issues with Hot Spot thus far either.

 

[Craig]

As I've said before - utterly unneccessary idea, borne purely out of laziness from people who can't be bothered to make the effort of thinking of better proposals.

Absolutely ridiculous that the thing which should have had technology\video used to perfect it first (the calling of front-foot no-balls) has STILL not been put into execution.

Hope this system falls flat on its face and we return to the old only to eventually get the most ideal system of all.

And what is the idea system you speak of? Geniune question since you brought it up and I'm interested. Agree about the no-ball thing though.

 

[Dissector]

One thing that occurred to me after watching the first review today: why not give the on-field umpires portable devices so that they can view the evidence themselves. If they make the final decision, might as well show them the relevant footage instead of having a third umpire describe it. It will probably make for quicker decisions too.

 

[Top_Cat]

One thing that occurred to me after watching the first review today: why not give the on-field umpires portable devices so that they can view the evidence themselves. If they make the final decision, might as well show them the relevant footage instead of having a third umpire describe it. It will probably make for quicker decisions too.

I'd assume the resolution on portable devices would be crap. Plus, there'd be issues of rewind/fast foward being better on a local system, etc.

 

[Dissector]

Resolution is improving rapidly though and the ICC can easily afford high-end customized devices for test matches. It shouldn't be that difficult to add in an interface allowing the on-field umpire to do replays,rewinds etc. Plus you could still have a third umpire if necessary.

 

[adharcric]

Do you think on-field umpires might tend towards not overruling the initial decision due to the natural inclination to make yourself look good? That said, you'd look pretty shady if you screwed it up the second time around too.

 

[Dissector]

If the video evidence is clear, it would be very foolish for umpires to ignore the evidence and stick to their decision. In any case the decision lies with the on-field umpire; giving him a video device would just help him make the decision more accurately and quickly.

 

[Richard]

Snicko is the least accurate out of all the technological gadgets that have been tried. There have been many many occasions when Snicko has registered edges when bat has come nowhere near ball and equally there has been occasions when snicko has registered sounds when the ball has gone well past the bat. I dont think Snicko is reliable enough to be used. In terms of reliability Hawk-eye is right far far more often than any umpire around the world and I have no issues with Hot Spot thus far either.

It hasn't registered edges - it's registered sounds. Snicko isn't designed purely to capture cricket sounds. If you stand by the stump-mic and tap your foot, that'll register on Snicko too.

Generally, use of Snicko in conjunction with TV pictures, provided they're exactly synchronised obviously, will be able to tell you whether there was an edge or not, whether bat hit ground or pad, ball hit pad, etc.

 

[Richard]

Do you think on-field umpires might tend towards not overruling the initial decision due to the natural inclination to make yourself look good? That said, you'd look pretty shady if you screwed it up the second time around too.

Better idea - just don't make the decision until you've looked at the replay. You don't need to correct a mistake if you don't make one.

 

[Richard]

And what is the idea system you speak of? Geniune question since you brought it up and I'm interested. Agree about the no-ball thing though.

Broadly speaking, pretty similar to the idea described by Dissector. However, if such small-screens are not available, simply wire-up all four Umpires (and Match-Referee) so they can communicate instantly, and when an appeal goes up, the standing-Umpire can ask the third-Umpire "what'd'you think?" The third-Umpire can then quickly check.

Saves time, means the incorrect decision is virtually eliminated, and retains the authority of the Umpire, which whatever certain Americans might think, would be a massive plus. IOW, far better than the crap we've got now in every way.