-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, Hawkeye got pissed at tea, obviously high imo from side on shot.
Still, Doctrove = bowler's nightmare.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
HawkEye doesn't get pissed, it's even more reliable than the side-on shot, from which I thought there was a modicum of a chance it was high.
Clearly would've been given out if TV umpires could study the replay - and didn't have to overturn a n\o decision, obviously. As it is, Katich gets lucky and the game moves on.
Clearly would've been given out if TV umpires could study the replay - and didn't have to overturn a n\o decision, obviously. As it is, Katich gets lucky and the game moves on.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
It's not infallible though. It has a very considerable margin of error which isn't admitted to by the TV graphics.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Looked dead in the water to me - obviously Burgey has the benefit of a special soap based product, denied to those of us in England, with which he washed his eyes out before watching the replay
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Eyes? Controversial use of the plural.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, tbf it's 2 am here and at my age things get foggy after two late nights in a row. Bit of a worry with Doctrove if he got it wrong - two in two days.
Happy to concede if there's an error in our favour, but I genuinely thought it was close but arguably high when 1st saw it, and the side-on shot confirmed that to me.
Will have another look at it when they show it again (and they will).
Happy to concede if there's an error in our favour, but I genuinely thought it was close but arguably high when 1st saw it, and the side-on shot confirmed that to me.
Will have another look at it when they show it again (and they will).
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
[Sarcasm.jpeg]
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Humour sends Xmas cards to Dicko and cheerfully waves at him, but he always fails to recognise it. Embarrassing for both parties.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
All the same, I'd trust something that tries to predict over something that doesn't. HawkEye is, obviously, not infallible, but you didn't need HawkEye to see that that was pretty out.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's, obviously, wrong - you'd have to be fairly stupid, in truth, to think I didn't realise that was a joke \ piece of sarcasm - but naturally for some every opportunity must be taken.
Humour sends Xmas cards to Dicko and cheerfully waves at him, but he always fails to recognise it. Embarrassing for both parties.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The side-on shot shows the ball hitting the back leg after it's hit the front leg - thus it seems far higher than it actually was.
That's what I do not understand about HawkEye. It should be fairly easy to make a probability graph instead of a "point" estimate of the ball's trajectory. That would immediately kill off all the talk about HE's suspected margin of error and would show these tight lbw's for what they are. You could even use the old statistical cut-off of 95% likelihood to base your decisions on..
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Source?
Katich's was a mistake, because in hindsight it was out. But it didn't really look out. Of the three lbw mistakes, i think that's the one that I would have made too.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Cardiff University study.
The makers of the system admit to 3.6mm, but the study suggests the actual margin might be higher. Law 5 says a cricket ball must be no more than 229mm in circumference, which means a diameter of roughly 73mm, so it's roughly 5% if 3.6mm in accurate.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Katich was definitely out for mine.
There was also an LBW shout late in the England innings that was totally dead and was given not out. IIRC it was Hilfenhaus bowling, but I can't remember the batsman.
The umpires have been very reticent with LBWs in general, I'd say at least five could have been given out reasonably and haven't.
edit: This one:
97.5 Hilfenhaus to Anderson, no run, big shout - that's dead close as it moves back at the last moment but the umpire says no. How is that not-out? Pitched in line and looked like it was taking out middle-and-off
There was also an LBW shout late in the England innings that was totally dead and was given not out. IIRC it was Hilfenhaus bowling, but I can't remember the batsman.
The umpires have been very reticent with LBWs in general, I'd say at least five could have been given out reasonably and haven't.
edit: This one:
97.5 Hilfenhaus to Anderson, no run, big shout - that's dead close as it moves back at the last moment but the umpire says no. How is that not-out? Pitched in line and looked like it was taking out middle-and-off
Last edited:
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That one actually pitched outside leg, Hawkeye showed.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Hawkeye showed it pitching on the outside of leg stump actually. That was obviously the justification for giving it not out, but it definitely pitched in line, albeit only just. If we're taking Hawkeye as the ultimate arbiter of what is an umpiring error and what isn't (rather than making a subjective call about whether or not it should have been given out), it was a mistake.
Understandable decision live though.
Understandable decision live though.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What did the non-virtual version show?