The last Ashes without referrals – a running tally of umpiring errors

[zaremba]

Source?

A guy I know who works on radars at Australian military installations who goes on and on about this and knows the chap who invented the system. So it's anecdotal, but as anecdotes go it's pretty convincing (if rather dull, tbh).

If I can, I will ask him for chapter and verse and post it here.

 

[zaremba]

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.

But this is margin of error as to the actual point where the ball pitched. It doesn't relate to the predicted path of the ball had it not hit the batsman's body. Which must surely be vastly less reliable and carry a serious health warning.

Having said all of which, I almost always find Hawkeye's predictions to be pretty darned convincing and I'd take a Hawkeye prediction, inaccurate though it may be, over an umpire's guess every time.

 

[superkingdave]

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.

When they showed a slow motion replay of the ball pitching(and paused it as it pitched) it was about 52% outside the line and 48% inside the line. The law says at least half of the ball has to pitch in line, so it was the correct decision according to the laws.

Wouldn't have given the Katich one either, but mainly because when watching it I thought it went straight on to the back pad.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Botham made a good point (!), that how on earth are umpires meant to know whether half the ball is over the line of the stumps or not? I mean, if it took the commentators several slowed-down versions with the red stripe to determine it, what chance do the umpires have in real time?

 

[GIMH]

Eyes? Controversial use of the plural.

If we still had a 'skull' round here - this would take it

 

[marc71178]

Having said all of which, I almost always find Hawkeye's predictions to be pretty darned convincing and I'd take a Hawkeye prediction, inaccurate though it may be, over an umpire's guess every time.

I'm assuming it's improved in the past 4 years, but ever since Hawkeye showed that Warne didn't bowl Strauss, I've been less than impressed with it.

 

[Richard]

When did it do that?

The only thing from 2005 I remember HawkEye doing which damaged its own credibility was refusing to register the ball from Warne that turned about a mile into Trescothick at The Oval - I forget whether it was the ball that actually had him lbw or the previous one that turned so much Aleem Dar or whoever it was said he couldn't be sure.

 

[Top_Cat]

When did it do that?

The only thing from 2005 I remember HawkEye doing which damaged its own credibility was refusing to register the ball from Warne that turned about a mile into Trescothick at The Oval - I forget whether it was the ball that actually had him lbw or the previous one that turned so much Aleem Dar or whoever it was said he couldn't be sure.

He's talking about the ball that bowled Strauss behind his legs at Edgbaston. Hawkeye showed the ball missing leg-stump.

 

[Richard]

Really? Don't remember that.

 

[Uppercut]

What did the non-virtual version show?

That it pitched outside leg. It had the blue carpet thingy superimposed on and the middle of the ball was just outside leg when it landed.

 

[Steulen]

Another decent shout turned down, HawkEye showing it would have hit leg stump full ball.

 

[Uppercut]

One of the close fielders shouting "catch it!" can't have helped with that shout.

 

[Burgey]

That it pitched outside leg. It had the blue carpet thingy superimposed on and the middle of the ball was just outside leg when it landed.

Should paint a blue strip down the middle of each pitch imo. Sure it'll make the ball skid, but at least we'l see where the ball pitches all the time

 

[GIMH]

Nah, should make the wicket out of sand so that the ball leaves a mark like in the Long Jump

 

[Steulen]

Nah, should make the wicket out of sand so that the ball leaves a mark like in the Long Jump

They tried that at Sabina Park. Wasn't a success IIRC.

 

[Burgey]

Change the colour of the ball to green. More of a challenge for the batsmen and the replay-watchers.

Or, have paint on it, so when it hits the deck it leaves a mark.

 

[Furball]

They tried that at Sabina Park. Wasn't a success IIRC.

You mean the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium?

 

[Steulen]

You mean the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium?

F***. That one, yeah.

 

[Richard]

TBF, there wasn't a lot of sand on the actual pitch, was just the outfield.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

First incorrect "out" decision for the series. Bopara's LBW to Hilfenhaus was a bit high.