Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[Attitude]

Do you agree?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've never agreed with umpires call or the concept of only overturning "howlers." If you're using technology just get the right decisions wherever possible. Any time a batsman is given out incorrectly is howler.

 

[cnerd123]

people who complain about umpires call usually don't understand why umpires call exist to begin with tbh

technology isn't perfect. Neither are humans. Do you rather we put decisions in the hand of imperfect machines or imperfect people? Myself, I'd pick the people.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Umpires call by its very nature is the kind of decision you shouldn't really have strong opinions on.

 

[Attitude]

people who complain about umpires call usually don't understand why umpires call exist to begin with tbh

technology isn't perfect. Neither are humans. Do you rather we put decisions in the hand of imperfect machines or imperfect people? Myself, I'd pick the people.

Well pick one. Either you trust technology or you don't. However, all decisions being uniform would be a welcome change from the current state of affairs.

Two balls could be pitching in the same place, hitting the pads on the same spot, kissing the stumps in the same spot and yet one could be out and the other not out, depending on the original decision. That is the kind of inconsistancy that makes me want to pull out my hair.

So umps. call has to go. After that treat the human word as final or the tech as final. But this inbetween nonsense if ridiculous.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

people who complain about umpires call usually don't understand why umpires call exist to begin with tbh

technology isn't perfect. Neither are humans. Do you rather we put decisions in the hand of imperfect machines or imperfect people? Myself, I'd pick the people.

If you’re saying the technology is inaccurate to the margins used in umpires call then they shouldn’t be using it. The reason for it is because they don’t like taking authority away from the on field umpires.

 

[Daemon]

This is because of the Roy LBW isn't it. That looked so plumb I was handing out high fives when they showed the front on spin vision.

Do you rather we put decisions in the hand of imperfect machines or imperfect people? Myself, I'd pick the people.

It really boils down to this, and I'd bet on the technology being right more often than the umpires.

 

[cnerd123]

Two balls could be pitching in the same place, hitting the pads on the same spot, kissing the stumps in the same spot

Actually if it's an umpires call decision, we don't actually know for sure if the ball would have hit the stumps or not. The technology is not perfect. That's the whole point.

I blame broadcasters, commentators and the TV graphics for all this. They should display the whole entire range of predicted possibilities for where the ball could pass the stumps on the screen, so the viewer can understand why you need more than half the ball hitting to be confident that the ball would have hit them.

 

[PikeyB]

If I had my way, I would make the 'Umpires Call' zone bigger ...or remove the right to review not-out LBW appeals . It's there for the howlers not as a tactical weapon .

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They’ve already made the change whereby the Review isn’t lost if it’s an umpires call. The next step will be to get rid of it.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

There is a margin of error to the technology. The technology can only say the ball would have passed through an area bigger than the ball itself. So when the technology shows the ball just clipping the stumps in the graphic what is being shown in the middle of the area where the ball could have passed. When enough of the area the ball could have passed through is outside the stumps so that the ball could have missed the stumps then the technology cannot be sure the ball was going to hit the stumps and the technology is put aside and the original decision of the umpire stands.
The only way to remove the so called umpires call is to either misrepresent the accuracy of the technology or do away with the technology entirely.

 

[cnerd123]

It really boils down to this, and I'd bet on the technology being right more often than the umpires.

It won't fix the crux of the issue would it though? This unrealistic expectation of perfect decisions, be it by a human or a machine, will never ever be met. There will always be borderline calls, and there will always be decisions that people don't agree with. You can try all you like to get closer to perfection, but you will not get it, and people who like to complain about it will keep doing so. This is a problem with no solution. We brought DRS in to make umpiring better, and it has worked, and yet people are angrier than ever before. What makes you think going full tech will make them any happier?

-----------------------------------

Now, if you will indulge me for a bit, i'll go on a rant. Skip this bit if you don't care.

I was speaking to Burgey about yesterday's game, and I was explaining to him why I'm not a big fan of DRS, mainly for three reasons:

1) players waste reviews all the time, and then fans and media complain about players being 'unlucky' when a call goes against them and their review was burned. DRS has created a whole new source of angst and self pitying.

2) people have gotten even angrier at umpires, and not because decision making has gone down since pre-technology days, but because errors are scrutinized to a greater degree than ever before. People didn't have computers and high tech cameras and the internet and fancy graphics to analyse every singe decision before. They'd see a batsman get out, and if they disagree, chalk it down to a tough decision and move on with their lives. That was a better time. Now this whole topic of umpiring has become the cesspool of negativity and toxicity wherein the match officials are now being perceived as holding the game back.

3) It's written in the spirit of cricket to respect the authority of the umpires, and DRS is literally the anthesis to this.

Match officials are humans and they make mistakes. Players make mistakes all the time too. Last night, CdG and Boult both made mistakes in taking catches, the one from Boult probably the one that cost them the game, yet these errors are getting less attention than those of the umpires. The number of errors in the game by all the players involved was huge. Think about all the miscued shots and fulltosses and fumbles on the field. These were mistakes. And yes, while the umpires were not great, they were still pretty damn good in comparison. But they don't get forgiven. People don't even understand the extent of the role of an umpire plays in the game, yet they're quick to condemn and criticize them.

Secondly, so many decisions this whole WC -and in the history of cricket, in general- have been judged incorrectly by people watching the game. Just read he match threads, twitter, even the live commentary. Heck, how many reviews have the players themselves gotten wrong? The umpires are making difficult calls out in the middle, and we can't get them 100%% right while sitting at home, watching on TV, with no external distractions and clearer view of the action, then why can't we cut umpires some slack when they get it wrong? This isn't umpiring so outrageously bad it makes you question if they're fixing the game (like we had in the 70s and 80s). These are understandable errors. If a player made an equivalent error while playing we'd forgive them, but in this new DRS culture, umpires get painted out as wildly incompetent for missing a thin edge or giving an LBW to a ball missing the stump by 5mm. It's so insane that we've now gotten to the point where we actually want to do away with them all together. It's so weird. Umpiring right now is the best it has ever been, but because we have easy access to their mistakes, we're also whinging about more than we ever have.

And ultimately, no matter how much you try to automate things, the human element will remain. There have been so many decisions that the third umpire, with all his tech, still can't figure out. We had one LBW call this WC itself where, even with benefit of the tech, we had no idea if it was bat first or pad. The third umpire had to decide using his own judgement, and people got mad. At the end of the day, a human being will have to make a call using his judgement at some point, and no matter what they decide, people will get mad. This is human nature. If the umpires were robots, people would complain about the people who built and programmed them. You're not going to solve this no matter how much you automate or bring tech in.

At the end of the day, there isn't actually a massive problem here that needs fixing. Games are not being won or loss solely on umpiring decisions. They may be a factor, but they will always be a factor. That is just what cricket is about. All sports suffer from this. The human element is part and parcel of sports, and it is what makes it beautiful.

Don't get me wrong - there are valid complaints, and I'm not trying to shut down all discussion on umpiring standards and processes. I just think we're going the wrong way when we think the solution to all this is to cut out humans all together.

 

[Uppercut]

It made sense to me when DRS first came in. Coming back to cricket after a while away it kind of just seems like bollocks. Hard to explain to non-cricket fans. "When the machine isn't sure they revert to the opinion of the two pensioners they've hired to stand next to the stumps."

 

[Groundking]

It won't fix the crux of the issue would it though? This unrealistic expectation of perfect decisions, be it by a human or a machine, will never ever be met. There will always be borderline calls, and there will always be decisions that people don't agree with. You can try all you like to get closer to perfection, but you will not get it, and people who like to complain about it will keep doing so. This is a problem with no solution. We brought DRS in to make umpiring better, and it has worked, and yet people are angrier than ever before. What makes you think going full tech will make them any happier?

-----------------------------------

Now, if you will indulge me for a bit, i'll go on a rant. Skip this bit if you don't care.

I was speaking to Burgey about yesterday's game, and I was explaining to him why I'm not a big fan of DRS, mainly for three reasons:

1) players waste reviews all the time, and then fans and media complain about players being 'unlucky' when a call goes against them and their review was burned. DRS has created a whole new source of angst and self pitying.

2) people have gotten even angrier at umpires, and not because decision making has gone down since pre-technology days, but because errors are scrutinized to a greater degree than ever before. People didn't have computers and high tech cameras and the internet and fancy graphics to analyse every singe decision before. They'd see a batsman get out, and if they disagree, chalk it down to a tough decision and move on with their lives. That was a better time. Now this whole topic of umpiring has become the cesspool of negativity and toxicity wherein the match officials are now being perceived as holding the game back.

3) It's written in the spirit of cricket to respect the authority of the umpires, and DRS is literally the anthesis to this.

Match officials are humans and they make mistakes. Players make mistakes all the time too. Last night, CdG and Boult both made mistakes in taking catches, the one from Boult probably the one that cost them the game, yet these errors are getting less attention than those of the umpires. The number of errors in the game by all the players involved was huge. Think about all the miscued shots and fulltosses and fumbles on the field. These were mistakes. And yes, while the umpires were not great, they were still pretty damn good in comparison. But they don't get forgiven. People don't even understand the extent of the role of an umpire plays in the game, yet they're quick to condemn and criticize them.

Secondly, so many decisions this whole WC -and in the history of cricket, in general- have been judged incorrectly by people watching the game. Just read he match threads, twitter, even the live commentary. Heck, how many reviews have the players themselves gotten wrong? The umpires are making difficult calls out in the middle, and we can't get them 100%% right while sitting at home, watching on TV, with no external distractions and clearer view of the action, then why can't we cut umpires some slack when they get it wrong? This isn't umpiring so outrageously bad it makes you question if they're fixing the game (like we had in the 70s and 80s). These are understandable errors. If a player made an equivalent error while playing we'd forgive them, but in this new DRS culture, umpires get painted out as wildly incompetent for missing a thin edge or giving an LBW to a ball missing the stump by 5mm. It's so insane that we've now gotten to the point where we actually want to do away with them all together. It's so weird. Umpiring right now is the best it has ever been, but because we have easy access to their mistakes, we're also whinging about more than we ever have.

And ultimately, no matter how much you try to automate things, the human element will remain. There have been so many decisions that the third umpire, with all his tech, still can't figure out. We had one LBW call this WC itself where, even with benefit of the tech, we had no idea if it was bat first or pad. The third umpire had to decide using his own judgement, and people got mad. At the end of the day, a human being will have to make a call using his judgement at some point, and no matter what they decide, people will get mad. This is human nature. If the umpires were robots, people would complain about the people who built and programmed them. You're not going to solve this no matter how much you automate or bring tech in.

At the end of the day, there isn't actually a massive problem here that needs fixing. Games are not being won or loss solely on umpiring decisions. They may be a factor, but they will always be a factor. That is just what cricket is about. All sports suffer from this. The human element is part and parcel of sports, and it is what makes it beautiful.

Don't get me wrong - there are valid complaints, and I'm not trying to shut down all discussion on umpiring standards and processes. I just think we're going the wrong way when we think the solution to all this is to cut out humans all together.

All this just seems to be a comminication failing with the public (commentators fault) combined with a dumb use of the tech by the players. Other than Dharmasena how often do the other 'elite' umpires legitimately make a stinker of a decision? Not often I would guess.

 

[Stefan9]

Yes. I rather trust the tech then the umpire. Get rid of umpires call. It's either out or not.

 

[Bijed]

Now, if you will indulge me for a bit, i'll go on a rant. Skip this bit if you don't care.

I was speaking to Burgey about yesterday's game, and I was explaining to him why I'm not a big fan of DRS, mainly for three reasons:

1) players waste reviews all the time, and then fans and media complain about players being 'unlucky' when a call goes against them and their review was burned. DRS has created a whole new source of angst and self pitying.

The player who has been sawn off in this scenario is unlucky, surely? I agree that teams/players still seem a bit too eager to gamble a review, though the recent umpires call changes have made this less problematic and moreso with bowling reviews, teams pretty much reap what they sow wrt to wasting reviews, then getting decisions go against them, but on a personal level, a batsman copping a howler (or any level of wrong decision really) and being unable to rectify it because someone else used a bad review earlier absolutely is unlucky and can justifiably feel so, though I'm by no means condoning, for example, Roy's reaction to being given out in the semi-final.

2) people have gotten even angrier at umpires, and not because decision making has gone down since pre-technology days, but because errors are scrutinized to a greater degree than ever before. People didn't have computers and high tech cameras and the internet and fancy graphics to analyse every singe decision before. They'd see a batsman get out, and if they disagree, chalk it down to a tough decision and move on with their lives. That was a better time. Now this whole topic of umpiring has become the cesspool of negativity and toxicity wherein the match officials are now being perceived as holding the game back.

You're right about the additional levels of scrutiny leading increased anger directed at umpires. and very much so with your 'cesspool of negativity and toxicity' comment, but with the internet being what it is, even if DRS wasn't a thing you'd still have people on various platforms posting vitriol about incorrect decisions. I can sort of see that if the technology flat out didn't exist, rather than being there but as it was pre-reviews, people might feel less validated in some of the things they say on twitter or whatever and might hold their tongue more often as a result, but you'd probably also get loads of futile arguments based on millions of peoples own (quite possibly biased) speculation and interpretation. The problem is the internet here, as your most visible protagonists in this sort of thing rarely seem willing to 'chalk it down to a tough decision and move on with their lives', even though everyone would be much happier if they did.

3) It's written in the spirit of cricket to respect the authority of the umpires, and DRS is literally the anthesis to this.

You're correct wrt to the written into the spirit of cricket thing, but I don't agree that DRS needs to be the antithesis to this. Our differing views on this stem from, I imagine, different interpretations of 'respect the authority of umpires' and yours is more likely to be legally correct, since you know your stuff with all this. But if the game is still fundmentally basing itself around the tenet of never questioning the umpires, then I think that needs to change. Certainly, I would never condone (though I can understand) verbal on-field dissent, but I just don't agree that an official, (ideally) robust process for questioning individual, specific decisions made by umpires should be viewed in any way as disrespecting them.

Match officials are humans and they make mistakes.... People don't even understand the extent of the role of an umpire plays in the game, yet they're quick to condemn and criticize them. ... Secondly, so many decisions this whole WC -and in the history of cricket, in general- have been judged incorrectly by people watching the game... in this new DRS culture, umpires get painted out as wildly incompetent for missing a thin edge or giving an LBW to a ball missing the stump by 5mm.

All good and correct points imo. Sadly, humans, especially on the internet, will often lose their sense of perspective with these things, and I'm as guilty as anyone here (though I like ot think I mostly keep it off this forum)

And ultimately, no matter how much you try to automate things, the human element will remain. There have been so many decisions that the third umpire, with all his tech, still can't figure out. We had one LBW call this WC itself where, even with benefit of the tech, we had no idea if it was bat first or pad. The third umpire had to decide using his own judgement, and people got mad. At the end of the day, a human being will have to make a call using his judgement at some point, and no matter what they decide, people will get mad. This is human nature. If the umpires were robots, people would complain about the people who built and programmed them. You're not going to solve this no matter how much you automate or bring tech in.

Right again, though I view minimising the scope for human error causing controversy to be a very worthy goal

At the end of the day, there isn't actually a massive problem here that needs fixing. Games are not being won or loss solely on umpiring decisions.

Don't really agree here tbh. Yes, umpiring mistakes are rarely 100% the reason behind a result going a particular way (and it's impossible to say how a match might have unfolded subsequently had one not occurred), but when they do happen, such mistakes are a massive problem imo. In the match yesterday, England definitely had the rub of the green in this respect and whilst you can't say for certain they'd have lost otherwise, I think a reasonable assessment on the balance of probablities would reach this conclusion. When you say 'games are not being won or loss solely on umpiring decisions', yes, in any tight contest you can point to any number of specific moments, Boult on the boundary for example, as being the difference between the two sides, in sports, players and teams should live and die, so to speak, on the strength of such moments and whilst I agree that people should generally make peace with the fact that officiating decisions can and will go against them, that doesn't in any way 'legitimise' them.

Actually if it's an umpires call decision, we don't actually know for sure if the ball would have hit the stumps or not. The technology is not perfect. That's the whole point.

I blame broadcasters, commentators and the TV graphics for all this. They should display the whole entire range of predicted possibilities for where the ball could pass the stumps on the screen, so the viewer can understand why you need more than half the ball hitting to be confident that the ball would have hit them.

Would like to see this

 

[AndrewB]

Actually if it's an umpires call decision, we don't actually know for sure if the ball would have hit the stumps or not. The technology is not perfect. That's the whole point.

I blame broadcasters, commentators and the TV graphics for all this. They should display the whole entire range of predicted possibilities for where the ball could pass the stumps on the screen, so the viewer can understand why you need more than half the ball hitting to be confident that the ball would have hit them.

They could change the rules so that if (according to the best technology) there's a 50% chance that the batsmen should have been given out, then from that point on each of his runs only counts as half a run.

 

[Flem274*]

people who complain about umpires call usually don't understand why umpires call exist to begin with tbh

technology isn't perfect. Neither are humans. Do you rather we put decisions in the hand of imperfect machines or imperfect people? Myself, I'd pick the people.

hawkeye > dharmasena (and in the case i suspect this refers to, erasmus)

 

[slippy888]

hawkeye > dharmasena (and in the case i suspect this refers to, erasmus)

Flem I never see your feedback about the final yesterday, what your thoughts.

 

[Flem274*]

It won't fix the crux of the issue would it though? This unrealistic expectation of perfect decisions, be it by a human or a machine, will never ever be met. There will always be borderline calls, and there will always be decisions that people don't agree with. You can try all you like to get closer to perfection, but you will not get it, and people who like to complain about it will keep doing so. This is a problem with no solution. We brought DRS in to make umpiring better, and it has worked, and yet people are angrier than ever before. What makes you think going full tech will make them any happier?

-----------------------------------

Now, if you will indulge me for a bit, i'll go on a rant. Skip this bit if you don't care.

I was speaking to Burgey about yesterday's game, and I was explaining to him why I'm not a big fan of DRS, mainly for three reasons:

1) players waste reviews all the time, and then fans and media complain about players being 'unlucky' when a call goes against them and their review was burned. DRS has created a whole new source of angst and self pitying.

2) people have gotten even angrier at umpires, and not because decision making has gone down since pre-technology days, but because errors are scrutinized to a greater degree than ever before. People didn't have computers and high tech cameras and the internet and fancy graphics to analyse every singe decision before. They'd see a batsman get out, and if they disagree, chalk it down to a tough decision and move on with their lives. That was a better time. Now this whole topic of umpiring has become the cesspool of negativity and toxicity wherein the match officials are now being perceived as holding the game back.

3) It's written in the spirit of cricket to respect the authority of the umpires, and DRS is literally the anthesis to this.

Match officials are humans and they make mistakes. Players make mistakes all the time too. Last night, CdG and Boult both made mistakes in taking catches, the one from Boult probably the one that cost them the game, yet these errors are getting less attention than those of the umpires. The number of errors in the game by all the players involved was huge. Think about all the miscued shots and fulltosses and fumbles on the field. These were mistakes. And yes, while the umpires were not great, they were still pretty damn good in comparison. But they don't get forgiven. People don't even understand the extent of the role of an umpire plays in the game, yet they're quick to condemn and criticize them.

Secondly, so many decisions this whole WC -and in the history of cricket, in general- have been judged incorrectly by people watching the game. Just read he match threads, twitter, even the live commentary. Heck, how many reviews have the players themselves gotten wrong? The umpires are making difficult calls out in the middle, and we can't get them 100%% right while sitting at home, watching on TV, with no external distractions and clearer view of the action, then why can't we cut umpires some slack when they get it wrong? This isn't umpiring so outrageously bad it makes you question if they're fixing the game (like we had in the 70s and 80s). These are understandable errors. If a player made an equivalent error while playing we'd forgive them, but in this new DRS culture, umpires get painted out as wildly incompetent for missing a thin edge or giving an LBW to a ball missing the stump by 5mm. It's so insane that we've now gotten to the point where we actually want to do away with them all together. It's so weird. Umpiring right now is the best it has ever been, but because we have easy access to their mistakes, we're also whinging about more than we ever have.

And ultimately, no matter how much you try to automate things, the human element will remain. There have been so many decisions that the third umpire, with all his tech, still can't figure out. We had one LBW call this WC itself where, even with benefit of the tech, we had no idea if it was bat first or pad. The third umpire had to decide using his own judgement, and people got mad. At the end of the day, a human being will have to make a call using his judgement at some point, and no matter what they decide, people will get mad. This is human nature. If the umpires were robots, people would complain about the people who built and programmed them. You're not going to solve this no matter how much you automate or bring tech in.

At the end of the day, there isn't actually a massive problem here that needs fixing. Games are not being won or loss solely on umpiring decisions. They may be a factor, but they will always be a factor. That is just what cricket is about. All sports suffer from this. The human element is part and parcel of sports, and it is what makes it beautiful.

Don't get me wrong - there are valid complaints, and I'm not trying to shut down all discussion on umpiring standards and processes. I just think we're going the wrong way when we think the solution to all this is to cut out humans all together.

this is all just absolute ****. show me the evidence hawkeye is less accurate than a couple of chumps.

erasmus was so bad last night it was like he was on the take, and i accused him of such many times i think