Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[Daemon]

Tech first. What I’m not satisfied with is the 50% rule on umpires call rule being largely arbitrary.

Imagine a scenario where you’re struck literally an inch in front of the stumps and it’s clearly hitting the top of middle. The umpire gives it not out and can’t overturn the decision because only 40% of the ball is smashing the top of off.

Either factor the margins of error in a proper manner or don’t do it at all.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea so see I don't think they'll ever be able to factor in error margins of technology to a degree where you would be happy about it. That's where I'm coming from. If they fix this, there will be something else that needs fixing, and then something else, and then something else.

It is much easier when you trust the humans to be competent and leave it at that.

I'm all for giving the umpires access to all this tech to help them make their decision btw. And if that means a WC final goes at an overrate of 10 overs per hour, so be it.

 

[Daemon]

Yea so see I don't think they'll ever be able to factor in error margins of technology to a degree where you would be happy about it. That's where I'm coming from. If they fix this, there will be something else that needs fixing, and then something else, and then something else.

It is much easier when you trust the humans to be competent and leave it at that.

If they can’t factor them in then don’t. It’s much easier to trust the technology without the umps call than to trust humans.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No one has ever trusted humans to be competent. It's about accepting that humans will make mistakes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's such a simple matter to just reduce the margin though. Make it 20% of the ball instead of 50%. Then all the whinging about these lbws won't happen (as much). The reason people are complaining about it is the ball was almost certainly going to smash into leg stump and it stayed not out. Margin's too big, simple as that.

 

[StephenZA]

You can reduce the error in the technology over time, minimising 'umpires call'... but that should be open to scrutiny from a scientific/technological PoV which it is currently not, hence many peoples scepticism and lots of the complaints.

Primarily though we should just be looking at improving human error by improving the competence of individuals through training etc. using the technology as a training tool as well. That includes off-field and on-field umpires and the technicians using the technology. It feels at the moment that this is all been treated separately but needs to be looked at on a holistic level; I guess this is not being done enough due to money constraints and the fact that each of these elements is not always controlled by ICC but by broadcaster etc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You can reduce the error in the technology over time, minimising 'umpires call'... but that should be open to scrutiny from a scientific/technological PoV which it is currently not, hence many peoples scepticism and lots of the complaints.

Primarily though we should just be looking at improving human error by improving the competence of individuals through training etc. using the technology as a training tool as well. That includes off-field and on-field umpires and the technicians using the technology. It feels at the moment that this is all been treated separately but needs to be looked at on a holistic level; I guess this is not being done enough due to money constraints and the fact that each of these elements is not always controlled by ICC but by broadcaster etc.

We're assuming that the margin for the ball hitting in umpire's call is directly, numerically correlated to the margin of error for the technology, which I'm highly sceptical about

Just reduce the margin

 

[StephenZA]

We're assuming that the margin for the ball hitting in umpire's call is directly, numerically correlated to the margin of error for the technology, which I'm highly sceptical about

Just reduce the margin

Its not directly correlated, we all know its there to protect umpires as well; which is not necessarily a total bad thing. But we cant just say reduce the margin either because we don't actually know what the evidence is based on at all, it is being kept behind closed doors and that is a much bigger problem to me. Don't forget the graphical ball, is exactly that a graphic. It is not the equation, or the numbers... it is for all practical purposes (unless explained otherwise) needs to be taken as a schematic for the public rather than an absolute.

 

[Uppercut]

*****, stop.

You keep saying that DRS isn’t solving the problem. But the problem wasn’t making people happy, it was about making more correct decisions - which you have admitted DRS helps with. And before you refute this with “making more correct decisions was about keeping people happy”, give yourself an uppercut.

What you’re arguing is that we should go back to making more wrong decisions so that people are less discontent and there’s less angst towards umpires.

Ridiculous how long your word salads are for an opinion so incorrect.

I would have said it's been very effective at reducing anger about umpires. Players definitely give them less abuse. Fans it's harder to say but remember the Bucknor test? Surely that's where umpire-hate peaked.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I would have said it's been very effective at reducing anger about umpires. Players definitely give them less abuse. Fans it's harder to say but remember the Bucknor test? Surely that's where justified criticism peaked.

Yeah agreed

 

[trundler]

ITT: ***** gets nearly everything wrong.

 

[cnerd123]

ITT: ***** gets nearly everything wrong.

Not too different to most threads then

The level of hate Steve Bucknor got was insane. Darrell Hair copped a lot too, but he did have pockets of the fanbase that appreciated what he did. I don't think we're anywhere near that level when you consider fan hate for an individual umpire.

But I do think the umpires as a whole have lost respect in the last decade, and that is in some part due to DRS. The amount of words written about umpiring and the frequency with which it's discussed during games has almost certainly gone up, and not a lot of what's being said is positive.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Cream rises to the top. People loved Taufel, and mostly really appreciate Erasmus and Kettleborough too even though they like every other human are prone to errors from time to time.

Bucknor in his later years was just a poor umpire and DRS wasn't even around back then. Imagine if it was. Bloke would probably get egged once a week.

 

[cnerd123]

Aleem Dar is pretty gun as well.

Anil Chaudhary an underrated umpire too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I do have to say though, that the whining about umpires call is ridiculous. Umpires call is perfectly fine, you have to cop it and move on, there's too much subjectivity in an lbw to rely 100% on a machine that doesn't even know what it's doing. Its designed to eliminate howlers and its succeeded. As time has gone on, a "howler" has gone from "Oh no he was given out lbw despite pitching outside leg and smashing it into his bat" to "how could he give that out? It looked like it was clipping off stump but I'm not entirely sure myself". It's really stupid.

I hate the soft signal rubbish (which they've bafflingly used even for outfield catches) much more than umpires call.

 

[Attitude]

Bucknor was by far one of the worst Umpires ever. Dharamsena tops even Bucknor.

Of the current lot, Erasmus is the only I like.

 

[Attitude]

I do have to say though, that the whining about umpires call is ridiculous. Umpires call is perfectly fine, you have to cop it and move on, there's too much subjectivity in an lbw to rely 100% on a machine that doesn't even know what it's doing. Its designed to eliminate howlers and its succeeded. As time has gone on, a "howler" has gone from "Oh no he was given out lbw despite pitching outside leg and smashing it into a batsmans bat" to "how could he give that out? It looked like it was clipping off stump but I'm not entirely sure myself". It's really stupid.

I hate the soft signal rubbish (which they've bafflingly used even for outfield catches) much more than umpires call.

Agreed, If on field Umpire is so sure, why doesn't he give the decision then. If he is not sure then don't butt in and let the 3rd Umpire take the call.

What I feel is that they should reverse the procedure.

First the call is sent upstairs to 3rd Umpire and if he is not sure, then and only then send the decision back to the onfield Umpire, that look we aren't sure, how about you go with what your initial instinct was and lets all carry on. ANd then the on field Umpire could say okay fine it is out or not out. Dont think there will be too many complaints then.

 

[harsh.ag]

Agreed, If on field Umpire is so sure, why doesn't he give the decision then. If he is not sure then don't butt in and let the 3rd Umpire take the call.

What I feel is that they should reverse the procedure.

First the call is sent upstairs to 3rd Umpire and if he is not sure, then and only then send the decision back to the onfield Umpire, that look we aren't sure, how about you go with what your initial instinct was and lets all carry on. ANd then the on field Umpire could say okay fine it is out or not out. Dont think there will be too many complaints then.

Which umpire will give it out then, though?

This only works if the umpire has registered his initial instinct with the 3rd umpire over the radio (with this info not having any impact on the 3rd umpire's decision, if he can make one).

 

[cnerd123]

I think they only send it up just to make sure they aren't 'making a howler'. Like, they think it's out, but send it up to make sure they didn't miss the bounce. It's a matter of protocol like reviewing run outs. That's why the soft signal exists and is so inconsistent. Not sure so don't quote me on this, but it's the only explanation I can think of that makes sense.

I blame a generation of Australian cricketers claiming bump catches for this tbh

 

[morgieb]

I get the complaints about the soft signal, but before that catches like this were generally given not out despite little doubt they were out. Doubt was generally too broad, so that's where the soft signal comes in handy.