Appealing decisions?

[luckyeddie]

Fair point. I understand that there are other factors driving it, but I was just saying I think it should not be that way.

And there, my friend, we agree 100%.

It's a shame Megan (Eyes Only) hasn't been around recently - she would have some valuable input into the debate. I should be very interested to hear what a top umpire such Simon Taufel REALLY thinks about the incursion of televisual 'aids' into their domain, and whether they see it as an erosion of their responsibilities and duties (I'm aware that they are in a difficult position to be able to say anything, though).

 

[luckyeddie]

It's great, isn't it?

Although some commentators don't need assistance to look stupid. Nasser Hussain made some brilliant blunders in the final of the ICC Trophy. I think at one point he said it was the biggest OD tournament in the world.

Well, the poor dear was sitting next to Ian Botham at the time - and the talk is that Nasser's been particularly scathing about 'Both' in his new book. He was probably being kicked half to death at the time.

 

[Richard]

Except when it cannot prove 100% what the ball has hit.

Which amount to 0.000001% or so of the time (and I'm not talking about when it's used, I'm talking about when it could be used).
In these cases, normal rules apply - BOD to batsman.
Nothing is ever going to be perfect (Red Zones \ SkyLines inclusive) but Snicko comes as close as anything and "it might be inconclusive very, very, very, very, very occasionally" is not an excuse for it's non-use, when it can make the uncertain certain about 1000 times the times it can't.

 

[Scaly piscine]

if you wanna use computers play cricket 2004 or similar. There is by Far enough technology used in cricket already. while hawkeye is a nice feature for people watching at home, adding an element of entertainment perhaps. it is not necessary for the umpires to use it.

The Umpires, as a general rule, do a fantastic job. there is absolutley no need to have other people make even more decisions for them.

I never said anything about using Hawkeye to judge lbws instead of the umpires, all I said was they should go through the route of conferring with the square leg umpire for height in lbw decisions. After all the square leg umpire is in a far better position to judge height as they do sometimes with bouncer height/beamer height.

 

[marc71178]

In these cases, normal rules apply - BOD to batsman.

IMO, if not 100% accurate then it shouldn't be used, and the percentage you quoted was a tad low I feel.

 

[Richard]

Well, all right, it was an exaggeration. Probably 0.01% or something would be nearer.
But if you said "you're not allowed to use something unless it's 100% effective", that would rule-out everything, including human Umpires.
IMO expecting 100% effective is ludicrous and so you should simply use the best available option.
Snickos for every appeal for a catch to the 'keeper would take no time at all out of the game (given the hiatus between every delivery) and would mean far less errors than with the straight-finger-up-or-not method.

 

[marc71178]

Oh it would bring delays.

And it is not entirely accurate since it doesn't always make it clear what the noise comes from.

 

[Richard]

Yes - it's not always going to be able to tell.
It will, however, help in God-knows-how-many instances the number it won't.
It would not bring delays if the players took the time they normally take to return to position - it is usually consulted 2 or 3 times by the public between balls. Why not by a Third-Umpire?