• 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.

Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Xix2565 said:
A problem is that cameras aren't covering everything all the time though, and it's not like the 2 dudes watching in real time are no name hacks like us here. You have to guess either way unless you want to increase the budget for that level of coverage.
Click to expand...
What?

Firstly, the job of a sports broadcaster is to cover the sport. We've gotten pretty good at following the ball all the time, as it's vital to covering the actions in the sport. I only have vague memories of one instance in a test match where there wasn't an acceptable angle available, plus a couple in the BBL. And in both the BBL cases the view was still better than what the umpires had, as they were well in the outfield.

In comparison the limitations of the human eye have not changed. Even above average visual acuity is not going to match the camera at the distances involved, nor does anyone have a slow motion function. Cameras reduce the guesswork and allow incidents to be seen that would otherwise have been missed.


Seriously, this type of argument reminds of the guys who resolutely insist that in fighter jets the human eye is preferable to modern detection and targeting systems.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Starfighter said:
What?

Firstly, the job of a sports broadcaster is to cover the sport. We've gotten pretty good at following the ball all the time, as it's vital to covering the actions in the sport. I only have vague memories of one instance in a test match where there wasn't an acceptable angle available, plus a couple in the BBL. And in both the BBL cases the view was still better than what the umpires had, as they were well in the outfield.

In comparison the limitations of the human eye have not changed. Even above average visual acuity is not going to match the camera at the distances involved, nor does anyone have a slow motion function. Cameras reduce the guesswork and allow incidents to be seen that would otherwise have been missed.


Seriously, this type of argument reminds of the guys who resolutely insist that in fighter jets the human eye is preferable to modern detection and targeting systems.
Click to expand...
Have you not seen the new Top Gun

nothing beats the instinct and ingenuity of a human pilot
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Xix2565 said:
A problem is that cameras aren't covering everything all the time though, and it's not like the 2 dudes watching in real time are no name hacks like us here. You have to guess either way unless you want to increase the budget for that level of coverage.
Click to expand...
This is all well and good, but even cnerd got his umpiring ticket.

Speaking of which, I was at the 4th wedding of a bloke I played cricket with last Sunday afternoon. He's since gone into umpiring and now does first grade here in Sydney. Mrs Burgey had flown out earlier in the morning for a work trip, and even though she had to go to India for part of said trip, even she had it better than having to sit at a table with a group of ****ing umpires.

What a rare ****ing breed sporting officials are, seriously. Not content with cricket umpiring, one bloke at the table said "my real passion is umpiring hockey in the winter". And that was the high point of the conversation. **** off mate.

Seriously, unless you've been in the company of a group of match officials in a social setting, it's actually very difficult to explain to other real people what they're like. I'm sure other players can comment and agree on this, which is why I think so few ex-players actually go into officiating in their own sport when they've finished playing. There's a PhD to be written about them, if anyone could do it without wanting to self-harm.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Burgey said:
This is all well and good, but even cnerd got his umpiring ticket.

Speaking of which, I was at the 4th wedding of a bloke I played cricket with last Sunday afternoon. He's since gone into umpiring and now does first grade here in Sydney. Mrs Burgey had flown out earlier in the morning for a work trip, and even though she had to go to India for part of said trip, even she had it better than having to sit at a table with a group of ****ing umpires.

What a rare ****ing breed sporting officials are, seriously. Not content with cricket umpiring, one bloke at the table said "my real passion is umpiring hockey in the winter". And that was the high point of the conversation. **** off mate.

Seriously, unless you've been in the company of a group of match officials in a social setting, it's actually very difficult to explain to other real people what they're like. I'm sure other players can comment and agree on this, which is why I think so few ex-players actually go into officiating in their own sport when they've finished playing. There's a PhD to be written about them, if anyone could do it without wanting to self-harm.
Click to expand...
The top-level cricket (and footy) umpires around here are total weirdos, with absolutely no exception. I don't think they even like each other

I assume it's because normal people wouldn't spend their time doing it, so these are the ones left
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Burgey said:
This is all well and good, but even cnerd got his umpiring ticket.

Speaking of which, I was at the 4th wedding of a bloke I played cricket with last Sunday afternoon. He's since gone into umpiring and now does first grade here in Sydney. Mrs Burgey had flown out earlier in the morning for a work trip, and even though she had to go to India for part of said trip, even she had it better than having to sit at a table with a group of ****ing umpires.

What a rare ****ing breed sporting officials are, seriously. Not content with cricket umpiring, one bloke at the table said "my real passion is umpiring hockey in the winter". And that was the high point of the conversation. **** off mate.

Seriously, unless you've been in the company of a group of match officials in a social setting, it's actually very difficult to explain to other real people what they're like. I'm sure other players can comment and agree on this, which is why I think so few ex-players actually go into officiating in their own sport when they've finished playing. There's a PhD to be written about them, if anyone could do it without wanting to self-harm.
Click to expand...
When I was umpiring, the closest I ever came to socialising with a fellow umpire was having a beer after the game with the players ... and even then I tended to chat more with the players.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Line and Length said:
When I was umpiring, the closest I ever came to socialising with a fellow umpire was having a beer after the game with the players ... and even then I tended to chat more with the players.
Click to expand...
Yeah that was how things were back when I played as well, but these fellas are next level rare units.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Starfighter said:
What?

Firstly, the job of a sports broadcaster is to cover the sport. We've gotten pretty good at following the ball all the time, as it's vital to covering the actions in the sport. I only have vague memories of one instance in a test match where there wasn't an acceptable angle available, plus a couple in the BBL. And in both the BBL cases the view was still better than what the umpires had, as they were well in the outfield.

In comparison the limitations of the human eye have not changed. Even above average visual acuity is not going to match the camera at the distances involved, nor does anyone have a slow motion function. Cameras reduce the guesswork and allow incidents to be seen that would otherwise have been missed.


Seriously, this type of argument reminds of the guys who resolutely insist that in fighter jets the human eye is preferable to modern detection and targeting systems.
Click to expand...
Completely missing my point. I'm not comparing eyes vs cameras but the general costs involved. It's gotten better, but not to the point of reducing the soft signal for no reason.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Xix2565 said:
Completely missing my point. I'm not comparing eyes vs cameras but the general costs involved. It's gotten better, but not to the point of reducing the soft signal for no reason.
Click to expand...
No, the premise of your point is wrong, as is your attempted riposte. With the coverage that exists now the camera is far more likely to get the right result, so there's no point in the uncertainty of the real time umpire's opinion, let alone putting undue weight on it as the soft signal did.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
There's no way that the umpire is seeing everything. That's why we have TV replays to begin with.

But there is definitely an issue with leaving the decision entirely in the hands of the TV Umpire as well. The current soft signal procedure was broken because the burden of proof to overturn the on field signal was set too high. The common sense solution was to have the soft signal, but to ultimately leave the decision in the hands of the the third umpire, and remove the need for 'conclusive evidence'.

Right now they've overcorrected, and it seems the on field umpire's view won't be taken at all, which is equally stupid. They saw the action as it happened live on the field. It's worth letting them give their input to the TV Umpire, who can then factor it in while also reviewing the footage to come to the best possible decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top