Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[trundler]

Just don't have soft signal for catches in the deep then.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

The Chappell brothers (or two of them anyway) are to blame for just about everything that's wrong with the game today.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

This is a quaint view but it's outdated.

The proper answer to this is imperfect machines, because they make incredibly higher percentage of correct decisions than imperfect people do. You want the technology because you want to get the decision right as many times as possible.

The idea that a piece of technology, designed to make these decisions a lot more accurately than the human, is still influenced by the human, is absolutely ridiculous. We have this ****** system where the technology - impervious to any other outside agency - is allowed to be controlled in some way by a human being that is affected by split second decision, human condition (tiredness, distraction, bias, ability), sight, just so many things. I can only use the Boult v Roy decision because it's the one on the top of my head. It's either hitting or it's not. If we decide less than 50% of the ball hitting is not out, fine. Make it not out. I don't know what the provisions will be, but decide them, stick with them, and let technology abide them. But there's so much more arbitrariness (look it up) in umpire decisions and either we're a people game or a technology game, not both.

Are these 'machines' perfect? No. Are they more perfect than humans? Yes. So use them fully. As a society we don't banish technology that is occasionally fallible, to return to old systems. That would be emotive and counter-productive.

And if anyone thinks I'm kneejerking on this, I could pull up posts from 3 years ago saying the same thing.

I know you're an umpire and there's still a key role for umpires - at international level. But the lbw thing with umpires call, nup. It's rubbish. Umpire's call in sports like rugby league where you might get inconclusive replays - ie the ball is hidden from view on all angles by bodies etc - is absolutely fine. But in cricket where you have a clear view and clear technology that yes, is occasionally wrong but much more correct than humans, it doesn't work.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Yeah but how are you going to have a system that only allows for the howler? They tried to do that by implementing the one incorrect decision rule. Unfortunately, ego and the human condition means that'll never be possible because no one on field is able to make a reasoned, unemotive decision. So that's not technology's fault. It's on the players. Even if you gave it to the umpires to call for replays (which we used to do) they still won't with enough accuracy be able to tell which are the howlers and which are the close ones. a) they made the decision in the first place so they should think all decisions are correct b) the players, fans etc will still debate/whine about the close ones, and especially the shockers. That comes hand in hand with technology and the ability to see more.

And since when does the technology 'not know what it's doing'? It gets decisions right 99.9% of the time, right?

Most of the technology ****-ups have come through human interpretation. Like NIGEL ****ING LLONG AT ADELAIDE. Still not over that one.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Another minor problem with umpires call, more so in Test Matches, is that umpires are making decisions based on who has a review left rather than their own judgement. In that circumstance the umpires call isn’t necessarily the decision he would have made.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Another minor problem with umpires call, more so in Test Matches, is that umpires are making decisions based on who has a review left rather than their own judgement.

Really? Have they admitted to that? That ain't right

 

[Burgey]

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.

The problem with the idea of the howler-only over rule by technology is illustrated by the Roy not out in the final. Basically if 1% more of the ball was hitting the poles it presumably becomes a “bowler” and people who like the idea of only those decisions being over ruled would be fine with it. Over 1% of the ball.

Either hitting or not. If it’s hitting it’s out. That’s the end of it.

 

[miscer]

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.

No machine "knows" what it's doing. Even the most advanced current AI is responding to preset parameters/algorithms. Until there is an AI that can change it's root programming unprompted, no machine "knows" what it's doing.

A study should be conducted using x thousand number of deliveries from a bowling machine where somehow the umpire has to decide one foot (or the appropriate distance) before the ball hits the stumps, if the ball will go on to hit or not. The machine also does the same thing using its model. Then you compare accuracy. If the machine's model is more accurate, do away with the umpire's call. Simple as that.

 

[Flem274*]

when did this myth enter that hawkeye is really inaccurate?

there were two massive howlers in that game (3 if we count the 5 or 6 or whatever it was) and im going to take as long as a punishing india sydney 08 fan to get over them, but unlike them i will support the neccessary changes like **** umpires getting their arses covered by umpires call and lynching *****.

it's actually ridiculous that the kohli lbw was 'out' (and it was, the tech is accurate) and the boult one wasn't. turns cricket into a prank.

they are paid a lot of money to do the most important job on the park - enforce the rules fairly and competently. if they can't, hawkeye should.

edit - and before some apologist ****wit comes in whining im biased and too invested in the result, i've consistently been 'hawkeye/snicko/hotspot are 99% accurate and better than old blokes' for about a decade

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They’ve been surprised by the number of balls that are hitting the stumps, even more so from the spinners than the seamers. Stuff that couldn’t be given out in the past now can be so they’ve made the target smaller.

 

[TheJediBrah]

when did this myth enter that hawkeye is really inaccurate?

For me it's purely from a few instances I've seen where it has clearly ****ed up. Usually when distance of the impact between 2 points (say the ground and the pad, or the 2 pads) has been close.

I saw one from Warne (before DRS though tbf) where the ball on repay clearly turned a mile before hitting the pad but hawkeye didn't pick it up for some reason and said the ball was going straight.

A similar one happened with Mitch Marsh batting only recently, he was given out lbw to a spinner, on replay the ball gripped and was clearly turning past off stump but when he reviewed and hawkeye projected the pathway it didn't pick up the turn at all for some reason and said the ball was going to go straight and hit the stumps (which was clearly wrong).

Also the exact impact point with the pad has been way off on a rare occasion, which not only affects whether the ball hit outside off or not, but also messes with the projected path.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And that kind of thing will put doubt in people's minds. If it's been that wrong and some occasions who knows if it's getting it a little but wrong on many occasions?

ftr I'm heavily pro DRS, just answering Flem's question

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah I remember a Boult lbw shout back in 2014 I think, were the ball really jagged off a half volley/Yorker length, but hawkeye didn't pick it up initially. The review showed the ball missing
leg stump by about 3 or 4 inches iirc, but then a subsequent running of hawkeye found it to be missing by less than a cm. I know they're making improvements constantly, but it's got a long track record of quirky decisions.

 

[SteveNZ]

when did this myth enter that hawkeye is really inaccurate?

there were two massive howlers in that game (3 if we count the 5 or 6 or whatever it was) and im going to take as long as a punishing india sydney 08 fan to get over them, but unlike them i will support the neccessary changes like **** umpires getting their arses covered by umpires call and lynching *****.

it's actually ridiculous that the kohli lbw was 'out' (and it was, the tech is accurate) and the boult one wasn't. turns cricket into a prank.

they are paid a lot of money to do the most important job on the park - enforce the rules fairly and competently. if they can't, hawkeye should.

edit - and before some apologist ****wit comes in whining im biased and too invested in the result, i've consistently been 'hawkeye/snicko/hotspot are 99% accurate and better than old blokes' for about a decade

Yeah, I completely agree with all this. And we'll get accused of being prejudiced by the fact it went against NZ in the final, as mentioned.

I've got to apply for a mortgage soon. The technology employed by banks analyses a lot of data - valuation, household income etc - and comes up with a result on whether the banks are prepared to take on my debt. Wouldn't it be a ****ing nonsense if there was a grey area that resulted in my application either being approved or not, based on a person's narrow judgement on my situation over and above technology that has clearly has more clarity around it? To have this dependent on the mood that person in, whether or not they correct interpret my information, or actually the overall competency of the person in question?

Same thing.

 

[trundler]

Well we'd have to get into the discussion of what we're trying to achieve with DRS then. LBWs were first introduced to avoid batsmen kicking yorkers. There's always been an element of subjectivity with LBWs. In case of Shakoor Rana this depended entirely on whether you're a touring bowler or not. Let's not forget that sometimes it looks 100% plumb, is given and HawkEye shows it to be merely clipping. So we come back to the margin here. Another question is, does HawkEye **** up less than humans?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Another question is, does HawkEye **** up less than humans?

Yes, everyone accepts this, but that's not the issue.

 

[cnerd123]

Same thing.

It really isn't

 

[SteveNZ]

It really isn't

It is.

You seem to do everything to defend the nobility of the umpiring profession and maintain its place of importance. Here's the thing - you can actually take away umpire's call, you can take away decisions from human fragility and the role of the umpire remains. They will always be relevant in terms of an adjudicator of things technology cannot oversee, such as behaviour etc. And for the foreseeable future they still need to be involved in facilitating technology as well. They're an integral part of our game.

We're simply saying where technology can do a better job, rely on it fully. Don't go for this stupid a buck each way system. As I said, a soft call is helpful in sports like rugby league where the ball can be hidden from view on replay, or in cricket when catches may not be crystal clear. But for lbws it's not relevant.

 

[cnerd123]

It is.

You seem to do everything to defend the nobility of the umpiring profession and maintain its place of importance. Here's the thing - you can actually take away umpire's call, you can take away decisions from human fragility and the role of the umpire remains. They will always be relevant in terms of an adjudicator of things technology cannot oversee, such as behaviour etc. And for the foreseeable future they still need to be involved in facilitating technology as well. They're an integral part of our game.

We're simply saying where technology can do a better job, rely on it fully. Don't go for this stupid a buck each way system. As I said, a soft call is helpful in sports like rugby league where the ball can be hidden from view on replay, or in cricket when catches may not be crystal clear. But for lbws it's not relevant.

I get what you're saying but that mortgage analogy is terrible.

I agree that the ICC needs to find the best way to use technology available. I have not advocated for rolling DRS back (even though I think introducing it has created more problems than it has solved). I haven't argued that human eyes are a better judge. I have said that the underlying issue here is an unrealistic quest for perfect decision making, and that I feel chasing that is foolish. I've also said that I feel the spirit of cricket includes accepting that humans and their decisions are flawed. No one wants to read me ramble about all that again.

I'm not going to comment on if Umpire's Call for LBWs are suitable because I don't know the details of Hawkeye technology and the error margin, and it seems no one apart from the ICC and Hawkeye engineers really know this. I trust the people in charge made the best decision they could based on what was in front of them, and they will continue to refine and improve the system as time goes on. All criticism about the current system is valid (even if, IMO, misguided).

All I was trying to say is in that post is that your analogy was bad. That's it. No ulterior motives for you to dig up. Just pointing out a bad analogy.

Its not as bad as the 'lack of fire safety = unsatisfactory tiebreaker' one tho. Or when Daemon said that believing England won the WC fair and square is equivalent to being a fan of "stoning a gay bloke to death in Brunei". Those were really bad analogies.

 

[SteveNZ]

I get what you're saying but that mortgage analogy is terrible.

I agree that the ICC needs to find the best way to use technology available. I have not advocated for rolling DRS back (even though I think introducing it has created more problems than it has solved). I haven't argued that human eyes are a better judge. I have said that the underlying issue here is an unrealistic quest for perfect decision making, and that I feel chasing that is foolish. I've also said that I feel the spirit of cricket includes accepting that humans and their decisions are flawed. No one wants to read me ramble about all that again.

I'm not going to comment on if Umpire's Call for LBWs are suitable because I don't know the details of Hawkeye technology and the error margin, and it seems no one apart from the ICC and Hawkeye engineers really know this. I trust the people in charge made the best decision they could based on what was in front of them, and they will continue to refine and improve the system as time goes on. All criticism about the current system is valid (even if, IMO, misguided).

All I was trying to say is in that post is that your analogy was bad. That's it. No ulterior motives for you to dig up. Just pointing out a bad analogy.

Its not as bad as the 'lack of fire safety = unsatisfactory tiebreaker' one tho. Or when Daemon said that believing England won the WC fair and square is equivalent to being a fan of "stoning a gay bloke to death in Brunei". Those were really bad analogies.

Here's a rarity in the world of the internet - you've changed my viewpoint (I still believe my analogy stands up incidentally).

You're right, our quest for perfect decision making is like the quest for happiness in life through materialism. We're never happy, we want more. Give us 100% human decision making and our negativity bias kicks in, we want better. We get better with technology, and we still find the holes in it (rightfully, a lot of the time). I would wager if we polled cricket fans about their satisfaction with decision making 20 years ago, to now, it would be lower now - despite the fact we believe we get so many more decisions right now. That's ridiculous but it's human nature.

I still think umpire's call is wrong, but if you went with a parameter - eg 50% of the ball hitting or more to have it hold up - there'd be complaints about the percentage or the perceived accuracy of it.