Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[Spintolose]

View attachment 24797

Do you agree?

Yes. It's ridiculous really. It's there purely to keep the umpire's relevant.

I would be very interested in seeinh a league table of umpire's decisions - right and wrong.
Some seem to have shockers!

 

[Daemon]

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.

The quest for betterment is what progresses us as a species

 

[Maximas]

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.

How about the Wagner full toss against Sri Lanka (2016?) that started reversing in towards the stumps from round the wicket but hawkeye showed it to be going straight on and missing off

4:47 in this video

 

[Daemon]

All good examples of hawkeye ****ing up, but for every one of these there are 50+ (just a guesstimate) poor calls by umpires

 

[cnerd123]

The quest for betterment is what progresses us as a species

Yea about this. I'm not sure DRS, in its current incarnation, is actually an improvement to Cricket.

Would you agree that Cricket, like all Professional Sport, exists to entertain people? If not, then why does it exist, in your opinion?

Assuming Cricket exists to entertain, then DRS is not necessarily an improvement. It has made fans more annoyed and has made the sport more complicated to follow. Sure people appreciate higher quality decision making, but is it worth the cost?

 

[GIMH]

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.

Sorry to break this to you, but such a grey area definitely exists with mortgages.

 

[Bijed]

All good examples of hawkeye ****ing up, but for every one of these there are 50+ (just a guesstimate) poor calls by umpires

Yeah, basically this, although you almost lost my like due to your use of the word "guesstimate"

Assuming Cricket exists to entertain, then DRS is not necessarily an improvement. It has made fans more annoyed and has made the sport more complicated to follow. Sure people appreciate higher quality decision making, but is it worth the cost?

I'm sticking pretty much to my view that social media/the internet is more the culprit here, as it's generally has made annoyance far more visible than previously and has also led to people getting more wound up about things as Twitter etc is such a great place for stupid, OTT arguments. DRS has created specific new things for people to get annoyed about, granted

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Jason Roy just looked out based on years of watching cricket. Maybe the years are wrong and he wasn't.
DRS and LBW are strange bedfellows because it's really changed the game fundamentally. Getting a stride in would save the batsman every time. Now nothing can save them except a generous margin of error.

 

[Daemon]

Yea about this. I'm not sure DRS, in its current incarnation, is actually an improvement to Cricket.

Would you agree that Cricket, like all Professional Sport, exists to entertain people? If not, then why does it exist, in your opinion?

Assuming Cricket exists to entertain, then DRS is not necessarily an improvement. It has made fans more annoyed and has made the sport more complicated to follow. Sure people appreciate higher quality decision making, but is it worth the cost?

Once again you’re arguing against making right decisions because people get moody about it

DRS has caused a lot of arguments but also prevented countless others. It’s more social media and general internet dickery that’s to blame for all the noise.

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe it is just the internet and social media. No real way to measure this sort of stuff quantitatively.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The quest for betterment is what progresses us as a species

Incidentally also why communism/socialism doesn't work

Assuming Cricket exists to entertain, then DRS is not necessarily an improvement. It has made fans more annoyed and has made the sport more complicated to follow. Sure people appreciate higher quality decision making, but is it worth the cost?

Yeah this is definitely wrong. The furor that used to happen over umpiring back before DRS, omg.

edit: I agree social media may lead some to think that it's just as bad, or even worse, these days.

 

[shifty_eyes]

Cricket rules are fundamentally absurd. Yes this absurdity exists in other sports too but the frequency at which these rules are evoked is much higher and often crucial, comparatively. You can't do much about it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I would have no problem with the batting side having unlimited reviews. it's not like there's going to be very many. The fielding side obviously have to be restricted.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm not going to get up in arms about Umpire's call much, but the notion that the error size in Hawkeye just happen to be half a ball's width is clearly made up nonsense.

If it were based on the accuracy of Hawkeye it would change depending on the speed of the ball, the size of the ground (distance from ball to camera), and a bunch of other things. It's there to protect the idea of 'favour of the doubt to the batsman', there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

 

[cnerd123]

I would have no problem with the batting side having unlimited reviews. it's not like there's going to be very many. The fielding side obviously have to be restricted.

Might as well just go ahead and review every dismissal as part of protocol at that point. Take that job completely out of the umpires hands.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've always assumed it's to protect the integrity and authority of the on field umpires. Something cricket has always been obsessed with.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Might as well just go ahead and review every dismissal as part of protocol at that point. Take that job completely out of the umpires hands.

Not every dismissal has any contentious issues, aside from the fact that the umpires never call no balls.

 

[trundler]

Might as well just go ahead and review every dismissal as part of protocol at that point. Take that job completely out of the umpires hands.

Waaaah umpires would get replaced waaaaah

 

[cnerd123]

Not every dismissal has any contentious issues, aside from the fact that the umpires never call no balls.

Yea but if you gave batsmen unlimited reviews you just know they'll just review everything, including when they're bowled, just hoping an umpire missed the no ball.

I'm not against it, but then at that point you may as well say that all dismissals get reviewed no matter what. At the very least they'll check the no-ball, if nothing else.

 

[mr_mister]

Maybe one extra review for the batting side compared to the bowling side