Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[RossTaylorsBox]

I don't how it is fair that you use your leg to stop a ball hitting the stumps.

Even dumber, you can score runs off your leg.

 

[honestbharani]

I think umpire's call needs to be tweeked a little bit. When it shows on Hawkeye as being close but registers umpire's call, then a random call should be placed to any registered umpire around the world, and they get to say whether or not it is out regardless of whether they are watching the match or not. Would add a real sense of intrigue to all referred decisions.

Phone a Friend (Umpire)?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Hawkeye is accurate to 3.6mm. If there is umpire's call, it should be that distance, not half a ball.

Personally I would be happy to get rid of umpire's call. It won't disadvantage any particular team. It is equal to batsmen v bowlers.

's not accurate to that distance on ball tracking, tho, is it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Umpires call isn’t going anywhere. I think a lot of cricket people in general have been surprised by how many balls are shown to be hitting the stumps, especially those that in bygone eras were “sliding down”.

 

[Bijed]

Was just thinking of a scenario this morning after the appeal against Pujara.

Lets say a batsmen is give out caught bat pad. He reviews it and it turns out he's not hit it. The third umpire then also checks hawkeye in case, and it's shown to be clipping. On the basis of the umpires call it's given out.

But the umpires call was in relation to the bat pad catch and not the LBW. Should it be taken into consideration at all?

This is a really fringe scenario though but I imagine it'll happen eventually if it hasn't already.

I know this is a very late reply, but this more or less happened in the 4th Ashes test in 2013 to Chris Rogers (given out caught behind, reviewed it, didn't hit it, ball clipping stumps) and he was given not out, so the original decsion was not considered to be a call on the LBW.



I guess ideally the umpire could adjudicate on both when it goes for review and say something like "I've given them out caught behind but if he didn't hit it, I also think the ball is hitting the stumps" but I guess in practice if you think you see a deflection behind it stops you from considering all the LBW factors properly

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I know this is a very late reply, but this more or less happened in the 4th Ashes test in 2013 to Chris Rogers (given out caught behind, reviewed it, didn't hit it, ball clipping stumps) and he was given not out, so the original decsion was not considered to be a call on the LBW.

View attachment 27610

I guess ideally the umpire could adjudicate on both when it goes for review and say something like "I've given them out caught behind but if he didn't hit it, I also think the ball is hitting the stumps" but I guess in practice if you think you see a deflection behind it stops you from considering all the LBW factors properly

This (sorta?) came up in the 4th India-England Test just gone. It wasn't a wicket I saw live, only on the highlights, I think it was Bairstow in the first innings. Hawkeye had the ball just clipping the bails and the onfield decision of 'out' was upheld on umpire's call, but the coms were wondering if the umpire had given it out caught. It didn't seem to be a talking point at the end of play though; I don't know if it was clarified at the time that the umpire had actually called it as lbw.

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

Those who hate umpires, hate abilities.

But machines are much better alternatives. So, just Drop umpires.

D R O P
R
O
P


Drop Umpires.

 

[Bahnz]

's not accurate to that distance on ball tracking, tho, is it.

This is the issue. Have there been any tests done on how accurate the predictive path actually is? If so what do they say? If there's a margin of error involved, that would presumably increase the further the ball has to travel as well, so ideally that should be factored into any 'umpire's call' system as well.

 

[Chewie]

I think I read somewhere about them having to manually decide when the ball hits the pads?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nothing more pathetic than someone who goes around doxxing people online (if that's what happened). Most beta move there is

 

[mr_mister]

Thought it had something to do with Burgey bullying or something. My bad

 

[Athlai]

Doxxing by a state tho

 

[SteveNZ]

Umpire's call still a ego-saving nonsense, incidentally. Tim Southee had Aaron Finch bang to rights in I think it was the third T20, but Chris Gaffney forgot where his arm was and it was umpire's call on review. Then King Kane gets hit high by Riley Meredith in the fifth T20, it's clipping the top of leg but Wayne Knights decides seeing NZ are going to win anyway, it wouldn't hurt to show the world that Kane is mortal. He reviews, knowing to a millimetre that it's clipping the top of leg at best, which it turns out to be. The Finch ball was clattering into the stumps more so, but remains not out because we have to have a rule that preserves the relevance of a human decision in the moment over the superior technology.

 

[Bahnz]

Umpire's call still a ego-saving nonsense, incidentally. Tim Southee had Aaron Finch bang to rights in I think it was the third T20, but Chris Gaffney forgot where his arm was and it was umpire's call on review. Then King Kane gets hit high by Riley Meredith in the fifth T20, it's clipping the top of leg but Wayne Knights decides seeing NZ are going to win anyway, it wouldn't hurt to show the world that Kane is mortal. He reviews, knowing to a millimetre that it's clipping the top of leg at best, which it turns out to be. The Finch ball was clattering into the stumps more so, but remains not out because we have to have a rule that preserves the relevance of a human decision in the moment over the superior technology.

I mean, if the technology isn't 100% then this is totally fair, and much fairer than the rules would suggest. Think about it, if you need more than half the ball to be hitting in order to be certain that a not out decision should be overturned, then surely it follows that you should need the ball to be missing the stumps by more than half the width of the ball to overturn an out decision. This for me is the real problem with the current rules around LBW. That and the lack of transparency about what the margin of error is.

In either case, you have to have a way of deciding calls that are within the margin of error, and the original Umpire's decision is probably as good as any.

 

[SteveNZ]

I mean, if the technology isn't 100% then this is totally fair, and much fairer than the rules would suggest. Think about it, if you need more than half the ball to be hitting in order to be certain that a not out decision should be overturned, then surely it follows that you should need the ball to be missing the stumps by more than half the width of the ball to overturn an out decision. This for me is the real problem with the current rules around LBW. That and the lack of transparency about what the margin of error is.

In either case, you have to have a way of deciding calls that are within the margin of error, and the original Umpire's decision is probably as good as any.

And I'm OK with using the half width as the guide, for a system we know to be around what, 90% correct? If it's hitting less than 50% of the ball, not out. If it's more so, out. No matter what the on-field call. I'm yet to be told why that is not sound logic, and why it's not better than what it is now.

I hate seeing lbws reviewed that are out, and get sent back umpire's call when they're nicking the last coat of paint off. Because in that instance, that batsman's fate rests on human decision making influenced by a number of factors over superior technology which is influenced by a predictably small amount of factors.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Umpire's call is mostly good and necessary. But using it for point of impact is really silly. For the "is it going on to hit the stumps" part, fine. But for impact it should be abolished. Higher fps cameras might be needed though to correctly capture the exact frame of first impact with the pad.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Umpire's call is mostly good and necessary. But using it for point of impact is really silly. For the "is it going on to hit the stumps" part, fine. But for impact it should be abolished. Higher fps cameras might be needed though to correctly capture the exact frame of first impact with the pad.

I didn't think it was even used for point of impact. That would make no sense because you shouldn't be guessing the point of impact lol

 

[sunilz]

It will stay and soft signal will go.

 

[honestbharani]

Decent decisions under the circumstances IMO.

 

[Starfighter]

Just include the bails as part of the wicket FFS. At least include up to level with the top of the stems.