High time ICC have a check on the umpires

[Sehwag309]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: High time ICC have a check on the umpires

Is it just me, or are you repeatedly not reading koch_cha's original post properly? He DID complain about it in that post - when you replied, you cut the relevant content out of the very sentence you quoted.

Read what he said again - it makes perfect sense, and you just keep alleging a one-sided argument that doesn't exist.

As to the rest of the thread, yes, while it's absolutely true that the umpires have a difficult job to do, I would think that Bucknor's decline is so patently obvious, you'd have to be in absolute denial not to have noticed it. I'm an Australian supporter, but I can completely empathise with the Indians' frustration with both Bucknor's conduct AND his decision-making ability. I'm totally with what Varma said in his CricInfo article.

Atleast you get it, it's strange that if an Indian argues about that here then there will be replies coz we are loosing. So how do we focus on the real problem...Bucknors problem still exists.

An outsiders/neutral ( pardon me for saying that ) view holds a lot of weight

 

[V Reddy]

I assume this is the follow-on to John Wright complaining about the decisions in the First Test?

Now this is bit too silly , Marc . Do you seriously think John Wright is a whinger too. Simon Taufel has made mistakes in this match too but no Indian is saying he should be removed,etc,. Everyone still says that Taufel is the best ump. Same is the case with David Shepherd. The problem starts with Bucknor. The team management was already doubtful of Bucknor and he certainly added to it in this test match. Check out the link which i gave which shows highlights of everydays play. Even Slater who was commentating during Chopra's dismissal was amused by Bucknor as he didn't look like giving any LBW and there were many close ones but when Chopra batted he gave a very iffy one at the first appeal. That one was correct in the end but no way could the ump have been sure . It required a magnifying camera to show it hit the pad just a milli-second before bat.

 

[Sehwag309]

EDITED

 

[Eyes_Only]

Good for you, Megan - and we both think that Simon is the best umpire around.

The thing which really upsets me is when people start looking at umpires and, whilst not exactly accusing them of cheating (one subscriber did), at least suggesting a degree of bias.

Umpires are human and consequently are bound to make mistakes. On thing they do, though, is they try to learn from those mistakes. The West Indies v England series is a classic case in point. There have been a few 'iffy' decisions for lbw which Hawkeye has indicated might have been too high - the amount of bounce has not just surprised the batsmen but the umpires too.

These decisions have tended only to be on the first day - the umpires will watch the tapes at close of play and adjust their view as to how high the ball is likely to lift, consequently as the game has gone on, there have been fewer and fewer of the 'doubtful height' dismissals. The bummer there, of course, is that the West Indies have batted first on each occasion.

The idea that umpires could be dispensed with entirely is, I'm afraid, somewhat short-sighted. Why would anyone bother to become a minor-list umpire if there is no incentive to strive for the heights, to emulate Shep, Dickie, Billy, Simon, Venkat, even Asoka and Shakoor Rana? If umpires could only go as far as officiating in county matches because the tests are handled by technology, it would signal the beginning of the end for cricket. Within 5 years or so, there would be no new umpires coming into the game - and that, my friends, would be that.

Great to hear from you Eddie...How is the Duck??

Totally agree with all you said mate. I've spent the last three years working my backside off to become an Umpire and dream of one day becoming the first female Elite Panel Ump (and thus joining Simon).

I now wonder why I bothered if some have their way and technology replaces the Umpires....Seems to me like I have just wasted the last three years of my life...

BTW: Great to see you haven't changed your mind about Simon too!!

 

[Lions81]

Great to hear from you Eddie...How is the Duck??

Totally agree with all you said mate. I've spent the last three years working my backside off to become an Umpire and dream of one day becoming the first female Elite Panel Ump (and thus joining Simon).

I now wonder why I bothered if some have their way and technology replaces the Umpires....Seems to me like I have just wasted the last three years of my life...

BTW: Great to see you haven't changed your mind about Simon too!!

First, let me wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. I think a female umpire on the elite panel would be wonderful, like female referees in the NBA.

No one's suggested replacing umpires with robots. The only person who brought that up was Newlands, who used the idea of robotic umpires as a way to diminish the merits of my argument. Of course it didn't work, and all it's done is confused the dialectic on this topic!

But of course cricket has shown me that technology is not the ultimate key. Today's Ind-Pak cricket match has shown me that even with all the fancy technology, the people behind it still matter. As in Umpire Ghauri giving Anil Kumble out when there was no way he could be sure his foot wasn't behind the line. Oh well. Maybe we need robotic third umpires...

 

[Eyes_Only]

Thank you for your kind wishes Lion.

It frustrates me when so called "experts" bag the Umps when they have the luxury of being able to watch countless slow-motion replays in the comfort of their lounge rooms when out on the field, you have a fraction of a second to make the call!!

I agree with what you said about the people making the game....I have watched cricket for 23 years of the 28 I have been on the planet and the personalities are what make the game, whether they be players or the umpires.

Of course it would be easier to use technology but where's the fun in that??:P

 

[Tony Blade]

Ermm.. Navid Ghauri wasnt an Umpire in either one of the tests was he?! Anil Kumble only batted in the 2nd Test and Bucknor and Taufel were the Umpires

 

[biased indian]

Ermm.. Navid Ghauri wasnt an Umpire in either one of the tests was he?! Anil Kumble only batted in the 2nd Test and Bucknor and Taufel were the Umpires

He was the TV umpire

 

[Tony Blade]

Oh, well hes a horrible, horrrible umpire. He made some bad decisions against Pak in the seriesand I think he was the one that gave that Powar out[lbw], right?

 

[biased indian]

Cricinfo Wisden date:08/Apr/2004 ind vs pak 4th day bulletin

author : Dileep Premachandran

Agarkar was fortunate though to be given not out by Steven Bucknor, when a Kaneria delivery struck him plumb in front.

keep counting more are to come

 

[Tony Blade]

He doesnt seem to like leg spinners much , and struggles with lbw decisions.

 

[marc71178]

Hawkeye doesn't have to be 100% accurate. All it has to be is more accurate than a human umpire, and it certainly is.

And you can prove this how exactly?

You can't, pure and simple.

FWIW I don't think it is more accurate.

 

[marc71178]

I agree with you Lions, by the way isn't technology used to find out if a certain player is "chucking" or not.

Yes because that is dealing with facts and not predictions.

 

[Newlands]

Lions, you're saying that you don't accept the call of an umpire, who is obviously not 100% per cent accurate but you would accept the call of a machine that you also admit is not 100% and, depending whether it's working correctly or not, may be operating at less accuracy than the actual umpires on the day.
If I had to accept the further use of technology in the game then I would vote for replays and not hawkeye.

 

[shankar]

It's obvious that Hawk-eye is more accurate than an umpire. Why does this need any proof? It calculates mathematically based on camera shots from around the ground as opposed to a human using his eye (which was not designed to judge the path of a ball 22 yards away).

It's true that it's not 100% accurate. What that means is if hawkeye says the ball grazes the leg-stump or clips the top of a stump then you cant trust it. But if it says that the ball is crashing into middle of a stump then you can confidently say that the batsman was out.

 

[marc71178]

It's obvious that Hawk-eye is more accurate than an umpire. Why does this need any proof?

Because it doesn't take everything into account.

It is not more accurate and there's a simple reason why.

It calculates mathematically based on camera shots from around the ground as opposed to a human using his eye (which was not designed to judge the path of a ball 22 yards away).

Yes and then it judges that the ball continues on a straight line.

Watch the ball past the stumps and into the keeper's hands - it rarely goes dead straight - an umpire can judge that from being at pitch level. Hawkeye doesn't attempt to.

 

[shankar]

...it judges that the ball continues on a straight line.
Watch the ball past the stumps and into the keeper's hands - it rarely goes dead straight - an umpire can judge that from being at pitch level. Hawkeye doesn't attempt to.

I dont think so...I think it measures where the ball pitched,how much the ball swung,how much the ball deviated off the pitch and how fast the ball was travelling. Then I guess it fits a curve to the ball's-path and predicts where the ball would have gone after the position where it hits the batsman which is what the umpire tries to do. I dont think it does a straight line approximation.

 

[marc71178]

It assumes what happens prior to pitching will continue exactly afterwards, and that is rarely the case - the umpire, by being out there gets a feel for the conditions and can thus tell more accurately any deviations from the norm.

For me, Hawkeye is only really 100% accurate on where the ball pitched.

 

[luckyeddie]

I dont think so...I think it measures where the ball pitched,how much the ball swung,how much the ball deviated off the pitch and how fast the ball was travelling. Then I guess it fits a curve to the ball's-path and predicts where the ball would have gone after the position where it hits the batsman which is what the umpire tries to do. I dont think it does a straight line approximation.

You are correct in your supposition that it isn't quite a straight line (I've read up on this a few days ago, will try to find the link) - what happens is a polynomial regression curve is calculated by the software - in other words, if the ball was originally travelling in a straight line (which of course it never does, but for simplicity's sake let's assume it does) then it will continue to do so.

Gravity, air resistance and so on is factored in - note how a ball decelerates through the air upon leaving a bowler's hand, but that is always a 'guesstimate'. I wonder whether the software actually takes into account widn speed and direction, barometric pressure, relative humidity, temperature and the like. All these will affect the trajectory.

The biggest problem Hawkeye has is that is attempting to predict the future path of the ball.

As marc stated, you cannot tell what will happen based upon what has happened. You can only approximate. Why do you think a ball swings? Ah, the age-old question. Well, the answer is simple - aerodynamics. The aerodynamics of a near-spherical object should be simple to work out, but of course they are not. The reason for that is the ball is far from spherical - it has a seam and two quarter-seams. Bowlers shine one side of the ball, keep one rough, sometimes load one side of the ball with moisture, sometimes not. Shiny side in, shiny side out. Seam pointing to the slips, seam upright, seam scrambled, seam to fine leg. Left arm, right arm, side-on, chest-on. Slow, medium, fast. All will affect the trajectory of the ball in one way or another - and coupled with the aforementioned atmospheric conditions, it gets more and more complicated. Do you think that the programmers of Hawkeye could factor all those things in?

How many times do you see the wicket-keeper made to look a fool by late swing? That's because the velocity of a ball is critical to swing. As I have already intimated, a ball decelerates all the way from the bowler to the batsman (the possible exception is with a ferocious top-spinner). Consequently, its behaviour can become more or less eccentric as its velocity reaches that critical point. Couple that with the seam constantly changing position and you have a real problem.

I'm sorry. Who was saying that Hawkeye could predict the future?

 

[shankar]

It assumes what happens prior to pitching will continue exactly afterwards, and that is rarely the case - the umpire, by being out there gets a feel for the conditions and can thus tell more accurately any deviations from the norm.

For me, Hawkeye is only really 100% accurate on where the ball pitched.

No. It follows the ball until it hits the batsman's pad not until it pitches. So, it has all the information about the ball's behaviour before it hits the pad and predicts based on that. If there is a deviation from the norm after the ball passes the batsman how can the umpire predict it? For e.g. if the ball doesnt swing until the ball reaches the pad are you saying that the umpire can predict that the ball would have swung if it had not hit the pad.