ICC ranks Hair second best

[Matteh]

This is my observation from watching cricket at home on tv... much easier coming too the conclusion whether the decision was wrong or right whne you have the aid of tv replays and haw-eye etc.

Sounds like you're worse at making umpiring decisions with the aid of the tv than Hair is with the naked eye and with one chance to see it.

 

[Matteh]

I want someone who actually has enough common sense to realise that you have to have solid evidance before you go around flying accusation of cheating. But common sense is soemthing thats not very common these days.

He thought something was up with the ball and that it looked like it had been altered. The umpires decided to dock a massive 5 runs and the Pakistan team threw all their toys out the pram and acted like idiots.

 

[Dasa]

What it does show is that there is no proof that they didn't have evidence, since only 2 of them know the condition of the ball at both points, and there is absolutely no way anyone else ever can.

Therefore you cannot claim they had no evidence.

Obviously their 'evidence' wasn't enough to prove the allegations they made. They were working on assumptions.

 

[marc71178]

Obviously their 'evidence' wasn't enough to prove the allegations they made.

When the only evidence is something that can never be shown because it doesn't exist any more there's no way of proving anything.

I've maintained this stance since the day it happened, and will continue to maintain it because at the end of the day, there is nothing anybody can say to definitively prove nothing happened, just like there is nothing anybody can say to definitively prove anything did happen.

 

[vic_orthdox]

This is my observation from watching cricket at home on tv... much easier coming too the conclusion whether the decision was wrong or right whne you have the aid of tv replays and haw-eye etc.

Haha, that - plus more information, most likely - is how they'd evaluate the umpires.

Anyways, the 95% figure itself is irrelevant, it all depends on how the measurements are made. The fact that he came 2nd is what's being discussed.

 

[Matteh]

Obviously their 'evidence' wasn't enough to prove the allegations they made. They were working on assumptions.

How can you show a jury what a ball looked like 5 overs before and then 5 overs later?

 

[R_D]

What it does show is that there is no proof that they didn't have evidence, since only 2 of them know the condition of the ball at both points, and there is absolutely no way anyone else ever can.

Therefore you cannot claim they had no evidence.

ok maybe i should've said SOLID enough evidance to prove that pakistan had cheated.. which umpires don't seem to have.

 

[R_D]

He thought something was up with the ball and that it looked like it had been altered. The umpires decided to dock a massive 5 runs and the Pakistan team threw all their toys out the pram and acted like idiots.

Yeah thats basing it on assumption that there was somthing wrong. There's his big fault.

 

[Dasa]

How can you show a jury what a ball looked like 5 overs before and then 5 overs later?

You can't unless there is video or photographic evidence. Evidently, the ball they showed at the hearing wasn't enough to say the Pakistanis did tamper with it, so they were cleared of the charges. I'd say using common sense, the Pakistanis most likely did not tamper with the ball in this specific case - if they did, it would make their latter stance of protesting and all the related actions completely illogical.

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of people refuse to accept the result of the hearing? After all the pontificating to those who supported the Pakistanis that we would have to retract our stance and apologise if Pakistan was found guilty, why are the same standards not upheld for those on the other side? Seems somewhat similar to what was outlined in this post in Site Discussion. There are different standards for different sides of the fence here...

In fact, the double standards are evident earlier in this thread - Slow Love™ made a post questioning the authenticity of this report in this post and no comment is made, yet when R_D does the same thing, he's attacked. In fact, even in the accepting of the evidence the hypocrisy is evident. We have the situation where in past threads and posts, certain members have been prepared to disbelieve a source purely because of where it comes from, whereas in this thread the source - which could certainly be called questionable if you looked at Craddock's writing history - is taken as fact.

 

[Matteh]

Yeah thats basing it on assumption that there was somthing wrong. There's his big fault.

He and Doctrove obviously genuinely thought there was something wrong with it, otherwise they wouldn't have taken action.

 

[adharcric]

This means very little IMO. He was always a good umpire in terms of appeals for lbw, caught behind, etc. The aspect he lacked was the ability to facilitate the flow of the game.
Seriously, some of you need to get over this Hair situation and get over yourselves as well. Dasa just made a few good points as well.

 

[R_D]

Haha, that - plus more information, most likely - is how they'd evaluate the umpires.

Anyways, the 95% figure itself is irrelevant, it all depends on how the measurements are made. The fact that he came 2nd is what's being discussed.

Exactly like to know how did they exactly come to the conclusion of 95% accuracy.
Occording to the report he made 253 correct decison out of 263. Which decision are consdered good and bad ? I can think of at least 3 or 4 bad decisions he made in Eng V Pak series alone and to think he's only made 10 bad decision over a year. WOW

 

[pasag]

In fact, the double standards are evident earlier in this thread - Slow Love™ made a post questioning the authenticity of this report in this post and no comment is made, yet when R_D does the same thing, he's attacked. In fact, even in the accepting of the evidence the hypocrisy is evident. We have the situation where in past threads and posts, certain members have been prepared to disbelieve a source purely because of where it comes from, whereas in this thread the source - which could certainly be called questionable if you looked at Craddock's writing history - is taken as fact.

That's abit unfair I think. SL is alluding to the praise given by the ICC to Hair but he doesn't once speak of the 95% or the figures involved. He doesn't imply that those figures have been cooked or are simply wrong as R_D has. R_D has implied that either the report doesn't exist and if it does, it is wrong. He then goes on to to base this from couch evidence from a couple of Hair matches that he has watched. There is quite a big difference and if SL said the same thing as R_D, I'd have responded in the same way (probably).

 

[R_D]

That's abit unfair I think. SL is alluding to the praise given by the ICC to Hair but he doesn't once speak of the 95% or the figures involved. He doesn't imply that those figures have been cooked or are simply wrong as R_D has. R_D has implied that either the report doesn't exist and if it does, it is wrong. He then goes on to to base this from couch evidence from a couple of Hair matches that he has watched. There is quite a big difference and if SL said the same thing as R_D, I'd have responded in the same way (probably).

hmm please don't assume.
I'm just claiming how can we trust the report from Daily mail.... They are claming he had 253 correct decision. Now i don't know but i would have thought it be common thign to ask for evidance rather than beleiving everything the media reports.
If there's a ICC report that shows Hair had 95% accuracy than why would rubbish it... i said i'd like to see the report to see how exactly they came up with.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Am I the only one who thinks they've heard of this report in previous years?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

hmm please don't assume.
I'm just claiming how can we trust the report from Daily mail.... They are claming he had 253 correct decision. Now i don't know but i would have thought it be common thign to ask for evidance rather than beleiving everything the media reports.
If there's a ICC report that shows Hair had 95% accuracy than why would rubbish it... i said i'd like to see the report to see how exactly they came up with.

Actually, the Telegraph isn't claiming that he made 253 correct decisions, they are claiming that the ICC believe he made 253 correct decisions, which is totally different. Realistically, it doesn't matter if he made 253, 243 or 10, if indeed the ICC report about his quality as an umpire said that he got 95% of his decisions correct and had a "pragmatic approach to problem solving", a "first class knowledge of laws and regulations" etc. That is all the paper is really claiming, not that any particular number of his decisions were actually correct.

 

[pasag]

hmm please don't assume.
I'm just claiming how can we trust the report from Daily mail.... They are claming he had 253 correct decision. Now i don't know but i would have thought it be common thign to ask for evidance rather than beleiving everything the media reports.
If there's a ICC report that shows Hair had 95% accuracy than why would rubbish it... i said i'd like to see the report to see how exactly they came up with.

I wasn't aware that the media provided copies of all the reports it writes of and if it didn't implement this well known practice, it can't be trusted.

 

[Great Birtannia]

I'd like to know the validity of whats being claimed... 95% accuracy hahaha what a joke.
Baring maybe Tauffle i doubt any umpire has accuracy rate of anywhere close to 90%.

It's not an accuracy rate judged on 50-50 decisions though is it. If you have a batsman padding up to a spinner for instance the bowler is going to make a lot of hopeful appeals to the umpire to plant the seed. It doesn't take much to get a gold star for making a correct decision on those.

 

[Slow Love™]

That's abit unfair I think. SL is alluding to the praise given by the ICC to Hair but he doesn't once speak of the 95% or the figures involved. He doesn't imply that those figures have been cooked or are simply wrong as R_D has. R_D has implied that either the report doesn't exist and if it does, it is wrong.

No, but when I say that Craddock should produce the relevant excerpts to explain what it all means, I'm questioning the meaning of the statistics.

Ultimately, IMO, this is irrelevant, because as I said previously, I don't think these kinds of decisions, in an general sense, have much to do with Hair's removal from the panel.

But, because I'm interested on a general level (so this isn't necessarily an attack on Hair's accuracy specifically), I wouldn't mind knowing what "decisions" mean in this context. As in, 253 correct decisions out of 263. Something tells me it's likely to be "batsmen given out where the correct call was made". Because when you think about how many decisions are required a match, 263 would be a very short time frame of evaluation if it really meant "all decisions". With this stipulation, it probably represents around 10 or so tests, give or take, remembering that there aren't 40 dismissals every match. It could be less, it could be a little more.

I don't know how many tests the average umpire adjudicates a year - is 10 around accurate? I would guess it'd be more, but 10 isn't an absolute figure, it could be as many as 14-15. (Hopefully my numbers are ballpark here, I'm a bit haggled today, so if someone spots a glaring error, feel free to correct me.)

Anyhow, if that's the case, then obviously, we are talking about the "batsmen given out where the correct call was made" over a year's tests. If my figure is under the amount of tests Hair adjudicated over the year, then I guess you have to wonder about Craddock cherrypicking a bit.

Of course, this is only one kind of decision. There is also all the "not out" decisions made when a batsman may have been out. I do believe these should be treated slightly more leniently, but I also think they should definitely be evaluated, like everything else. And then there's contentious stuff like not following procedure (ie, not referring to the third ump when a runout is very close or even when a batsmen didn't make their ground and they were called in without a referral, and various other oddities that can occur where the umpire exhibits questionable behaviour or judgement).

I believe that somebody a few years ago (was it Scallywag?) cited a report that said that the general level of accuracy of umpires on the field was 96%. Of course, I'm fairly sure this was still related to "batsmen given out who were actually out" decisions, although we're never really informed as to the specifics of these evaluations. If so, I suspect the umpires are fairly tightly bunched statistically on this kind of evaluation (simply because there is only room for another 4% above the average, so I don't think any of them can be that substantially down from there).

So it makes you wonder when we talk about really good umpires like say, Taufel, and really bad, like say, Bucknor (just taking our most common opinions at this forum). Is there genuinely so little statistical difference between them, or should we perhaps question the way they are being evaluated? Anyway, it's just a few thoughts to consider.

 

[social]

No, but when I say that Craddock should produce the relevant excerpts to explain what it all means, I'm questioning the meaning of the statistics.

Ultimately, IMO, this is irrelevant, because as I said previously, I don't think these kinds of decisions, in an general sense, have much to do with Hair's removal from the panel.

But, because I'm interested on a general level (so this isn't necessarily an attack on Hair's accuracy specifically), I wouldn't mind knowing what "decisions" mean in this context. As in, 253 correct decisions out of 263. Something tells me it's likely to be "batsmen given out where the correct call was made". Because when you think about how many decisions are required a match, 263 would be a very short time frame of evaluation if it really meant "all decisions". With this stipulation, it probably represents around 10 or so tests, give or take, remembering that there aren't 40 dismissals every match. It could be less, it could be a little more.

I don't know how many tests the average umpire adjudicates a year - is 10 around accurate? I would guess it'd be more, but 10 isn't an absolute figure, it could be as many as 14-15. (Hopefully my numbers are ballpark here, I'm a bit haggled today, so if someone spots a glaring error, feel free to correct me.)

Anyhow, if that's the case, then obviously, we are talking about the "batsmen given out where the correct call was made" over a year's tests. If my figure is under the amount of tests Hair adjudicated over the year, then I guess you have to wonder about Craddock cherrypicking a bit.

Of course, this is only one kind of decision. There is also all the "not out" decisions made when a batsman may have been out. I do believe these should be treated slightly more leniently, but I also think they should definitely be evaluated, like everything else. And then there's contentious stuff like not following procedure (ie, not referring to the third ump when a runout is very close or even when a batsmen didn't make their ground and they were called in without a referral, and various other oddities that can occur where the umpire exhibits questionable behaviour or judgement).

I believe that somebody a few years ago (was it Scallywag?) cited a report that said that the general level of accuracy of umpires on the field was 96%. Of course, I'm fairly sure this was still related to "batsmen given out who were actually out" decisions, although we're never really informed as to the specifics of these evaluations. If so, I suspect the umpires are fairly tightly bunched statistically on this kind of evaluation (simply because there is only room for another 4% above the average, so I don't think any of them can be that substantially down from there).

So it makes you wonder when we talk about really good umpires like say, Taufel, and really bad, like say, Bucknor (just taking our most common opinions at this forum). Is there genuinely so little statistical difference between them, or should we perhaps question the way they are being evaluated? Anyway, it's just a few thoughts to consider.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/umpires-referees/umpire_assessment.html

Pretty comprehensive assessment process it seems