• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* 2nd Test at the MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, 13 - 17 Feb 2021

OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OverratedSanity said:
Yeah the ball tracker's fine, umpire's call for impact is just stupid as a concept.
Click to expand...
There's still a bit of margin for error for impact because the pad is soft and and is in contact with the ball for multiple frames which can make selecting which frame to use for the decision a bit awkward at times. But overall, the balance should be titled way more in favour of the bowling side. I think umpire's call is still overall fine for the predictive part but for impact it needs a big rethink.
 
A

artvandalay

State Vice-Captain
theegyptian said:
I mean it took Kohli and the Indian side the whole 15 seconds to review so it's not like they were convinced it was out. Lots of moving parts to pick up in real time.
Click to expand...
that's not the point though, the debate might have been because there was a noise which may well have even been the stump getting grazed. Merit of a review can't necessarily be judged by how quickly the fielding team chooses to go upstairs.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
hazsa19 said:
The ball tracker isn’t right or wrong, it just shows what happened then shows what it calculates will happen. On this occasion it showed that part of the ball struck in line and part of the ball struck outside the line.
Click to expand...
Nah.. it clearly had the point of impact wrong as you can clearly see in the very next replay. Its fine, the real issue was the decision of the umpire itself and England got their howlers on days 1 and 2, so its fine. I am actually happy as it now establishes clearly that it was incompetence rather than bias on the part of the umpires.
 
A

artvandalay

State Vice-Captain
Bijed said:
I'm not saying Root wasn't pretty lucky to get away with that and I know the "close" element of each of those decisions was different, but when an on-field umpire gives a two similarly close (in margin terms) decisions once each way (from a batting/bowling POV, I know both decisions went in England's favour), they're not being "inconsistent" imo. They're simply giving their opinion on impact/hitting etc based on that particular ball, "umpire's call" isn't a thing at that point, it's just yes/no on each factor involved.

Even with exceptionally similar decisions - say for example the Root thing had happened again a ball later but been given, if it was showed to look basically identical on DRS it wouldn't necessarily be fair to describe the umpire as "inconsistent". Impact especially must be pretty tough where fine margins are inovled, as I don't really think a human being can discern the exact fraction of the second contact is first made at, which the techonology can do, so subtle variations in pace/angle of delivery can alter real-time perception enough so that two impacts that the technology shows as identical could legitimately have appeared slightly different on field.

Hmm, now I feel like cnerd, what with all this defending of umpires
Click to expand...
Yes but umpiring decisions don't happen in a vacuum. These kind of reviews test the whole umpires call thing in general where more than 1 mode of dismissal is in question.
 
hazsa19

hazsa19

International Regular
honestbharani said:
Nah.. it clearly had the point of impact wrong as you can clearly see in the very next replay. Its fine, the real issue was the decision of the umpire itself and England got their howlers on days 1 and 2, so its fine. I am actually happy as it now establishes clearly that it was incompetence rather than bias on the part of the umpires.
Click to expand...
Stop saying ‘clearly’. Some bloke watching on tv isn’t more accurate than the system.
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
Tbh I'm just pleased that despite having some genuinely poor umpiring and some other contentious calls, they all haven't had/are extremely unlikely to have any discenible impact on the outcome of the match. I mean, considering how some parts of the media have reacted to a basically completely fine pitch...
 
Bijed

Bijed

International Regular
MW1304 said:
They'll bring Bairstow back in on a pitch that's doing something for the quicks and he'll get bowled coming in early.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this. I was ok with him somewhat randomly coming back from the Sri Lanka series as due to SL not exactly having a fearsome pace attack (to go with the pitches probably not helping them much), but India's quicks are at worst pretty good so he'll struggle against them even if there's not much assistance
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OverratedSanity said:
There's still a bit of margin for error for impact because the pad is soft and and is in contact with the ball for multiple frames which can make selecting which frame to use for the decision a bit awkward at times. But overall, the balance should be titled way more in favour of the bowling side. I think umpire's call is still overall fine for the predictive part but for impact it needs a big rethink.
Click to expand...
How much of the ball needs to hit in line with the stumps according to the rules?

Like ideally it should be the tip of the ball only (the point where it makes the first contact), which is generally the center of the ball unless we're playing with a rugby ball.

In that case 50% of the ball should be in line with the stumps for it to be hitting in line. I don't think it was 50% in this case right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top