***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Tom Halsey]

goodness even on super-slow-mo that wasn't conclusive it looked all pad to me, no bat.

On the normal replay yes, on the super slow-mo there was a clear deviation before it hit the pad (it definately didnt hit the pad because the pad hadn't had any squashage at that point).

 

[Adamc]

goodness even on super-slow-mo that wasn't conclusive it looked all pad to me, no bat.

The super slow-mo was a bit misleading because of the angle that they showed it from. There was an ordinary replay which they showed (before the super slow-mo) from a better angle which made it pretty damn obvious (to me) that there was bat involved.

EDIT: Haha, I just posted the exact opposite of what Halsey said above. Oh well.

 

[Barney Rubble]

dont think he has much interest in cricket

What do you mean? Didn't you know He's an Englishman?

How else would you explain that Katich decision at Trent Bridge........

 

[Slow Love™]

The commentators watched the replays and didn't agree, I watched the replays and didn't agree as did other people on this forum, and even Greg Matthews and Dean Jones couldn't agree. A third umpire couldn't reasonably give that out.

The variance of different people's reactions with different skills and weaknesses doesn't make a point about the technology. We might as well say (and indeed, I would), that every incidence (ie most of them) where the technology enables us to judge an umpire's decision (and we all use it, including the ICC's umpiring assessors for this very purpose) is a perfect example of why we should use the technology.

The bottom line is that some people are more skilled than others at viewing the evidence. Whether that's you or that's me, or that's somebody else chosen entirely on their relevant skills, I think it's clear that the use of this technology will lead to better accuracy. And the odd non-conclusive result (which I don't believe this was) won't make us any worse off than we were before. I really did think this one was extremely clear on the super-slomo though.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And the odd non-conclusive result (which I don't believe this was) won't make us any worse off than we were before.

Surely the fact that there's dispute renders it by definition non-conclusive!

 

[Tom Halsey]

The super slow-mo was a bit misleading because of the angle that they showed it from. There was an ordinary replay which they showed (before the super slow-mo) from a better angle which made it pretty damn obvious (to me) that there was bat involved.

EDIT: Haha, I just posted the exact opposite of what Halsey said above. Oh well.

Well, we both think he edged it, so that's good.

 

[aussie]

i have to see that Ponting bad-pad decisoin again....

 

[Slow Love™]

Surely the fact that there's dispute renders it by definition non-conclusive!

No, that renders it in dispute. They ARE two different things - I would say that some are wrong, and some are right. Either way, it doesn't affect my point though. We may as well stop discussing any decisions whatsoever if we want to claim that the replays don't tell us anything more accurate than the umpires decision itself does.

 

[aussie]

What do you mean? Didn't you know He's an Englishman?

How else would you explain that Katich decision at Trent Bridge........

haha, well maybe

 

[PY]

5.30 BST we'll kick off supposedly.

It looks dark again though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, that renders it in dispute. They ARE two different things - I would say that some are wrong, and some are right. Either way, it doesn't affect my point though. We may as well stop discussing any decisions whatsoever if we want to claim that the replays don't tell us anything more accurate than the umpires decision itself does.

Err, it's not that replays tell us nothing -often they are conclusive, but it's not at all uncommon that a replay is just as doubtful as a live action decision, and we've seen countless examples particularly with catches carrying to fielders and bat-pad decisions. This is an example of an inconclusive set of replays.

 

[Slow Love™]

Err, it's not that replays tell us nothing -often they are conclusive, but it's not at all uncommon that a replay is just as doubtful as a live action decision, and we've seen countless examples particularly with catches carrying to fielders and bat-pad decisions. This is an example of an inconclusive set of replays.

I think that you are just plain wrong about this last decision, and that's that. But, apart from that - even if we were to accept that this one was inconclusive, nobody EVER counters the point I made in the previous post to this, where I outlined that these replays are the very basis that all of us, including the ICC, assess umpiring calls. What invariably happens every time this gets pointed out, is everybody just ignores it, and the next time they think (either correctly or incorrectly) that they see a call that's inconclusive, they start insisting once more that it is somehow an argument against usage of the technology.

If people actually thought hard about this rather than instinctively rejecting the concept (in spite of their own constant usage of it to justify their opinions), they'd realise how spectacularly contradictory this is.

 

[Adamc]

Hopefully Australia will manage 80+ in this little session, assuming no further rain intervenes. If the weather holds up tomorrow they should be able to manage a lead of 150-200 before tea, enabling a declaration. Works well in theory but England probably aren't going to let them get 500-600 that easily. Definitely can't afford to lose much more than an hour or so to weather though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't see the need to counter it. The only reason for replacing the umpires with technology is when technology can provide a conclusive result the vast majority of the time, otherwise it's completely pointless since the umpires can make a judgement call. In fact, bringing in technology in a case like bat-pads might even be detrimental insofar as an umpire can take an instant decision based on a gut feeling and make a reasonable call, while a third umpire using technology will have to be absolutely 100% certain or they will be forced to give it not out. We see this with run outs now where it is probably out, or almost certainly out, but is given not out because there's no excuse for a third umpire getting it wrong.

With run outs though, almost all of the time you get a conclusive decision, hence it's worthwhile using it. The same could be true of no balls, I think. It's been tried and failed with "pitching on line?" calls for lbws though, and experience with things like thin edges, bat-pads and dubious catches suggests that the video replay is very often inconclusive, meaning it's better to stay with the umpire. If you introduced replays for decisions like the one today you'd constantly see the third umpire left with decisions where you can't possibly tell if it is out or not, meaning there is no improvement over the umpire and it simply wastes time and takes the umpiring element out of the game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Boycott really is excellent with on-the-spot umpiring calls. Easy one there though, definately outside the line.

 

[PY]

Yeeha.

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't see the need to counter it. The only reason for replacing the umpires with technology is when technology can provide a conclusive result the vast majority of the time, otherwise it's completely pointless since the umpires can make a judgement call. In fact, bringing in technology in a case like bat-pads might even be detrimental insofar as an umpire can take an instant decision based on a gut feeling and make a reasonable call, while a third umpire using technology will have to be absolutely 100% certain or they will be forced to give it not out. We see this with run outs now where it is probably out, or almost certainly out, but is given not out because there's no excuse for a third umpire getting it wrong.

Well, it's not about replacing umpires with technology, it's about giving them better tools to make tough decisions. And replays, stump-mikes and the like are a way of increasing the accuracy of decisions.

You can have whatever opposition to using technology that you want, although the only one I myself consider really valid is one of time (perhaps also of tradition, although I think somebody making that argument would be less likely to use replays to question umpiring calls). Certainly accuracy isn't a valid objection, because they are more accurate. Also, it's silly to claim that an inconclusive result is an example of why technology shouldn't be used, when the conclusive results we so often get are a clear argument in favor of their use.

With run outs though, almost all of the time you get a conclusive decision, hence it's worthwhile using it. The same could be true of no balls, I think. It's been tried and failed with "pitching on line?" calls for lbws though, and experience with things like thin edges, bat-pads and dubious catches suggests that the video replay is very often inconclusive, meaning it's better to stay with the umpire.

I flat out don't think this is true. Not that I'd bother, but I could make this argument very easily though, by following after posters (like yourself) who have judged an umpiring call one way or another, and simply asking "what gave you the tools to make that judgement?" or "how do you know what you saw is more accurate than what the umpire saw?". The reality is, that given you are voicing your opinion on the call based on these technologies, you have actually already conceded the argument as to accuracy.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Wahey, a wicket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Disappointing way to get out. We might see a bit of a whirlwhind knock from Martyn here, he's capable of blazing away when he wants to, and the ball isn't doing much.

 

[Slow Love™]

Ponting gone...

About ten overs left in the day, and about 110 adrift...