**Official** Australia in India Thread

[JustTool]

Besides that the technology isn't necessarily as accurate as people like to think.[/QUOTE]


But, always consistent. You should look at the proposal the English Coach has made to the ICC on use of technology. Makes eminent sense. In fact, without technology we would never know that umpires make more errors than people ever thought. Nucknor is an exception - he gets a few right once in a while

 

[marc71178]

Why should I look at Duncan Fletcher's proposal again?

I've already looked at it and don't think it's very good.

Firstly it undermines the umpires a heck of a lot, and secondly, what if they've used up their referals and another incident that they should refer takes place? We're back to square one.

 

[Waughney]

Breakthrough! Gillespie picks up Patel.

 

[age_master]

finally patel is gone and dizzy has a wicket 8/229

 

[JustTool]

Why should I look at Duncan Fletcher's proposal again?

I've already looked at it and don't think it's very good.

Firstly it undermines the umpires a heck of a lot, and secondly, what if they've used up their referals and another incident that they should refer takes place? We're back to square one.

I think the perspective to take is that technology will be used to ASSIST and HELP and SUPPLEMENT umpires - not to undermine them and prove them wrong. It will be another tool for them (like some of them use six 'marbles' to keep count of balls) to help when they are in DOUBT. Regarding being back to Square One when the appeals are used up - well you have to start some place and evolve the rules and model based on results.

Anyway, when Graham Bell first invented the telephone people said "what use will this ever be ?"

 

[Dasa]

^Exactly.
Cricket is an unusual game. I mean, you have three (four, including the match referee) officials/umpires there to make sure the right thing is done, yet so often, we see incorrect decisions (not just in this match, all the time). Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a professional sport should be so unprofessional in officiating and making decisions.

People can say all they want about tradition, and keeping the game human and whatnot, but I don't see anything positive about incorrect decisions. I also cannot see why people should oppose the introduction of technology. It's there, and it works, so why not use it?

 

[maxpower]

what are the chances of IND avoiding follow on ?

 

[maxpower]

^Exactly.
Cricket is an unusual game. I mean, you have three (four, including the match referee) officials/umpires there to make sure the right thing is done, yet so often, we see incorrect decisions (not just in this match, all the time). Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a professional sport should be so unprofessional in officiating and making decisions.

People can say all they want about tradition, and keeping the game human and whatnot, but I don't see anything positive about incorrect decisions. I also cannot see why people should oppose the introduction of technology. It's there, and it works, so why not use it?

sure there's something positive about incorrect decisions, it gives reason to whine.

 

[Waughney]

^Exactly.
Cricket is an unusual game. I mean, you have three (four, including the match referee) officials/umpires there to make sure the right thing is done, yet so often, we see incorrect decisions (not just in this match, all the time). Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a professional sport should be so unprofessional in officiating and making decisions.

People can say all they want about tradition, and keeping the game human and whatnot, but I don't see anything positive about incorrect decisions. I also cannot see why people should oppose the introduction of technology. It's there, and it works, so why not use it?

My thoughts exactly

 

[JustTool]

^Exactly.
Cricket is an unusual game. I mean, you have three (four, including the match referee) officials/umpires there to make sure the right thing is done, yet so often, we see incorrect decisions (not just in this match, all the time). Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a professional sport should be so unprofessional in officiating and making decisions.

People can say all they want about tradition, and keeping the game human and whatnot, but I don't see anything positive about incorrect decisions. I also cannot see why people should oppose the introduction of technology. It's there, and it works, so why not use it?

Coudn't agree more.

 

[Waughney]

McGrath gets his 4th wicket, Harbhajan.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

India knocked over for 244. I expect Australia will bat again now, but since Gilchrist hasn't captained much before it is hard to say exactly.

Positives for India today are that they won their first sessions since the afternoon on day 1 when they went 1-49 in the morning, and that three different lower order batsmen performed well and kept Australia out for half a day.

For Australia, McGrath and Kasprowicz are clearly at their best and Warne seems to have hit form after a poor start, his last over with the old ball to Kumble was a beauty.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

^Exactly.
Cricket is an unusual game. I mean, you have three (four, including the match referee) officials/umpires there to make sure the right thing is done, yet so often, we see incorrect decisions (not just in this match, all the time). Personally, I think it is ridiculous that a professional sport should be so unprofessional in officiating and making decisions.

People can say all they want about tradition, and keeping the game human and whatnot, but I don't see anything positive about incorrect decisions. I also cannot see why people should oppose the introduction of technology. It's there, and it works, so why not use it?

Simply put, it doesn't work. Technology is very useful in clear, black & white situations such as whether or not a catch carries or whether or not someone was run out. Technology can also be used in some other situations such as determining if a delivery pitched in line for an LBW shout. However, as far as determining edges and so forth is concerned it is inconclusive as often as not. A big edge in a bat-pad appeal will be shown on replay, but a faint edge that went through to the keeper could only be detected on replay some of the time, and the umpires ears and eyes are often more reliable.

Even ignoring the fact that techonology is often inconclusive, I don't mind the human element in umpiring. Sometimes mistakes are made, most decisions are made well. Find good umpires and use technology when it can be used to decide something clear such as a run-out, and you will get the best results for the game.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Only two players playing for India.

Bucknor and Bowden.

 

[maxpower]

see like i said have faith ppl, umpires work in mysterious ways

 

[Deja moo]

Woohooo !! Langer gone .

 

[Mister Wright]

Hopefully India can bowl Australia out for around 180 & make a game of it.

 

[Deja moo]

Hopefully India can bowl Australia out for around 180 & make a game of it.

A chase of 400 would still be tough

 

[telsor]

A bit like the pitch conditions created by the groundsman are final and people should accept them?

Fair call.

The difference being the umpires are trying to be fair, groundsmen are trying not to be.

 

[Dasa]

Simply put, it doesn't work. Technology is very useful in clear, black & white situations such as whether or not a catch carries or whether or not someone was run out. Technology can also be used in some other situations such as determining if a delivery pitched in line for an LBW shout. However, as far as determining edges and so forth is concerned it is inconclusive as often as not. A big edge in a bat-pad appeal will be shown on replay, but a faint edge that went through to the keeper could only be detected on replay some of the time, and the umpires ears and eyes are often more reliable.

Even ignoring the fact that techonology is often inconclusive, I don't mind the human element in umpiring. Sometimes mistakes are made, most decisions are made well. Find good umpires and use technology when it can be used to decide something clear such as a run-out, and you will get the best results for the game.

Obviously, to have technology used ALL the time, some of it will have to improve. However, having read much about HawkEye and related technologies, I would be more prepared to leave my fate in the hands of it, than a regular umpire. With regards to thin edges and the like, the new cameras used in the English summer (can't remember what it was called) seemed to be accurate enough to make decisions.

I just find it very difficult to see how cricket can be called a professional sport when such mistakes are so common. I can't think of any other sport where referee/umpiring mistakes are such a common thing.

A chase of 400 would still be tough

Can't see India winning from this point. They've batted themselves out of this game.
A large degree of the blame should go to Sehwag - after he threw away his wicket the innings (bar Pathan, Patel and Laxman to an extent) fell apart.