• 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*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series

Fiery

Banned
Bad decisions are a part of cricket.
Why do they have to be "part of cricket"? I'm sure most, if not all, people would prefer it if they weren't

The technology is not always conclusive, a snick that small could have been anything, even a tiny edge would usually give a better snick on snicko. I would hazard a guess that the hotspot probably picked nothing up either, its not always conclusive either.
8-) You're Australian and that's a cop out. What else could it have been? The line moved at exactly the time the ball moved passed (and hit) the bat and the bat was away from the pad. The look on Hussey's face was similar to that of a 5 year old boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar and crumbs on his face.
 

Fiery

Banned
Is it safe to say that the Kiwis really need to win tomorrows game to stay in the running?

Australia do have some weaknesses but I guess the Kiwis have to have the players to exploit them. Oram returning is good for them though. And Bind not being badly injured as well!!
No, they just have to beat England 3 times. I don't expect us to beat Australia while our injured players are out. Anything could happen in the finals although it would be a miracle if we won 2 of those games
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I agree Hussey's reaction indicated he probably hit it, but the fact is that you couldn't tell with any sort of certainty from snicko or the replays that he did. There was obviously a noise which everyone heard, snicko indicated there was a noise, but personally if I'd been the third umpire I would have had to give Hussey the benefit of the doubt, because he could have flicked his pad to create the sound. In reality, this is true a great deal of the time with snicko. The only time it is really conclusive is when it's a wide slash outside off stump and any noise has to be the bat hitting the ball. Throw in the times when it doesn't work at all and there's a visible edge but no noise registers and it's simply not good enough to be used by umpires at this point.

Hotspot is the same, but even less conclusive. In fact I'd go so far as to say that hotspot is virtually useless for determining thin edges. It could be very good for bat pads where the ball comes off the face, but for thin edges you're better off using other things, as mostly you can't see anything on hotspot at all.

Hawkeye may well be accurate quite a lot but has too many flaws and relies too much on predicting things. I could stand for it to be used to determine the line of a delivery and where it pitched, but where it crosses over into predicting what the ball might have done it's no good.

Even a simple video replay often leaves an inconclusive result because of the way cameras work. How many times has a catch that was close to the ground sparked immense debate even after dozens of replays from different angles? You simply can't tell with any clarity a great deal of the time with all of these pieces of technology.

Technology should be used if and when it provides a conclusive, black and white result a significant majority of the time and thus can supercede the judgement of an umpire. Runouts are the perfect example. Perhaps 5% of runouts, if that, are inconclusive after replays. Throw in a high speed camera and that'd drop to almost nothing. A camera (hopefully an automated one like in tennis) could also be used for no-balls for similar reasons. Hawkeye could be used to track the line of a ball, as obviously it's just showing what occured on screen, perhaps for use in LBW calls. The rest of it isn't good enough yet. When it is, bring it in. Until then it's not an improvement, would result in far too many "benefit of the doubt" decisions and waste a lot of time. This has been the result in each major tournament where technology has been tested to make decisions, such as the 2002 Champions Trophy and the Super Series in 2005.
 
Last edited:

Fiery

Banned
I agree Hussey's reaction indicated he probably hit it, but the fact is that you couldn't tell with any sort of certainty from snicko or the replays that he did. There was obviously a noise which everyone heard, snicko indicated there was a noise, but personally if I'd been the third umpire I would have had to give Hussey the benefit of the doubt, because he could have flicked his pad to create the sound. In reality, this is true a great deal of the time with snicko. The only time it is really conclusive is when it's a wide slash outside off stump and any noise has to be the bat hitting the ball. Throw in the times when it doesn't work at all and there's a visible edge but no noise registers and it's simply not good enough to be used by umpires at this point.

Hotspot is the same, but even less conclusive. In fact I'd go so far as to say that hotspot is virtually useless for determining thin edges. It could be very good for bat pads where the ball comes off the face, but for thin edges you're better off using other things, as mostly you can't see anything on hotspot at all.

Hawkeye may well be accurate quite a lot but has too many flaws and relies too much on predicting things. I could stand for it to be used to determine the line of a delivery and where it pitched, but where it crosses over into predicting what the ball might have done it's no good.

Even a simple video replay often leaves an inconclusive result because of the way cameras work. How many times has a catch that was close to the ground sparked immense debate even after dozens of replays from different angles? You simply can't tell with any clarity a great deal of the time with all of these pieces of technology.

Technology should be used if and when it provides a conclusive, black and white result a significant majority of the time and thus can supercede the judgement of an umpire. Runouts are the perfect example. Perhaps 5% of runouts, if that, are inconclusive after replays. Throw in a high speed camera and that'd drop to almost nothing. A camera (hopefully an automated one like in tennis) could also be used for no-balls for similar reasons. Hawkeye could be used to track the line of a ball, as obviously it's just showing what occured on screen, perhaps for use in LBW calls. The rest of it isn't good enough yet. When it is, bring it in. Until then it's not an improvement, would result in far too many "benefit of the doubt" decisions and waste a lot of time. This has been the result in each major tournament where technology has been tested to make decisions, such as the 2002 Champions Trophy and the Super Series in 2005.
I'm not saying that the technology will be conclusive on every occasion. If not then...simple...not out. However, the technology is spot on most times and those are the ones they need to get right. So I totally disagree with you and think Snicko, Hotspot and Hawkeye would all be excellent at aiding the umpires in making correct decisions and don't know why people like you are so afraid of them.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
umpires having full access to Snicko, Heat-Seeker and Hawkeye. It's bull**** that the public can see it but the umpires can't and the most frustrating thing about cricket for mine
Is that the same hawkeye that last year said a ball from Warne was missing leg stump when it bowled the batsman?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Technology should be used if and when it provides a conclusive, black and white result a significant majority of the time and thus can supercede the judgement of an umpire.
My personal view is that technology could be integrated into the game without any extra time being taken at all and decision making would become a lot more accurate.

It'd also not use any of the as yet not guaranteed accurate things like Snicko, Hawkeye and from what I gather Hotspot (not yet seen it in action)

Give the 3rd umpire responsibility for no balls and give the field umpires ear pieces linked up to the stump mics.

The first part means the field umpires only have to concentrate on one end of the pitch, rather than having to look up, then refocus and decide on several things in a split second.

The second part will make it easier to pick up nicks in noisy stadia.
 

Complicated

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I'm not sure if people have seen the recent controversy involving Halkeye at the Australian Open Tennis tournament, but in a match E Mauresmo challenged an umpire's decision using Halkeye. On the replay the graphic which Halkeye generated showed the ball missing the line by afew millimeters but Halkeye claimed the ball was infact in. It was later revealed that there was a glitch with the graphic.

Now people are referring to the graphic generated by Halkeye as if is completely infalible, and should be relied on all the time. But here it used on a line ball call to challenge an umpire, and the actual decision or location that Halkeye predicted, was different to the graphic that was generated. I still think there are some reasonable questions over just how accurate Halkeye is, and over just how much benefit there is to using it in professional sport.
 

brockley

International Captain
No brad hogg in the first 3 games,wonder if there is any point taking a spinner to the world cup if we are going to play 4 fast bowlers all the time,maybe we skip the spinner and take 6 pacemen to the carrebean.
 
Last edited:

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
Watching the replay with the slow motion cameras suggested there was an edge for mine, although it was just the slightest contact. Snicko then confirmed it.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Hasn't Hussey come out and said he hit it but he doesn't walk? Apparently he said the same to Anderson as soon as the appeal had been turned down.

Regardless, I think Australia would have found a way to win anyway.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Had a fair day yesterday despite the fact that we were only able to aqcuire tickets in the 2nd back row, despite being online pretty much as soon as they were available. Boo's from the crowd rose as soon as we all heard that Freddy won the toss & England were going to bat first.

At one stage, it looked as if it wasn't going to be such a bad thing when Loye was giving it to Lee & McGrath, but as soon as he went, the rest of the batting looked dire. Hodges catch to dismiss Strauss was the best i've seen live, and his catch to dismiss Flintoff was the 2nd best. Had a fantastic day in the field did Hodge, pity he couldn't emulate it with the bat.

To me, the fact that 5 of the top 8 english batsmen were out, caught behind the wicket said a lot about the mindset of those particular players imo, and afaic despite the quality bowling, their negativity was just as much to blame.

Collingwood & Bell reminded me as to why i dislike them so much. A) Poor batting & B) Pathetic running between the wickets. That run-out was quite possible the worst i've ever seen. Bell hardly even tried to get back into his ground when he saw the ball coming towards the stumps.

The difference between Hussey & Clarkes running between the wickets, and Englands was phenominal. Clarke & Hussey were turning what the English batsmen would've considered easy singles, into easy two's.

Come Australia's innings. Lewis benefitted from Anderson's fantastic bowling imo. Anderson was easily the best bowler, and the way i saw it, the Australian batsmen saw Lewis as the man to releive the pressure. Kudos to John though, he bowled a tidy line & length and it worked. That said, the shots played by Gilly, Haydos & Symonds were shockers.

I must ask, did Clarke glove the ball down legside?? I couldn't tell from the replays we saw on the big screen at the ground, and the ABC guy's didn't say much about it? All the same, 1st Clarke, then Hussey, were the obvious saviours with the bat. As they have been so often. It's a shame though, that Clarke doesn't get the credit he deserves in the ODI format. Whilst the others came out swining, he was prepared to leave, and crack away the deliveries that were theire to be hit, then get a bit of momentum happening later on in the innings. It was unfortunate that he got out when he did, otherwise he had another Half century at his mercy.

The cricket was the best bit of the day by far, however, there were many people who did their level best to try and ruin the day for many of us before we even were let into the ground, and then once we got out.

Getting bags checked was an absolute shammozle. Far more notice should've been made about the "no-backpacks" etc. as there were so many people who were turned away because of it. However, that was not the worst of it. My brother and i had taken our soft esky, as we do every other time, and we get to the gate, and then the power crazy security blokes decide to start turning not only us, but plenty of other people away because "the esky was to big". FFS it was the same size, if not Smaller than many of the coles bags that "some" people were being allowed to take in. When we, along with thousands of other fans were turned away by these dead****s, everyone then had to line-up at this pissarse little tent were we could store our esky, and in return take 2/3 plastic shopping bags in place.

Then, after the match was over, getting out was ever worse. They literally had fenced in the cement walkway, and about 10,000 people were trying to walk into each in a space with about 2-3m width. TBH i'm suprised no-one was killed, as when you get 2 lots of drunk people pushing into each other, and against a cement barricade, your not going to get good results. Everyone was just pushing pushing pushing, and literally squashing others to get out. Someone that was anything but safe for all involved, particulary the younger children in the crowd. Whilst i'm sure the Police were doing as they were told, they were helping the situation either, despite the fact that there was so many people squashed in the one area, they refused to let the barricade (which could've quite easily been moved, as many had moved 1 section just to escape, and get out of the squash) out into 1 lane of the street, which was already blocked off from cars as it was where the police were standing.
 

_TiGeR-ToWn_

U19 Debutant
Hussey has said that he doesn't walks and accepts to good with the bad decisions as they come. I believe he did admit to Anderson that he did hit it.

I liked marcs suggestion of having the 3rd umpire concentrate on the front foot no-balls so the umpire has more time to concentrate on what is happening at the other end of the pitch. I like being able to see the technology at use. But an umpire is out their to officiate as he see's it. As soon as you bring in technology to assist the Umpires, they will start to rely on it and won't take their responsibilities as serious. The overall standard of umpiring will decrease dramatically IMO.
 
Last edited:

pasag

RTDAS
Hussey has said that he walks and accepts to good with the bad decisions as they come. I believe he did admit to Anderson that he did hit it.

I liked marcs suggestion of having the 3rd umpire concentrate on the front foot no-balls so the umpire has more time to concentrate on what is happening at the other end of the pitch. I like being able to see the technology at use. But an umpire is out their to officiate as he see's it. As soon as you bring in technology to assist the Umpires, they will start to rely on it and won't take their responsibilities as serious. The overall standard of umpiring will decrease dramatically IMO.
Do you mean he said he doesn't walk? I'm not sure I haven't seen anything on the matter, just thought that would make more sense.
 

PY

International Coach
Hussey admitted to edging it and has said that he cops bad ones and good ones and he'll do whatever the umpire tells him to do thus he'll never walk.

Quite fair IMO.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Doesn't have anything to do with honesty imo. He said he accepts the umpires decision no matter what it is and doesn't walk ever. It's a perfectly fair and acceptable stance.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
You wouldn't say it if its McCullum IMO.

How can someone who accepts the umpiring decisions, good or bad, leave a bad taste in your mouth?
 

Top