*Official* England in South Africa Thread

[tooextracool]

If he thinks it will go onto hit the stumps with certainty, only then should he give them out. Some umpires, as I said before, stretch this further not to give any thing out. I am not advocating that. If you are sure, you give them out. But be sure before as wickets should not be given when in doubt. If you are not absolutely sure, there is no reason to give it out..

how many times do i havet to say it? its impossible for an umpire to be sure about nearly all lbw decisions. if we followed that principle we would have 1 lbw wicket every 2 games. an umpire cannot be 100% certain about a decision that happens in a split second unless he uses technology, which ATM isnt being used. if i bounced a ball in front of you at 85 mph and asked you if it was too high, whether the batsman was playing a shot at it, whether it pitch outside the line, whether it was hitting in line, whether there was an inside edge and gave you 2 seconds to decide all of that would you be sure?

I am speaking of the days before third umpire. Should the umpires have given them out run out if they were 70 percent sure? I think not because when the umpires used to give them out and it proved the batsmen were inside, they were heavily criticised prior to 1993.

So they used to give them out only when they were 100 percent sure. This is why you often find some close calls of the past where batsmen are out according to the slow motion in t.v. being given not out by umpires as they werent absolutely sure. It is definitely comparable to lbw laws and when to give the batsman out.

before the days of the third umpire, umpires gave run outs in the same way that they give lbws and no balls, when they are reasonably sure but not certain, which again lies around the 70% range.

 

[Pratters]

if we followed that principle we would have 1 lbw wicket every 2 games. an umpire cannot be 100% certain about a decision that happens in a split second unless he uses technology

You cant give a batsman out until 100 percent sure. If it looks absolutely plumb, they are indeed 100 percent sure. They dont give the decisions unless they are completely sure and we have more than 1 lbw per game the last time I checked. [/quote]

before the days of the third umpire, umpires gave run outs in the same way that they give lbws and no balls, when they are reasonably sure but not certain, which again lies around the 70% range.

No. If they gave it out if they were 70 percent sure and the tv showed it to be not out, umpires were criticised. They usually followed the conservative approach thus.

 

[tooextracool]

You cant give a batsman out until 100 percent sure. If it looks absolutely plumb, they are indeed 100 percent sure.

so now umpires can only give lbws when they are absolutely plumb then? which is almost never.

They dont give the decisions unless they are completely sure and we have more than 1 lbw per game the last time I checked.

yes well done. and im saying that if we followed you're approach, which is to give a batsman out only when the umpire is 100% sure we would have appx 1 lbw every 2 test matches because 100% certainity with lbw decisions happens that often.

No. If they gave it out if they were 70 percent sure and the tv showed it to be not out, umpires were criticised. They usually followed the conservative approach thus.

yes and umpires made mistakes, and they were criticised when they did, which is why we now have the third umpire. fact is that when you are 70% sure, you think you are right, you are not sure you are right and when umpires think they are right, they back their decision.

 

[Pratters]

yes well done. and im saying that if we followed you're approach, which is to give a batsman out only when the umpire is 100% sure we would have appx 1 lbw every 2 test matches because 100% certainity with lbw decisions happens that often.

Speak with any first class umpire or find in whatever way you can. An umpire will not give a batsman out until he is absolutely sure. They give the decisions only when they totally believe it will be out. Any shadow of a doubt and its given not out. That is the norm applied and we still do have lbw decisions given in matches. If umpires started giving lbws when not sure, we would have very low scores I am afraid.

yes and umpires made mistakes, and they were criticised when they did, which is why we now have the third umpire. fact is that when you are 70% sure, you think you are right, you are not sure you are right and when umpires think they are right, they back their decision.

No umpires usually gave the run out close calls not out until they were completely sure. The coming of assured technology in run outs was a boon obviously.

 

[tooextracool]

Speak with any first class umpire or find in whatever way you can. An umpire will not give a batsman out until he is absolutely sure. They give the decisions only when they totally believe it will be out. Any shadow of a doubt and its given not out. That is the norm applied and we still do have lbw decisions given in matches. If umpires started giving lbws when not sure, we would have very low scores I am afraid..

the fact is that umpires are and have been giving batsmen out when they arent sure or rather when they are relatively sure. think about it, and see how impossible it is to be absolutely certain about things that happen in a split second. i recommend that you try umpiring for any game of cricket and see for yourself how often you can will be sure for any lbw decision. its quite easy to look on the replays and decide for sure whether or not something is out, its not so easy out in the middle.

No umpires usually gave the run out close calls not out until they were completely sure. The coming of assured technology in run outs was a boon obviously.

no they give close calls not out when they are about 50% sure. when they are 70-80% sure in which case they are right about 90% of the time they give it out. that is the norm.

 

[Pratters]

i recommend that you try umpiring for any game of cricket and see for yourself how often you can will be sure for any lbw decision. its quite easy to look on the replays and decide for sure whether or not something is out, its not so easy out in the middle.

Which is why even they, professional umpires make mistakes. Doesnt mean they give the decisions with some amount of doubt.

no they give close calls not out when they are about 50% sure. when they are 70-80% sure in which case they are right about 90% of the time they give it out. that is the norm.

I dont believe we agree on this and agreeing to disagree would be the best. Ravi Shastri once said that if umpires start giving decisions which they have doubts as outs, matches would be over in two days and I believe the same.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Speak with any first class umpire or find in whatever way you can. An umpire will not give a batsman out until he is absolutely sure. They give the decisions only when they totally believe it will be out. Any shadow of a doubt and its given not out. That is the norm applied and we still do have lbw decisions given in matches. If umpires started giving lbws when not sure, we would have very low scores I am afraid.

That is the guiding principal by which all LBW decisions should be given; clearly in this case the ump thought there was no doubt.

In practice some umpires are more likely to give particular decisions than others. I remember in the second test at Edgbaston against The Windies last year Chanderpaul was playing Giles with his pad with his bat tucked behind his pad hinting at playing a shot, but realy doing nothing of the kind. Ash had several v possible LBW shouts turned down by one ump (Taufel?), so Vaughan had the masterstroke of switching Ash to the other end where DB Hair was standing. Chanderpaul thrusts his pad forward again, another appeal, up goes the Hair finger.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Hawk eye showed it was hitting the stumps I am not so sure. Its a judgemental call. Would it go a bit higher? Or stray down a bit? I wasnt completely sure it would hit the stumps. So the doubt.

There is no doubt there what-so-ever. If that was a seamer bowling it would have been 'absolutely plum'.

 

[Pratters]

There is no doubt there what-so-ever. If that was a seamer bowling it would have been 'absolutely plum'.

When seamers bowl, the ball deviates lesser after pitching as compared to when the spinners bowl. So the comparison is not fair.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Erm, when the ball has already pitched, that makes no difference at all.

 

[SpeedKing]

I didn't actually see that delivery but in the end, everything evens itself out [remember Boje to Strauss was it in the last match]

BTW hi guys, im new to Cricket web.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I didn't actually see that delivery but in the end, everything evens itself out [remember Boje to Strauss was it in the last match]

BTW hi guys, im new to Cricket web.

Greetings & welcome SK.

& what you say is probably true; Anderson had Gibbs stone dead before Gilo got the decision.

Still two wrongs & all that!

 

[SpeedKing]

i am an english supportet but i seem to remember Pollock first ball to Butcher in the 3rd test

 

[tooextracool]

Which is why even they, professional umpires make mistakes. Doesnt mean they give the decisions with some amount of doubt.

you tell me how it is possible to make an lbw decisions that takes place in a split second in under 2 seconds without absolute certainity?

I dont believe we agree on this and agreeing to disagree would be the best. Ravi Shastri once said that if umpires start giving decisions which they have doubts as outs, matches would be over in two days and I believe the same.

depends on how much doubt. the fact is that most people assume that 'doubts' means ' 70 - 90% certainty' when it actually implies ' 50% certainity'

 

[marc71178]

Usually when commentators say its brave, its for a decision which generally would not be given out.

Which is exactly what Liam said

 

[marc71178]

We can make subjecive judgements from what we see on t.v.

No, we can attempt to, but unless we are in the middle, we do not know the whole story.

 

[marc71178]

yes i should have mentioned 'outside of a seamer friendly wicket'. it was blatantly obvious that that was what i was referring to considering that hoggard had already got 7/43.

Don't you mean 7-63?

He's never got 7-43 in any form of the game for which records are readily available.

 

[marc71178]

When seamers bowl, the ball deviates lesser after pitching as compared to when the spinners bowl.

But this is Giles, who rarely turns it anyway

 

[badgerhair]

you tell me how it is possible to make an lbw decisions that takes place in a split second in under 2 seconds without absolute certainity?

I think that you meant to say "with absolute certainty", because what you've actually written makes no sense at all.

So, how many other professions do you know where the job consists of making hundreds of decisions a day where the professional is not generally capable of making those decisions correctly and reliably and the professional continues to be employed?

I've no problem in believing that you or I would have a horrible time if we tried standing out in the middle for a Test match, because we do different things for a living, but this is what these guys are trained to do and are experienced at doing, and it's grossly insulting to say that because you're no good at their job, they can't be any good either.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Mr Casson]

When seamers bowl, the ball deviates lesser after pitching as compared to when the spinners bowl. So the comparison is not fair.

So what? Giles is a left-arm orthodox spinner! If anything that would make it closer than a ball from a seamer!