• 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*** India in Australia

Evermind

Evermind

International Debutant
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't they either

1) Let all the umpires sit out the game, and if there's a clean bowled, then that'll be taken as an out.

2) Let Australia declare for 500, and save everyone the time and India the humiliation.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Would love to hear what both captains have to say about all these dire umpiring decisions after the end of day's play.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Anyone else find it funny that amid all the clamouring here for the use of technology in umpiring decisions, a decision is referred to the third umpire that is totally inconclusive and a batsman is given not out because you couldn't tell?

This is why technology is not used more than it is. Every time it is experimented with for anything other than black and white, behind or in front of the line decisions, it is generally inconclusive and simply serves to complicate things. For LBW decisions it is impractical because many of the things used in determining an LBW decision are either abritrary (was the batsman playing a shot?) or difficult to tell on replay a lot of the time (was the ball going to hit the stumps?). That leaves pitching in line, where it may have a purpose. For catches it isn't used because camera angles make viewing the position of a ball relative to the ground very difficult, and catches low to the ground viewed on replay are very, very often inconclusive. For reference, see the hundreds of arguments on this forum about whether or not X catch by X fielder was genuine. If nothing else, that should indicate you can't use replays to determine those decisions much of the time.

That leaves run outs, where it is already used, and no ball decisions, where I would support the introduction of technology. For LBWs and catches, technology is nowhere near 100% reliable in improving the umpire's ability to make a decision, and would simply delay the game and undermine the umpires for no valid reason much of the time, especially if one assumes that technology like Hawkeye wouldn't be used because it is predictive and therefore not verifiably accurate.
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
pup11 said:
Would love to hear what both captains have to say about all these dire umpiring decisions after the end of day's play.
Click to expand...
Ponting will be grumbling, you could see how miffed he was when he was given out.
 
J

James_W

U19 Vice-Captain
Perm said:
The Indians have every right to criticise the umpires in this Test, obviously there was one that was strongly in their favour (Ponting LBW), but there have been three decisions incorrectly given that hindered them significantly. Add to that poor wicket-keeping in the Ponting stumping, and a lazy attempt at catching, and the Indians will be rueing what could have been an awesome day for them.
Click to expand...
Poor wicket-keeping? The ball deflected off Ponting's pad, no keeper in the world would've took that chance.
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
FaaipDeOiad said:
Anyone else find it funny that amid all the clamouring here for the use of technology in umpiring decisions, a decision is referred to the third umpire that is totally inconclusive and a batsman is given not out because you couldn't tell?

This is why technology is not used more than it is. Every time it is experimented with for anything other than black and white, behind or in front of the line decisions, it is generally inconclusive and simply serves to complicate things. For LBW decisions it is impractical because many of the things used in determining an LBW decision are either abritrary (was the batsman playing a shot?) or difficult to tell on replay a lot of the time (was the ball going to hit the stumps?). That leaves pitching in line, where it may have a purpose. For catches it isn't used because camera angles make viewing the position of a ball relative to the ground very difficult, and catches low to the ground viewed on replay are very, very often inconclusive. For reference, see the hundreds of arguments on this forum about whether or not X catch by X fielder was genuine. If nothing else, that should indicate you can't use replays to determine those decisions much of the time.

That leaves run outs, where it is already used, and no ball decisions, where I would support the introduction of technology. For LBWs and catches, technology is nowhere near 100% reliable in improving the umpire's ability to make a decision, and would simply delay the game and undermine the umpires for no valid reason much of the time, especially if one assumes that technology like Hawkeye wouldn't be used because it is predictive and therefore not verifiably accurate.
Click to expand...
If you can't tell give it not out simple. But if the technology is clear then use it, and it is clear a hell of a lot re-Snicko, Hotspot
 
duffer

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
archie mac said:
You would not like Simon Tufnel to umpire?
Click to expand...
Nope, a neutral third umpire would make sure there aren't any conspiracy theories when the home side gets a 50/50. I reckon Tauffel would've given that out. The third umpire bottled it big time.
 
J

JustTool

State 12th Man
All 3 Aussie commentators agreed tat Symonds was out.

Is THERE NO LIMIT this sport's bias or stupidity ??


Bucknor and Benson have won this match for Australia along with the 3rd umpire. For those who are attentive Yuvraj was given out when there was MORE doubt and that too by the field ump :wacko: :@ :@

No one should be surprised - in Australia this happens to all the visiting teams at critical junctures of the match.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
archie mac said:
If you can't tell give it not out simple. But if the technology is clear then use it, and it is clear a hell of a lot re-Snicko, Hotspot
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what if it's inconclusive a lot of the time, like with LBW decisions and catches? Do we still delay the game by referring it to the third umpire every time?

I know it's easy to call for technology to be used, but think about the last test for instance and the myriad of rejected LBW shouts by Hogg and Kumble respectively. How many of those, had they been referred, would have been conclusively out on replay? I'd hazard a guess at 0. And how much time would it have taken for every one of those shouts to be referred to the third umpire, all for no reason?
 
B

Bracken

U19 Debutant
duffer said:
Nope, a neutral third umpire would make sure there aren't any conspiracy theories when the home side gets a 50/50.
Click to expand...
If only that were true. The nonsense that has been spouted over the two series this summer has more than demonstrated that having neutral umpires is no barrier to ridiculous claims of bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top