**Official** New Zealand in Australia Thread

[marc71178]

Not last summer - there were several intances where Snicko was used for up to 15 minutes and the result was still inconclusive.

 

[tooextracool]

Not last summer - there were several intances where Snicko was used for up to 15 minutes and the result was still inconclusive.

which is what i said, if you cant make it out in 2 mins, you will never be sure of it 20 mins later even. therefore if you cant make it out in the first few replays, then just give the batsman the benefit of the doubt and get on with it. noone can be blamed, given that its inconclusive and therefore at the end of the game we wont see people blaming the loss on the umpires.

 

[Macka]

Seems to me that there are different frequency ranges that each noise (bat on ball, bat on pad) would make. When 'snicko' is in action all we have is the commentators telling us how it works. I don't think they're experts.

I think some of the technology used nowadays isn't understood by most people, or the commentators. I very much doubt commentators have the necessary background to understand how this technology works. Earlier this year didn't someone (Lillee I think?) have a go at hawkeye for some reason? From what I read it seemed pretty obvious he had no idea how it actually worked. I just think people need to be more informed about how this technology actually works.

 

[marc71178]

Hawkeye is far from accurate - it predicts things rather than replaying things that actually happen.

 

[Steulen]

But it predicts with far greater accuracy than the human eye.

 

[bryce]

for me, if i got an LBW decison given against me and hawk-eye said it was out, i'd accept that i am out.
i cannot see why people think it is so in-accurate, it uses a theory that the ball will maintain a consistent trajectory through the air based on the angle it leaves the ground which cannot be affected by any variables as far as i know, the only doubting i suppose if it is a yorker becasue you do not know what trajectory the ball is leaving the ground at, but rarely would an in-line yorker miss the stumps anyway, i say bring in the technology.

 

[Scallywag]

I find it hard to understand how people will accept a decision from a camera or microphone without a problem but cant seem to handle an umpires decision. Its not the decision thats the problem its being able to accept the decision that is the problem.

I dont think that going to all the expense of training cameramen and buying all this techno gear just to stop people whinging about the umpire will work. As soon as you spend the money they will just move onto whinging about something else to justify their displeasure at losing.

 

[shaka]

for me, if i got an LBW decison given against me and hawk-eye said it was out, i'd accept that i am out.
i cannot see why people think it is so in-accurate, it uses a theory that the ball will maintain a consistent trajectory through the air based on the angle it leaves the ground which cannot be affected by any variables as far as i know, the only doubting i suppose if it is a yorker becasue you do not know what trajectory the ball is leaving the ground at, but rarely would an in-line yorker miss the stumps anyway, i say bring in the technology.

I think there was an incidence in the Australia v NZ game where somebody moved the wicket to wicket shadow for the hawk eye in order to make it seem like it was a better decision.

 

[bryce]

I think there was an incidence in the Australia v NZ game where somebody moved the wicket to wicket shadow for the hawk eye in order to make it seem like it was a better decision.

haha sounds like something those aussie commentators would do but i don't think the third umpire would be doing too much of that

 

[Scallywag]

I think there was an incidence in the Australia v NZ game where somebody moved the wicket to wicket shadow for the hawk eye in order to make it seem like it was a better decision.

There was an incidence of a poster claiming the shadow was moved.
I think it was a NZ supporter trying to claim the umpire cost them the series.

Like I said its accepting decisions, not who makes them.

 

[Mister Wright]

I find it hard to understand how people will accept a decision from a camera or microphone without a problem but cant seem to handle an umpires decision. Its not the decision thats the problem its being able to accept the decision that is the problem.

I dont think that going to all the expense of training cameramen and buying all this techno gear just to stop people whinging about the umpire will work. As soon as you spend the money they will just move onto whinging about something else to justify their displeasure at losing.

Great post.

 

[bryce]

Like I said its accepting decisions, not who makes them.

try being on the receiving end of one, i've been given for a few 'caught behinds' off the pad, easy enough for you to write that but the reality is IRL it's much tougher to accept when it happens to you and it's no different with professional cricketers.
umpires can be the most unpredictable thing in the world, and at least with the technology there will be some line of consistency.

 

[Scallywag]

try being on the receiving end of one, i've been given for a few 'caught behinds' off the pad, easy enough for you to write that but the reality is IRL it's much tougher to accept when it happens to you and it's no different with professional cricketers.
umpires can be the most unpredictable thing in the world, and at least with the technology there will be some line of consistency.

I have been on the recieving end Bryce, many times. But I've got over it by the end of the game.

Usually a few beers with the ump after the game and hearing his side makes you grateful he takes the time to umpire so we can play.

 

[Mister Wright]

There's an easy solution to all this umpire/technology nonsense. Let the players do it. Hey, we have to do it every Saturday at our local grounds, and we have to pay to play. Let them earn their money.

 

[Scallywag]

easy enough for you to write that but the reality is IRL it's much tougher to accept when it happens to you and it's no different with professional cricketers.
.

I cant think of any professional cricketers that have pushed for technology to replace umpires. There may be some its just I'm not aware of them.

 

[Macka]

Hawkeye is far from accurate - it predicts things rather than replaying things that actually happen.

This is what I'm talking about. Do you know how it *actually* works? The algorithm behind it? How can anyone comment on such technology without understanding it first?

 

[bryce]

I have been on the recieving end Bryce, many times. But I've got over it by the end of the game.

Usually a few beers with the ump after the game and hearing his side makes you grateful he takes the time to umpire so we can play.

yeah well i'm only really talking about the professional grades, i appreciate the work umpires to do, especially the ones who do it for no profit, i'm not one to mouth of at them lol

I cant think of any professional cricketers that have pushed for technology to replace umpires. There may be some its just I'm not aware of them.

no probably because they would attract alot of media criticism, there are no 'campaigners' for it but i'm sure a fair few would prefer technology, however i can think of fair few professional cricketers not happy after getting bad decisions!

 

[marc71178]

But it predicts with far greater accuracy than the human eye.

I dispute that - it pays no heed to the overhead conditions etc (ie how much the ball is moving in the air) - only assumes the ball will continue in a straight line after pitching.

Anyone who's seen the amount of after pitch movement over here would see that Hawkeye ignores all that.

 

[marc71178]

I find it hard to understand how people will accept a decision from a camera or microphone without a problem but cant seem to handle an umpires decision. Its not the decision thats the problem its being able to accept the decision that is the problem.

Not often I agree with you, but here is a good case.

I've often pointed out my reservations about Hawkeye, and imagine they'd soon be used by people given out by it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And a case of the top order not going on with their starts...

no, but this is one-day cricket.......and we have two openers who go hell for leather. They play that way to get 50-60 quickly, but the risks they take probably mean they'll get out in the 30's to 40's a lot more times than they'll go on to make 100. We got off to a good start in each game, then our middle order let us down twice in this series. I'm sure there'll be times when our top order fails and the middle order saves us, but in specific reference to this series it wasn't the case.