***Official*** Pakistan in England

[greg]

Why can't umpires be allowed to use it when they are just unsure? It seems the fairest way IMO.

If they can not give a decision beyond any reasonable doubt(if that makes sense)they should be allowed to refer it.

In theory yes. However we have seen in the past that in practice too many umpires go running to the technology unnecessarily "just to make sure". And that is where unnecessary problems arise when the TV is inconclusive. I have no problem with them "making sure" if they think it's probably not out, because the technology will not "correct" them innaccurately. The same does not apply if they think it's out. If that makes sense

When technology for runouts first came in Umpires tried to be extremely selective in what they referred. Fortunately this unsatisfactory state did not continue but still, rightly, they do not blanket refer absolutely everything. One only has to look at the infamous Slater incident in 1998/9 to see the dangers of that. TV pictures will never wrongly overrule an umpires decision to give a batsman not out. They can wrongly overrule an umpires decision to give a batsman out. Especially on low catches.

 

[Fusion]

No actually we won't.

The people in charge of the hearing will see.

We will only be told what the ICC want us to be told.

So if the decision goes against Hair, the ICC would cover up the truth and only tell us what they want us to hear. But if it's against Pakistan, I'm sure the "truth" would've come out, right?

 

[open365]

In theory yes. However we have seen in the past that in practice too many umpires go running to the technology unnecessarily "just to make sure". And that is where unnecessary problems arise when the TV is inconclusive. I have no problem with them "making sure" if they think it's probably not out, because the technology will not "correct" them innaccurately. The same does not apply if they think it's out. If that makes sense

When technology for runouts first came in Umpires tried to be extremely selective in what they referred. Fortunately this unsatisfactory state did not continue but still, rightly, they do not blanket refer absolutely everything. One only has to look at the infamous Slater incident in 1998/9 to see the dangers of that. TV pictures will never wrongly overrule an umpires decision to give a batsman not out. They can wrongly overrule an umpires decision to give a batsman out. Especially on low catches.

I don't see what's wrong with umpires making sure they've got the correct decision. If the TV is inconclusive (which isn't very often) then the catch would most likely be so close that there would be no way the umpire could be certain enough to say it was out.

The next bit doesn't make sense to me, lets say for example the umpire umpire is 70% thinking it was out, and there's another situation when the umpire is 70% thinking it wasn't out, i don't see why one should be allowed to refer it and the other shouldn't.

 

[open365]

So if the decision goes against Hair, the ICC would cover up the truth and only tell us what they want us to hear. But if it's against Pakistan, I'm sure the "truth" would've come out, right?

That's not what he meant at all.

I think he's saying that we won't see the evidence but we will hear from the ICC what conclusion the evidence gives, not the evidence itself, like in a court case, you hear the result but you never really understand the evidence.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think the law on this one should be tweaked slightly. Because the technology NEVER suggests that a catch has carried when in fact it has not, the umpires should be free to refer as long as they are of the instinctive opinion that it probably did not carry, regardless of whether they are unsighted or not. If on the other hand they think it has carried then they must not refer.

The laws are clear, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. If the umpires are unsure that means there's doubt so it's not out in their judgement already. If they refer it and there's doubt on the replays it's still not out. They can't just give it out because they think it might have carried but are worried that the replays might incorrectly show that it didn't. There's even more doubt then than there was before.

Not Out M'lud.

 

[greg]

The laws are clear, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. If the umpires are unsure that means there's doubt so it's not out in their judgement already. If they refer it and there's doubt on the replays it's still not out. They can't just give it out because they think it might have carried but are worried that the replays might incorrectly show that it didn't. There's even more doubt then than there was before.

Not Out M'lud.

No such thing as benefit of the doubt in the laws. Only the umpires judgement.

 

[open365]

No such thing as benefit of the doubt in the laws. Only the umpires judgement.

And if the umpires judges it's inconclusive, he gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The way you think the law should be is just plain silly imo, i don't see any logic behind it.

 

[greg]

And if the umpires judges it's inconclusive, he gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The way you think the law should be is just plain silly imo, i don't see any logic behind it.

That's just an argument for no use of technology in the game. Which is fine if you believe that. However if not then the whole argument for technology is to improve umpires decision making. Therefore it logically follows that you only want to use it in cases where it will actually lead to better decisions. In the case of low catches TV will never give a worse decision than the umpire if the umpire thinks that doubt should push the decision in favour of the batsmen (assuming the umpire is not unsighted). However it is highly likely to give an inferior decision if the umpire thinks it's probably out. Logically therefore, you can enhance decision making by using it in the first incidence (umpire inclined to rule in favour of the batsman) but not in the second (ruling in favour of the bowler).

 

[aussie]

Why on earth would anyone have Plunkett and Mahmood in the squad?

good point but i guess Mahmood's test form vs Pakistan would have given him an almost certain spot for the ashes, but Anderson better be picked come tuesday.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Apropos of nothing, may I remind you all of the abuse Ian Bell took when claiming a dubious catch in the Test series in Pakistan off his own bowling? I don't see how that's any different at all from this situation, and yet Bell was labelled a cheat, a liar and a disgrace, while Inzamam gets off scot free.

I have no desire to condemn Inzamam, merely a desire that people stop being so one-eyed and treat situations as they are. Ian Bell was not cheating, Inzamam was at worst being a little bit cheeky and Andrew Strauss was certainly doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Any allegations of outright cheating on anyone's part are immature and pointless.

 

[greg]

Apropos of nothing, may I remind you all of the abuse Ian Bell took when claiming a dubious catch in the Test series in Pakistan off his own bowling? I don't see how that's any different at all from this situation, and yet Bell was labelled a cheat, a liar and a disgrace, while Inzamam gets off scot free.

I have no desire to condemn Inzamam, merely a desire that people stop being so one-eyed and treat situations as they are. Ian Bell was not cheating, Inzamam was at worst being a little bit cheeky and Andrew Strauss was certainly doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Any allegations of outright cheating on anyone's part are immature and pointless.

If Bichel wasn't cheating at Adelaide in 2002/3, then only Rashid Latif has ever cheated

 

[open365]

That's just an argument for no use of technology in the game. Which is fine if you believe that. However if not then the whole argument for technology is to improve umpires decision making. Therefore it logically follows that you only want to use it in cases where it will actually lead to better decisions. In the case of low catches TV will never give a worse decision than the umpire if the umpire thinks that doubt should push the decision in favour of the batsmen (assuming the umpire is not unsighted). However it is highly likely to give an inferior decision if the umpire thinks it's probably out. Logically therefore, you can enhance decision making by using it in the first incidence (umpire inclined to rule in favour of the batsman) but not in the second (ruling in favour of the bowler).

Still doesn't make sense, TV pictures IMO are infintely better at making the decision than the umpire, if he thinks it should go to the batsman but he's not sure, he refers it to the TV pictures to get a better quality decision because the TV pictures are better placed and can be manipulated to give a much better decision than any umpire. In the decision that he thinks favours the bowler but he's not sure, he refers it to the TV pictures to get a better quality decision because the TV pictures are better placed and can be manipulated to give a much better decision than any umpire.

And good point Barney.

 

[silentstriker]

No actually we won't.

The people in charge of the hearing will see.

We will only be told what the ICC want us to be told.

In that case, your statement regarding evidence is simply unjustified. We will know the answer by the result of the hearing.

 

[greg]

Still doesn't make sense, TV pictures IMO are infintely better at making the decision than the umpire, if he thinks it should go to the batsman but he's not sure, he refers it to the TV pictures to get a better quality decision because the TV pictures are better placed and can be manipulated to give a much better decision than any umpire. In the decision that he thinks favours the bowler but he's not sure, he refers it to the TV pictures to get a better quality decision because the TV pictures are better placed and can be manipulated to give a much better decision than any umpire.

And good point Barney.

TV pictures have been proven to be severely fallible on low catches. That is why the ICC changed the regulations regarding their use. It has been proven that they can in certain circumstances make perfectly fair catches taken centimetres off the ground look as if they've hit the ground. What they do not do is make 'non-catches' look as if they've been taken clearly.

All I'm saying is that the ICC regulations, as they stand, are not supposed to allow the use of TV for low catches in any circumstances where either umpire is unsighted. I am simply arguing that this regulation is too strict and could be tweaked without harming the quality of decision making.

 

[open365]

TV pictures have been proven to be severely fallible on low catches. That is why the ICC changed the regulations regarding their use. It has been proven that they can in certain circumstances make perfectly fair catches taken centimetres off the ground look as if they've hit the ground. What they do not do is make 'non-catches' look as if they've been taken clearly.

But an umpires eyesight is even more fallible than TV cameras, and how do you know that they make catches look like they were taken? The Inzy non-catch didn't look like it was caught to me.

 

[open365]

TV pictures have been proven to be severely fallible on low catches. That is why the ICC changed the regulations regarding their use. It has been proven that they can in certain circumstances make perfectly fair catches taken centimetres off the ground look as if they've hit the ground. What they do not do is make 'non-catches' look as if they've been taken clearly.

All I'm saying is that the ICC regulations, as they stand, are not supposed to allow the use of TV for low catches in any circumstances where either umpire is unsighted. I am simply arguing that this regulation is too strict and could be tweaked without harming the quality of decision making.

there's no way the umpires will listen to the law if it is as you want it, they would still call for the video umpire all the time anyway and say they thought it wasn't out.

 

[greg]

But an umpires eyesight is even more fallible than TV cameras,

Not necessarily, because umpires see in three dimensions and television only sees in two.

and how do you know that they make catches look like they were taken? The Inzy non-catch didn't look like it was caught to me.

Nobody said it did. I'm not sure if you've fully understood my argument.

TV can make fair catches look like they haven't carried.
TV does not make catches that haven't carried look like they have.

Hence if an umpire thinks a catch hasn't carried then TV will never contradict him incorrectly. If an umpire thinks it is a fair catch then TV will often incorrectly disagree.

So using TV in the first incidence will only improve decision making (or make no difference). Using TV in the latter could make decisions worse.

Saying umpires will refer anyway and "pretend" that they didn't think it was out doesn't make sense. The umpire is as interested in getting the best possible decision as anyone else.

But there's obviously no meeting of minds here.

 

[open365]

Not necessarily, because umpires see in three dimensions and television only sees in two.



Nobody said it did. I'm not sure if you've fully understood my argument.

TV can make fair catches look like they haven't carried.
TV does not make catches that haven't carried look like they have.

Hence if an umpire thinks a catch hasn't carried then TV will never contradict him incorrectly. If an umpire thinks it is a fair catch then TV will often incorrectly disagree.

So using TV in the first incidence will only improve decision making (or make no difference). Using TV in the latter could make decisions worse.

Saying umpires will refer anyway and "pretend" that they didn't think it was out doesn't make sense. The umpire is as interested in getting the best possible decision as anyone else.

But there's obviously no meeting of minds here.

Ok, i get your point now, but i don't that that the TV pictures will definitively prove one way or another, like you say they prove catches that are taken cleanly aren't, i don't think that's the case, i think if they're wrong, they are probably wrong on both sides of the line, catches being taken and not taken.

 

[greg]

Ok, i get your point now, but i don't that that the TV pictures will definitively prove one way or another, like you say they prove catches that are taken cleanly aren't, i don't think that's the case, i think if they're wrong, they are probably wrong on both sides of the line, catches being taken and not taken.

A satisfactory way to conclude the debate. We disagree, but for a good reason

 

[Anil]

So you are claiming that the umpires have nothing to add then, in spite of not kowing what they've seen whilst out there?

they've already said their piece, haven't they?....and they are going to repeat it at the trial....and if they saw something other than the "condition of the ball", why haven't they come out and said it?...all this controversy could've been avoided if the umpires had visual evidence of pakistani player(s) tampering....