**Official**VB Series 2005 Australia,Pakistan,West Indies.

[Fiery]

Quite simply, I favour the human element of umpiring over using technology. Firstly, technology at this point is still flawed. Umpires judgement can be innaccurate, but personally I trust an impartial umpire a matter of metres from the action more than technology which may be completely off, camera angles which can lie etc.

There are some elements of the game where technology could be implemented and solve more problems than it would create. Examples are for the calling of no-balls (like in tennis), run outs and stumpings etc.Using technology for things such as determining whether or not the ball hit the edge of the bat, whether or not the ball carried to a fielder for a catch or whether or not the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps in an lbw appeal is more problematic than helpful and should be avoided.

In all the times you have seen catches referred to the third umpire, how many times has a still camera shot been able to determine conclusively whether or not a catch was taken? How much do you trust HawkEye to determine the trajectory of a ball when the pitch is seaming or turning a great deal and it hit the pads on the half-volley? How many times can you tell just from looking at video whether or not there was a thin edge on a ball through to the keeper? Sorry, but using technology will not solve any of these problems, and we should instead put our support behind the umpires and offer them the assistance they need to make the best judgement they can.

You are like the people Darwin had trouble convincing.
In the case where even the technology is inconclusive then you go back to the old doctrine of "benefit of the doubt" to the batsman.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are like the people Darwin had trouble convincing.
In the case where even the technology is inconclusively then you go back to the old doctrine of "benefit of the doubt" to the batsman.

That won't work at all. Firstly, there is pressure on the umpire using the technology to come up with a conclusive decision there would not be on a field umpire. If a field umpire thinks the ball might have hit the edge in an lbw appeal he gives it not out. If a third umpire using video technology can't tell if the ball hit the edge of the bat or not, and HawkEye is being used and tells him that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps he might well be inclined to give it out. Furthermore, in the case of technology which is not just inconclusive but entirely inaccurate, such as HawkEye getting the trajectory of the ball wrong, there is the possibility of batsman being given out purely on false evidence, rather than just where they should have got the benefit of doubt.

I believe in the use of technology only in cases where there can be an absolute yes or no proposition which can be solved by a video replay. The perfect example of this is a run out or a no-ball. In cases where there will be doubt more often than not, such as lbws and catches, I would prefer to trust the judgement of the umpires.

 

[vandemataram]

So u are happy to play 2 bolwers, 2 all rounders and a part timer as your five bowlers, not a very balanced side. If it wasn't for the pitch Azhar would have bowled. Ok his not a frontline bowler but with the injury to Khalil he had to play someone who could bowl ten overs.

The area where the balanced was badly needed was upper order batting, something which the wise captain has now realised and have said that they will have to do something about it. Having an additional bowler of the calibre of Azhar at the expense of an opener like Hameed was certainly bizzare!

 

[vandemataram]

They found a guy who could bat at three, Malik but they dropped him down the order for some stupid reason. It is time to put him back to the top of the order. Also the keeper needs to bat down the order, it will solve allot of problems. I think Inzi and Youhana are ok at 4 and 5 if malik bats at three

That can be a case in onedayers, but in the longer format of the game they still haven't got a guy for the all important one-down slot!

 

[Deja moo]

In all the times you have seen catches referred to the third umpire, how many times has a still camera shot been able to determine conclusively whether or not a catch was taken? How much do you trust HawkEye to determine the trajectory of a ball when the pitch is seaming or turning a great deal and it hit the pads on the half-volley? How many times can you tell just from looking at video whether or not there was a thin edge on a ball through to the keeper? Sorry, but using technology will not solve any of these problems, and we should instead put our support behind the umpires and offer them the assistance they need to make the best judgement they can.

Determining the legality of catches using videos is anytime preferable to depending on the umpires fo that purpose. Videos offer various angles and close ups which solve the issue on more occasions than not. That goes without saying. You are concentrating on the few instances where even videos do not remove doubt, but what about the far more instances when they conclusively resolve the matter which the umpire on his own could not ?

As for Hawkeye, the official explanation is that the cameras track the movement of the ball after it pitches. So I guess that it tracks and extrapolates the path of the seaming ball well enough. You are right, the half volley is difficult for a machine to track, and the same could be questioned of the umpires too. How do they do it when the only possible basis for them to track such deliveries is the mental database of previous deliveries ?

People say that Hawkeyes accuracy cannot be verified. The same goes for the umpires too. Also, Hawkeye is not affected by crowd pressure and the pressure brought on by appealing players It is impossible, I believe , to assess the accuracy of both Hawkeye and Umpire, given that there exists no reference set.

As for the snick to the keeper, you are right, videos are not the tool to provide a conclusive verdict. There does exist another wonderful tool- Its called a snickometer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Videos offer various angles and close ups which solve the issue on more occasions than not.

Not in my experience. More often than not from what I have seen, if the umpires cannot tell if a fielder has got his fingers under the ball, the replay is equally inconclusive and a "maybe" decision is given.

Given the impossibility of testing the veracity of both Hawkeye and the umpires, for me its a matter of which I prefer, and I trust Hawkeye more.

The problem with Hawkeye is not just that it could be wrong just as the umpires could be wrong, it's that there is little reason at all to believe it could understand the likely behaviour of a pitch more than an experienced umpire, given that it's a machine that knows nothing about cricket! If the ball is going straight on and there is a clear gap between it pitching and hitting the pad and there is no swing, fine... if the ball is behaving in an unusual fashion however I wouldn't trust hawkeye to even get close to it, since it is just as likely to get it completely wrong as not. So in that case, not only do I think Hawkeye is no better than the judgement of the umpire, I think it is significantly worse.

As for the snick to the keeper, you are right, videos are not the tool to provide a conclusive verdict. There does exist another wonderful tool- Its called a snickometer.

Yet another tool which is inconclusive as often as not. Yes, a big thick edge outside the off stump is easy to see on snickometer, but how many times has there been conflict between multiple noises such as the ball hitting the pad and the bat, the bat hitting the pad, the bat hitting the ground etc which have rendered it completely inconclusive? Once again, I trust the judgement of the umpire far more than snickometer.

 

[Scallywag]

I'm sure Woolmer knows more about this than you do.

And I'm sure the umpires know more about it than Woolmer does.

 

[Deja moo]

Not in my experience. More often than not from what I have seen, if the umpires cannot tell if a fielder has got his fingers under the ball, the replay is equally inconclusive and a "maybe" decision is given.

We have different view on this then. I find that video replays give conclusive results on many occaisions that the ump couldnt make up his mind on.

The problem with Hawkeye is not just that it could be wrong just as the umpires could be wrong, it's that there is little reason at all to believe it could understand the likely behaviour of a pitch more than an experienced umpire, given that it's a machine that knows nothing about cricket! If the ball is going straight on and there is a clear gap between it pitching and hitting the pad and there is no swing, fine... if the ball is behaving in an unusual fashion however I wouldn't trust hawkeye to even get close to it, since it is just as likely to get it completely wrong as not. So in that case, not only do I think Hawkeye is no better than the judgement of the umpire, I think it is significantly worse.
How is it just as likely to get it wrong in swinging conditions ? The camera tracks the ball after it pitches. So if it goes straight on, fine, and if it swings, the camera tracks the movement accordingly.

Yet another tool which is inconclusive as often as not. Yes, a big thick edge outside the off stump is easy to see on snickometer, but how many times has there been conflict between multiple noises such as the ball hitting the pad and the bat, the bat hitting the pad, the bat hitting the ground etc which have rendered it completely inconclusive? Once again, I trust the judgement of the umpire far more than snickometer.

Overlaying the audio recording with the video can sometimes solve the question of what hit what. In cases where there still exists doubt, surely differences in the frequencies of the sound should help ? It does puzzle me why this is not used more often. After all, the characteristics of the sounds generated by ball hitting bat and bat hitting pad etc are bound to be different given the different materials involved ?

 

[Fiery]

Determining the legality of catches using videos is anytime preferable to depending on the umpires fo that purpose. Videos offer various angles and close ups which solve the issue on more occasions than not. That goes without saying. You are concentrating on the few instances where even videos do not remove doubt, but what about the far more instances when they conclusively resolve the matter which the umpire on his own could not ?

As for Hawkeye, the official explanation is that the cameras track the movement of the ball after it pitches. So I guess that it tracks and extrapolates the path of the seaming ball well enough. You are right, the half volley is difficult for a machine to track, and the same could be questioned of the umpires too. How do they do it when the only possible basis for them to track such deliveries is the mental database of previous deliveries ?

People say that Hawkeyes accuracy cannot be verified. The same goes for the umpires too. Also, Hawkeye is not affected by crowd pressure and the pressure brought on by appealing players It is impossible, I believe , to assess the accuracy of both Hawkeye and Umpire, given that there exists no reference set.

As for the snick to the keeper, you are right, videos are not the tool to provide a conclusive verdict. There does exist another wonderful tool- Its called a snickometer.

Exactly right. Those reluctant to embrace technology are probably members of the Flat Earth Society.
Of course there will be instances when even the 3rd umpire gets it wrong but having the benefit of replays to reduce the number of wrong decisions is far preferable to watching the cameras make the umpires out in the middle look like idiots.
Hawkeye technology is great for seeing whether the ball has pitched in line with the stumps and snicko is also very useful for nicks and are already in place. At the moment they only only used to prove the umpire is right or wrong which means they are more harmful, to the game and to umpires reputations, than useful at the moment.

 

[wahindiawah]

Thats only Woolmers view.

If Buchanan come out and said it was 16 against Australia and 2 against Pak would it suddenly be poor umpiring against Australia.

I'm sure Woolmer didnt look for bad decisions against Australia but included some decisions that were good as "bad" simply because he didnt like them, we know how biased some people are when refering to their own team.

Not just while talking about their team but while talking about their umpires too. A perfect example of biased is this guy.

 

[Fiery]

Yet another tool which is inconclusive as often as not. Yes, a big thick edge outside the off stump is easy to see on snickometer, but how many times has there been conflict between multiple noises such as the ball hitting the pad and the bat, the bat hitting the pad, the bat hitting the ground etc which have rendered it completely inconclusive? Once again, I trust the judgement of the umpire far more than snickometer.

The spikiness of the graph shows whether it hit wood or pad.

 

[wahindiawah]

And I'm sure the umpires know more about it than Woolmer does.

Really?? then why did they ended up making such mistakes?

If someone says that the umpires knew the situation yet ended up giving such decision then we all know what it practically means.

 

[Deja moo]

And I'm sure the umpires know more about it than Woolmer does.

And you still havent answered the question as to how umpires are assessed.

 

[Deja moo]

The spikiness of the graph shows whether it hit wood or pad.

Exactly. I do not remember where or when, but during a match telecast, it was demonstrated that the different scenarios produce characteristic spikes on the graph.

 

[Scallywag]

I would love to see Woolmers face if the umpires released a satatement about his coaching abilities after watching batsmen get out to stupid shots, poor running between wickets, sloppy fielding, poor catching, bowling extras and not getting through their overs. I mean this guy is supposed to be a top coach and look at how pathetic his team is. Surely he his just trying to deflect any attention away from his useless coaching. How can he comment on the performance of others when he has failed miserably in his own position to even be mediocre. He is a hopeless coach who cannot even get the basics of coaching right but thinks he knows more about umpiring, so the question must be asked why is he not an umpire, possibly because he failed at that also. Pakistan will sack him in the near future.

 

[Scallywag]

Really?? then why did they ended up making such mistakes?

If someone says that the umpires knew the situation yet ended up giving such decision then we all know what it practically means.

So you just blindly accept that because woolmer the Pak coach said it was 29-6 then it is a fact.

 

[Deja moo]

I would love to see Woolmers face if the umpires released a satatement about his coaching abilities after watching batsmen get out to stupid shots, poor running between wickets, sloppy fielding, poor catching, bowling extras and not getting through their overs. I mean this guy is supposed to be a top coach and look at how pathetic his team is. Surely he his just trying to deflect any attention away from his useless coaching. How can he comment on the performance of others when he has failed miserably in his own position to even be mediocre. He is a hopeless coach who cannot even get the basics of coaching right but thinks he knows more about umpiring, so the question must be asked why is he not an umpire, possibly because he failed at that also. Pakistan will sack him in the near future.

Theres nothing wrong in that too. As a coach, he is answerable for the poor performances of his team. Doesnt mean that he has no right to cricticise the umps. You have failed to be an international cricketer. Does that mean you have no right to criticise Vaughan ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How is it just as likely to get it wrong in swinging conditions ? The camera tracks the ball after it pitches. So if it goes straight on, fine, and if it swings, the camera tracks the movement accordingly.

Quite simply, I am talking about late swing. As I'm sure you know, the ball doesn't always swing in the air before pitching or straight on from the point of hitting the pitch, it sometimes swings late, and if the ball pitches and swings late before hitting the pads, Hawkeye is quite liable to get it wrong. You might say the umpire wouldn't be able to anticipate the degree of the swing either, but at the very least knowing something about cricket and most likely having played himself he could make an educated guess, which is something a machine cannot do.

Overlaying the audio recording with the video can sometimes solve the question of what hit what. In cases where there still exists doubt, surely differences in the frequencies of the sound should help ? It does puzzle me why this is not used more often. After all, the characteristics of the sounds generated by ball hitting bat and bat hitting pad etc are bound to be different given the different materials involved ?

Yes, usually snicko will show the bat as a thinner, longer line and the pad or clothing as thicker, shorter lines because of the tone of the sound. As I said, in some cases snicko works fine, but usually only in the cases where the umpire could have made a simple decision anyway. In situations like bat-pad catches and situations where the ball may have hit bat and pad at roughly the same time - ie: the situations where the umpire is most likely to be in doubt and refer it to the third umpire - it is inconclusive more often than not.

 

[Choora]

I would love to see Woolmers face if the umpires released a satatement about his coaching abilities after watching batsmen get out to stupid shots, poor running between wickets, sloppy fielding, poor catching, bowling extras and not getting through their overs. I mean this guy is supposed to be a top coach and look at how pathetic his team is. Surely he his just trying to deflect any attention away from his useless coaching. How can he comment on the performance of others when he has failed miserably in his own position to even be mediocre. He is a hopeless coach who cannot even get the basics of coaching right but thinks he knows more about umpiring, so the question must be asked why is he not an umpire, possibly because he failed at that also. Pakistan will sack him in the near future.

This is clearly pathetic. I have been a big critic of Woolmer, but i would never say that Pakistan fared poorly only coz of woolmer. If Coaches is all that takes to turn a team into champs then Bangladesh should have been doing wonders.

Pakistan batting has been poor since a decade, the fielding has been poor ever since they started playing cricket.Anyone who knows Inzi and Youhanna would know that their running b/w wkts would never improve no matter how hard a coach tries that( be it be Miandad or Woolmer), and Pakistan certainly didn't concedes extras anywhere where they use to do .So why blame Woolmer?
The fact that their second string bowling attack (whose opening bowllers haven't got even 100 ODI wkts ) fought wonderfully against champion batsman proves that Woolmer certainly didn't do such an awful job to call him hopeless.

If the umpires in question tries to attack Woolmer by using scallywag's logic then it will proove that not only they are inefficient but they are also idiots!

 

[Scallywag]

Theres nothing wrong in that too. As a coach, he is answerable for the poor performances of his team. Doesnt mean that he has no right to cricticise the umps. You have failed to be an international cricketer. Does that mean you have no right to criticise Vaughan ?

He is answerable to the PCB and they have their system for evaluating his performance just like the umpires have their peers who evaluate their performances. What we dont need is coaches critizing umpires and umpires critizing coaches. Whatever Woolmer says will have no effect on the performance anaylasis of the umpires just like umpires whinging about Woolmer would have no effect on the PCB evaluating his performance.
What it does do though is create tension between the umpires and his players and provides unsubstantuated percieved bias for rabid supporters.
So everybody loses including cricket and no good comes from it.