• 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.

Pakistan Tour of South Africa 2018/19

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
artvandalay said:
Which it pretty much is. These umps fail.to see no balls right under their noses, how can they judge a catch 40 yards away. It seems more like they give it out because they are sure the batsman nicked it more than anything. It's good that consistency has been shown in this series with respect to the decisions.
Click to expand...
better than relying on a single telephoto lens 80m away
 
A

artvandalay

State Vice-Captain
. better than relying on a single telephoto lens 80m away
Click to expand...
No it isnt. A replay and a 3rd umpire who has the time to see whether the ball actually bounced or not is definitely superior to an umpire who is not there to just look at the slips and judge whether a catch may have been taken. The 2d 3d argument isn't relevant here. Has there ever been a dubious catch with a soft Signal not out anyway?
 
Last edited:
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
artvandalay said:
No it isnt. A replay and a 3rd umpire who has the time to see whether the ball actually bounced or not is definitely superior to an umpire who is not there to just look at the slips and judge whether a catch may have been taken. The 2d 3d argument isn't relevant here. Has there ever been a dubious catch with a soft Signal not out anyway?
Click to expand...
the 3rd umpire can look at the same replay as often as he likes. it will not remove the fundamental and extreme optical limitations caused by viewing a scenario such as a low catch with a telephoto lens. the inability to accurately perceive depth in high-contrast, low-resolution scenarios like this because you have one lens and the distance between the hands, the ball, and the ground are so minimal relative to the focal length of the lens that they all effectively happen on a single focal plane, which means you have no ability to accurate perceive distance bewteen the ball and the gorund.

in short this means you are guessing, every single time, as to whether the ball has truly hit the ground or not, unless relying on the same physical cues as ever: is the ball going up, is the ball going down, was the fielder's hands under the ball. what you cannot do is determine from an image whether the ball is touching the grass, because basically any distance in that scenario is rendered on the image plane as zero.
 
Last edited:
Boris_Dog

Boris_Dog

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Wrt the catch. Why do his hands and wrists keep moving and the ball stay still during the catch. Because the ball is being rammed into the ground. It's just physics.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is this going to be one of those ones where I watch the highlights and see the ball clearly touching the ground?
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Does the grass count as the ground w/regards to catches? Like, you could have the ball in your hand and your hand above the ground, but still be surrounded by grass. Not sure if that would be out or not.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Starfighter said:
Is this going to be one of those ones where I watch the highlights and see the ball clearly touching the ground?
Click to expand...
Yeah there shouldn't be any debate about it at all IMO. I get the points about foreshortening etc but sometimes it's not close enough for that to really come into play, and this was one of those times.
 
A

artvandalay

State Vice-Captain
Spark said:
the 3rd umpire can look at the same replay as often as he likes. it will not remove the fundamental and extreme optical limitations caused by viewing a scenario such as a low catch with a telephoto lens. the inability to accurately perceive depth in high-contrast, low-resolution scenarios like this because you have one lens and the distance between the hands, the ball, and the ground are so minimal relative to the focal length of the lens that they all effectively happen on a single focal plane, which means you have no ability to accurate perceive distance bewteen the ball and the gorund.

in short this means you are guessing, every single time, as to whether the ball has truly hit the ground or not, unless relying on the same physical cues as ever: is the ball going up, is the ball going down, was the fielder's hands under the ball. what you cannot do is determine from an image whether the ball is touching the grass, because basically any distance in that scenario is rendered on the image plane as zero.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but despite the flaws associated with it i don't see how an onfield umpire who hasn't seen the whole catch when it happened save for maybe a split second is better than the 3rd umpire at judging whether or not it bounced. There's a whole reason he goes up in the first place and it's not because he's relatively sure. Distance not withstanding it is not always an optical illusion even at the current camera distance.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
okay having seen that yeah that's different to a lot of the "out but not given". he doesn't catch it cleanly at all on the first attempt
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
artvandalay said:
Fair enough but despite the flaws associated with it i don't see how an onfield umpire who hasn't seen the whole catch when it happened save for maybe a split second is better than the 3rd umpire at judging whether or not it bounced. There's a whole reason he goes up in the first place and it's not because he's relatively sure. Distance not withstanding it is not always an optical illusion even at the current camera distance.
Click to expand...
because the on-field umpire is closer and, vitally, has two eyes, so binocular vision makes him much better at judging small differences in distance.

yes, the third ump has replays. but those replays will always be fundamentally flawed until we mock up some very expensive 3d system involving twin cameras positioned side by side.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Spark said:
okay having seen that yeah that's different to a lot of the "out but not given". he doesn't catch it cleanly at all on the first attempt
Click to expand...
I felt he pushed it into the ground after not quite taking it cleanly... still not sure it was good enough to overrule the onfield call though.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
StephenZA said:
I felt he pushed it into the ground after not quite taking it cleanly... still not sure it was good enough to overrule the onfield call though.
Click to expand...
to me it just looked like he dropped it, and it bounced back into his fingers.

anyway my strong view on this whole subject is that the soft signal system should remain as it is. furthermore, what constitutes clear evidence to overturn the soft signal should consist only of clear evidence that the ball has bounced. not "touched one blade of grass", not "been close to the ground", but bounced, i.e. had a clear change of momentum from down to up that is not the result of the fielder's actions.

so this would be still not out under that framework.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top