Should replays be used to judge catches

[aussie_beater]

This issue of using replays in deciding catches has come to sharp focus in the second test match between India and England at Trent Bridge, with the incidents involving Stewart and Butcher.

It was the same issue in Bombay a year and half ago with that Slater incident involving Dravid.I feel that there is nothing wrong in referring such cases to the third umpire provided there is a good angle and footage available based on which a decision can be made.But if the available footage isn't good enough then its the umpires who should make a decision, although referring the case back and forth like that may confuse the players and spectators immensely and contribute to vitiating the whole atmosphere.I am confused right now

What say folks ?

 

[Anil]

I feel it is good to use technology and reduce umpiring errors.

If the available footage just isn't good enough(I mean if there aren't enough angles to judge properly etc), then I would suggest the fielder has to be trusted and the batsman has to go. If the footage shows the action clearly, but there is a doubt whether the catch was taken cleanly, the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman.

 

[luckyeddie]

I posted a thread a few weeks ago entitled 'Hawkeye - the future?' (or something like that. At the time, I was a great advocate of the use of modern technology. In light of yesterday's 'catch', I think I'm joining the 'anti' camp. Boundaries and run outs are fine. I would even advocate the use of electronic detection of no-balls. Catches, though. are too difficult to decide by electronic means.
For one thing, the cameras are there for television coverage and not necessarily for adjudication purposes. Secondly, if a catch is taken low down, it is impossible to see if the ball is touching the floor. It could be below the level of the top of the grass, but the fielder could well have his fingers under it. This type of image cannot be picked up by television. If referred, it will bring about a 'not out' decision every time.
I'd like to give some reponsibility back to the umpires here.

 

[Top_Cat]

If the available footage just isn't good enough(I mean if there aren't enough angles to judge properly etc), then I would suggest the fielder has to be trusted and the batsman has to go.

That, quite frankly, is insane. The benefit of ANY doubt should ALWAYS go to the batsman. It ensures consistency and considering a batsman gets only one chance, whereas fielders get as many chances as there are balls bowled, a system like that will just push the favour too far towards the fielding side.

 

[aussie_beater]

The benefit of ANY doubt should ALWAYS go to the batsman

I sort of agree with that but if a batsman gets too many of such benefits, things start looking very bad and it vitiates the atomosphere in the field.

I am not sure what the actual rule is.Do the umpires consult the third umpire or they refer the issue to the third umpire.It makes a lot of difference.If its been referred to the third umpire and that guy happens to have crappy footage, then would he send back the matter to the umpires on the field or just pull out a decision from his hat.

 

[Top_Cat]

If its been referred to the third umpire and that guy happens to have crappy footage, then would he send back the matter to the umpires on the field or just pull out a decision from his hat.

It's a very good question but I'm pretty sure if the 3rd umpire cannot see what really went on, they will just assume the 'benefit of the doubt' should happen and give the guy not out. I personally don't see the point in referring the decision back o the umpire because it's a contradiction; the umpires aren't sure so they ask a better placed person (3rd umpire); he's not sure so he refers it back to the original guys who weren't sure so they'll generally give the person not out because they couldn't be sure. Why not just save the bother and if BOTH aren't sure, just give the batsman not out, which I'm sure already happens.

 

[Anoop]

If the third umpire does not have good footage, then I think he should refer it back and the field umpire should go by his first reaction just after the catch was taken.

 

[royGilchrist]

Replays for behind the wicket catches would be useless as Eddie pointed out. The camera doesnt give conclusive results and the 'snickometer' or whatever the hell its called is crap.

For other decisions, like LBW, bat/pad catches and other caches to judge if the ball carried to the fielder, it would be good to use the camera replays. LBW, sometimes is not fully accurate with the camera because the camera is someitmes at a different height than the pads but it would atleast be consistent with what everyone is seeing hence no one would be able to complain later.

But this would bring about two problems. One would be the obvious cases where the umpire was leaning towards giving it out, but he referred it to the third ump for confirmation and the third ump had a very bad camera angle which did not show anythin conclusive, in which case it should logically be given not out (in favor of batsman) but because initially the umpire had thought it was out but wasnt 100% sure, it would be a bit of a dilemma. So this is not a perfect solution by any means. I guess the umpire would only have to refer the decision to the third ump in case he is totally unsure, and if the third ump cannot see anything clearly its not out.

The second and more important problem I think, would be the time delay everytime the decision is referred to the third umpire. This would break the continuity of the game and make a slow game even slower.

Technology is a good thing but its not the answer ot everything, and I wont be surprised if it turns out to be a big flop. In tennis they tried computerized linesmen in seniors circuit once and it was a huge flop. It was so accurate, that even if the ball clipped 1% of the line (which to the naked eye looks clearly out), it was called in by the computer. The spectators and players were both bewildered at many decisions.

In cricket though the use of more technology would reduce the 'cheating' factor by umpires which would definetely a good thing.

 

[royGilchrist]

Also in tennis the poor cyclopse (sp?), which is used to call serves, has felt the wrath of many players, and its turned off many times after the mutual agreement of both players.

I am not sure who the player was, maybe Agassi or Stich, but once before the serve actually was hit the cyclopse beeped. As a result the resulting expletives, had to be censored by a different kind of beeps.

 

[aussie_beater]

If the third umpire does not have good footage, then I think he should refer it back and the field umpire should go by his first reaction just after the catch was taken.

I am totally against this ping-pong business where the umpires would keep on tossing the issue amongst them and the players and spectators would be just waiting for the guillotine.As T_C said in an earlier post, its a plain contradiction if it were to be referred back to the umpires.

That's why I feel, the umpires should only be allowed to consult the third umpire when they have a confusion, and the third umpire should not have any discretionary powers whatsoever.The final decision should be made by the umpires on the ground.

That would be using technology rather then being used by it.

[Edited on 8/13/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[Anil]

Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the available footage just isn't good enough(I mean if there aren't enough angles to judge properly etc), then I would suggest the fielder has to be trusted and the batsman has to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That, quite frankly, is insane. The benefit of ANY doubt should ALWAYS go to the batsman. It ensures consistency and considering a batsman gets only one chance, whereas fielders get as many chances as there are balls bowled, a system like that will just push the favour too far towards the fielding side.

-------------------------------------------------------------

When a fielder takes a catch say, with his back to the camera or the umpire(obviously he doesn't do it deliberately) and claims it, do you mean to say that since both the ground umpire or third umpire couldn't see the action, they should automatically disallow it? Is that the rule right now? I thought the question of doubt comes in when you see the action but you can't be sure for various reasons(blurred image, too close to call....) whether the catch or run-out is clean. Then, you give the benefit of doubt to the batsman.

 

[Top_Cat]

When a fielder takes a catch say, with his back to the camera or the umpire(obviously he doesn't do it deliberately) and claims it, do you mean to say that since both the ground umpire or third umpire couldn't see the action, they should automatically disallow it? Is that the rule right now? I thought the question of doubt comes in when you see the action but you can't be sure for various reasons(blurred image, too close to call....) whether the catch or run-out is clean. Then, you give the benefit of doubt to the batsman.

I understand your concern but I think the current system is the most intuitive one. On ANY decision if there is ANY doubt, the batsman recieves the benefit of the doubt. If the umpire wasn't sure if the ball carried to the fielder in a catch or the umpire didn't see the catch, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

HOWEVER, if the batsman notices that the umpire didn't see the catch and is feeling particularly sporting, they may elect to believe the fielder and that they took a fair catch. But that decision to 'walk' should NEVER be forced on a batsman. It should always be up to them. If a batsman stands their ground (as they are entitled to) and no-one can agree on a decision, then they benefit.

Either way, batsman get plenty of bum decisions in their batting lives so it does even out in the end.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

YES!

 

[anzac]

i think there should be provision for the umpires in the middle to refer to the 3rd umpire for assistance, but that the final decision comes back to the umpire in the field. I do not think that the replays as seen by the 3rd umpire should be shown in the grounds.

i remember a ODI Aus V NZ many years ago (about the time of the underarm series - but we won't go into that), where Martin Sneddon took an absolute screamer in the outfield - had to cover some enormous distance and dove forward to take it in his finger tips just above the turf. the catch was not given because neither umpire was watching as neither thought he had a hope of even getting close, yet is was plainly out for all at the ground to see. The batsman did not walk as he had not seen it, and the umpires could not refer to a 3rd party. i know things have changed and everyone expects such catches to be taken these days, but it is an example of having to put up with a 'wrong' decision because there was no other avenue.

having said that i believe that anything inconclusive should go for the batsmen. I am aware that the commentators as former international players both thought that is was out, but that is only opinion and not conclusive no matter who they are. players and spectators need to remember that any such decision is never a reflection on the character of the fielder who took the 'catch' and made the appeal.

perhaps the technology could be used regarding matters of player dissention or excessive appealing. this could be done post match and adjudicated by the match referee or such.

the big danger re technology is that you could end up with a situation as in the NRL, where refs are now referring just about anything and everything to the 3rd ref - not making a lot of decisions for themselves & too many stoppages. the excuse being they want to cover their asses - only problem is the restrictions on what the 3rd ref can look for still means that there are still a lot of obvious mistakes being missed - eg forward pass or offside in the play leading up to the try!!!



:P

 

[Eyes_Only]

That's why I feel, the umpires should only be allowed to consult the third umpire when they have a confusion, and the third umpire should not have any discretionary powers whatsoever.The final decision should be made by the umpires on the ground.

That would be using technology rather then being used by it.

[Edited on 8/13/02 by aussie_beater] [/quote]

Here here!! As an umpire myself, I totally agree. While it's good to have a little help, if we use it all the time, I believe that the Umpire's will start second guessing themselves and make more errors!

Just a thought though....