Should we use technology for better decisions?

[adharcric]

The point of failure in that case wasn't with the technology anyway, it was with the third umpire.

Can you elaborate? I can't really recall the details of that controversy.

 

[Dasa]

Can you elaborate? I can't really recall the details of that controversy.

It seems like Sanz is suggesting the technology got it wrong which I believe is incorrect. The replays seemed to show that Ganga was touching the boundary when he took the catch but the camera angles weren't ideal, so the third umpire passed the decision back to the on-field umpires. So it wasn't really a failing of the technology, but a failure to use it in conjunction with some common sense. Obviously a computer won't be able to make every decision (at least not for a while yet), but the key is allowing the umpires the use of technology to make sure of their decisions imo.

 

[Sanz]

Tell me five of these "many other occasions" in the past, excluding hawk-eye stuff.

I am sorry but I dont keep track of this but just from what I can recollect :-

1. Sehwag's catch of Hussain
2. Some Runout decision in Pakistan
3. Dhoni out in WI
4. Karthik dismissal today.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, he can still do that.

And what if your opinion is different from umpire's opinion, what happens next ?

 

[Sanz]

It seems like Sanz is suggesting the technology got it wrong which I believe is incorrect. The replays seemed to show that Ganga was touching the boundary when he took the catch but the camera angles weren't ideal, so the third umpire passed the decision back to the on-field umpires. So it wasn't really a failing of the technology, but a failure to use it in conjunction with some common sense. Obviously a computer won't be able to make every decision (at least not for a while yet), but the key is allowing the umpires the use of technology to make sure of their decisions imo.

It just means that there wasn't enough conclusive evidence. You ask WI fans and most of them will tell you that the decision was correct.

Why should the technology leave any room for applying common sense, definition of which may vary from one person to another ?

 

[adharcric]

I am sorry but I dont keep track of this but just from what I can recollect :-

1. Sehwag's catch of Hussain
2. Some Runout decision in Pakistan
3. Dhoni out in WI
4. Karthik dismissal today.

Run-out decisions should only be overturned with conclusive (as in, without any doubt) evidence to the contrary. Can you compare the number of instances where technology is wrong (not inconclusive, as in the Dhoni case, but wrong, as in the Karthik case) to the number of times bad decisions can be overturned by umpires after using the technology? That is certainly a very, very small ratio.

 

[adharcric]

And what if your opinion is different from umpire's opinion, what happens next ?

You mean if the on-field umpire and replay (third) umpire disagree? I think the on-field umpire should decide on the batsman's intent and technology should only be used to see whether the ball hit outside off, pitched outside leg, etc. Does that work?

 

[Sanz]

I just read an article that says that Bucknor got 96% of his decisions right despite not having a very good 2005-2006. Hey that's impressive and good enough for me.

Here it is http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/246514.html

Makes some good comments and some potential problems as well.

 

[Sanz]

You mean if the on-field umpire and replay (third) umpire disagree? I think the on-field umpire should decide on the batsman's intent and technology should only be used to see whether the ball hit outside off, pitched outside leg, etc. Does that work?

Actually I was talking about the LBW law when the balls pitches outside the off stump. I think if the umpires decides that the batsman didn't offer any shot, he can give the batsman out even if the ball pitches outside offstump.

So The technology tells you that the ball pitched outside the off stump, it cant tell you that whether or not batsman intended to play a shot and once again you have to rely on umpire's judgement. What happens if the umpires decides that the batsmen did/didn't intend to play the ball and you think otherwise.

E.g. Asad Rauf's lbw calls @ Lords.

 

[adharcric]

Actually I was talking about the LBW law when the balls pitches outside the off stump. I think if the umpires decides that the batsman didn't offer any shot, he can give the batsman out even if the ball pitches outside offstump.

So The technology tells you that the ball pitched outside the off stump, it cant tell you that whether or not batsman intended to play a shot and once again you have to rely on umpire's judgement. What happens if the umpires decides that the batsmen did/didn't intend to play the ball and you think otherwise.

That's fine. Technology should only be used to check certain things and deciding whether the batsman was trying to play or not is probably not one of those things.

 

[Richard]

Ian chappel in the After game show on TV had an opinion on this
hes said other than line rules ...Run out stumping and boundry related
technology should not be used becuse it i never conclusive.....

he said in this series itself pietersen who was wrongly given out was called back when every one saw the tv replay justice done.but see the case of ganguly every one including the umpire knew he was not out before he left the filed but nothing was done....

so it is better not to use the technology at all as long as it is not 100% possible to give correct decision leave it to umpires to decide....

That makes no sense. You'll get more things right with technology + naked-eye than you will with naked-eye alone. Neither will be 100%, but why go for 82% when you can go for 98%???????

 

[Richard]

Karthik said he hit it in a post match interview according to this.

Yeah, I know he thought he hit it, but he didn't. There was no noise, and there was no friction on the bat. Whether he actually did think he hit it (or whether he was just being diplomatic - remember Gilchrist walking when he missed it?) or not I don't know, but I do know that he definately didn't do so.

 

[Richard]

Two appeals per team per innings. If you get both right, you get a third appeal.

Anything more would create too many stoppages of play. Overall, anything that decreases the power of the umpire over the game is a positive step. The umpires are there to officiate, they shouldn't have this much power over the outcome. If something is absolutely conclusive, they overturn. If it is not conclusive, then they go with the decision on the field. Karthik shot would have remained an out, Ganguly would have been overturned. What exactly is wrong with that?

For LBW, they would only check where the ball pitched and whether there was an edge. You wouldn't use the predictive power of the hawk eye, as that's a bit of guesswork.

In the end, no one is going to miss bad decisions if we can eliminate at least some of them.

Why bother wasting time and undermining the Umpire's authority when you can get the right decisions with less fuss in every department (I hate the idea of limits in anything, including this query-the-decision nonsense - if you do it, do it without limitation).

 

[Matteh]

So don't let him make a mistake. Have a situation where ball goes past outside-edge, bowler's-end Umpire thinks he hears a nick, says "what'd'ya think mate?" to him upstairs via his hands-free communication, third-Umpire says "gimme a sec", checks the Snicko and\or HotSpot, says "nah mate, no nick" and the standing Umpire says "not out".

No authority undermined, and the right decision made.

Similarly, if it's an lbw appeal:
Bowler: "HAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW?"

Third-Umpire, instantly, into earpiece on standing-Umpire: "Pitched outside leg mate, at least, I think it did, hang on a sec... *checks replay with red-mat* "No, actually pitched in line, and certainly looked pretty straight, yep?"

Standing-Umpire: "Yep, certainly did" *raises finger*

This is completely what i disagree with. The onus should be on the umpires to be the best they can be rather than getting to refer to something else if they're unsure every time, otherwise you're heading straight into the 'do away with umpires altogether' territory.

 

[Richard]

I am sorry but I dont keep track of this but just from what I can recollect :-

1. Sehwag's catch of Hussain
2. Some Runout decision in Pakistan
3. Dhoni out in WI
4. Karthik dismissal today.

And over these five years in question, do you want me to name every single decision that was got wrong which could have been right with aid from replays and technology?

I assure you, it'll run into the high 100s.

 

[Richard]

This is completely what i disagree with. The onus should be on the umpires to be the best they can be rather than getting to refer to something else if they're unsure every time, otherwise you're heading straight into the 'do away with umpires altogether' territory.

The Umpires are being the best they can - you use everything you possibly can to make yourself the best you can. If that includes help from other people and various sources, you use these.

Umpires will never, ever be done away with, because there's so much more to their role than just giving an out or not-out decision.

 

[silentstriker]

According to the technology, Karthik would have been NOT OUT as well. So even today the technolgy was only 50% right, so was the umpire.

Nope, since it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn, he would have been out still.

 

[silentstriker]

Why bother wasting time and undermining the Umpire's authority when you can get the right decisions with less fuss in every department (I hate the idea of limits in anything, including this query-the-decision nonsense - if you do it, do it without limitation).

Doing it without limitation means people will appeal every single decision, just because there is no incentive for them not to. Two appeals means they will only appeal if they are fairly sure.

 

[Richard]

Doing it without limitation means people will appeal every single decision, just because there is no incentive for them not to. Two appeals means they will only appeal if they are fairly sure.

There'd be no point appealing something you knew wasn't going to be overturned.

Likewise, if people know they're going to be out and have no chance of getting away with it, they'll probably start walking every time they nick one, which will save so much time.

 

[silentstriker]

And umpires to me are just glorified sweater holders, anything that reduces their influence over the game is a good thing. They have way too much power at the moment.