Should we use technology for better decisions?

[silentstriker]

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

Yes there would because you never know. If you can just appeal every decision, what is the downside from doing so? Maybe the bowler overstepped slightly and the umpire didn't pick it up...who knows?

 

[Richard]

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.

Nonsense IMO. A good Umpire is every bit as part of the game as a good player.

IMO, Harold Dennis Bird was more of a character than pretty much anyone in the game, and that's kinda backed-up by his book being the biggest-selling sports autobiography of all-time.

Cricket is not just about the players.

 

[Richard]

Yes there would because you never know. If you can just appeal every decision, what is the downside from doing so? Maybe the bowler overstepped slightly and the umpire didn't pick it up...who knows?

So get no-balls being called by a Cyclops machine. That's the first thing I'd ever have done, before having run-outs and stumpings and four\six referred.

 

[silentstriker]

Nonsense IMO. A good Umpire is every bit as part of the game as a good player.

They are, and that's why it sucks. They shouldn't be.

IMO, Harold Dennis Bird was more of a character than pretty much anyone in the game, and that's kinda backed-up by his book being the biggest-selling sports autobiography of all-time.

Cricket is not just about the players.

You're saying it like it's a good thing that cricket is 'not just about the players.' Sweater holders and no-ball callers. That's pretty much it.

 

[pasag]

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.

He wasn't being diplomatic though, then he'd say "You win some and you lose some" or something like that. He said it clearly and assuming we have the same footage, I watched the replays as many times as you did and if it was just a faint touch there is a very good chance both snicko and the cameras wouldn't be able to pick it up, so I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I certainly think the footage we were shown wasn't that high resolution to say he was not out when batsman, fielders and umpire are all in agreeance that it was (batsman being the man one there obv).

 

[silentstriker]

So get no-balls being called by a Cyclops machine. That's the first thing I'd ever have done, before having run-outs and stumpings and four\six referred.

That's fine, the more things we take away from the umpire, the better. Somethings will always have to be done by the umpire no doubt, as unfortunately there is no way around it. Two appeals means players can get some control back from such **** decisions that sometimes decide a game or a series.

 

[Richard]

They are, and that's why it sucks. They shouldn't be.

Why not?

You're saying it like it's a good thing that cricket is 'not just about the players.' Sweater holders and no-ball callers. That's pretty much it.

It is a good thing IMO. The more attractions cricket has, the better. If that means Umpires as well as players get some attention because they're characters, good. IMO Harold Dennis Bird is the biggest legend in cricket history, as I say in my sig.

 

[Richard]

He wasn't being diplomatic though, then he'd say "You win some and you lose some" or something like that. He said it clearly and assuming we have the same footage, I watched the replays as many times as you did and if it was just a faint touch there is a very good chance both snicko and the cameras wouldn't be able to pick it up, so I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I certainly think the footage we were shown wasn't that high resolution to say he was not out when batsman, fielders and umpire are all in agreeance that it was (batsman being the man one there obv).

Snicko and HotSpot can pick everything up. There have even occasionally been times when nicks have been taken and even the players haven't noticed. Equally, players do sometimes think they've nicked things they haven't.

IMO, there was very clearly no nick, and the correct decision would have been not-out.

 

[silentstriker]

Why not?

Because its a sport whose point is to decide a winner and a loser. There is no third party. It's not India vs England vs Taufel. You can still play cricket without an umpire, if everyone was perfectly honest. You can't play cricket without the teams.

It is a good thing IMO. The more attractions cricket has, the better. If that means Umpires as well as players get some attention because they're characters, good. IMO Harold Dennis Bird is the biggest legend in cricket history, as I say in my sig.

Attractions? It's not a bloody circus.

 

[Richard]

Because its a sport whose point is to decide a winner and a loser. There is no third party. It's not India vs England vs Taufel. You can still play cricket without an umpire, if everyone was perfectly honest. You can't play cricket without the teams.

So you think a winner and a loser is all there is to sport?

I certainly don't.

I'd not even bother watching if it was.

Attractions? It's not a bloody circus.

As long as something doesn't detract from the cricket, TBH, I don't care if it is a circus. In any case, it's not, and it's extreme hyperbole on your part to suggest I want it to be by wanting Umpires with a bit of character.

 

[silentstriker]

So you think a winner and a loser is all there is to sport?

I certainly don't.

I'd not even bother watching if it was.

I guess we differ there. I'd go to a circus if I want to see attractions.

As long as something doesn't detract from the cricket, TBH, I don't care if it is a circus.

But you said the attractions are PART of cricket when you claimed umpires are just as much part of the game as the players. Now you're changing your stance.

 

[Richard]

I really don't see where this circus stuff comes into it. I'm not much of a circus fan, TBH, but I've never seen anything at cricket (though I have seen it at Twenty20) that even vaguely resembles a circus.

Purely and simply, I like players and Umpires with a bit of character - if those players and Umpires are good at their jobs. If I just want to see bats and balls, you might as well have a game of skittles or something.

 

[pasag]

Snicko and HotSpot can pick everything up. There have even occasionally been times when nicks have been taken and even the players haven't noticed. Equally, players do sometimes think they've nicked things they haven't.

IMO, there was very clearly no nick, and the correct decision would have been not-out.

I'm no expert but I'm not convinced that in a case like this, the faintest of nicks, the technology that is used is conclusive if going against the batsman's word and that if nothing is picked up then it didn't happen. If you showed me a credible source that said no snicko = no nick, then I'd come around pretty quickly though.

 

[Richard]

As I say, I've seen Snickos when nicks are detected and there's not even an appeal. That seems to suggest to me that it can sometimes pick-up stuff that even players can't.

I can't think of anything more convincing than that to suggest that if there's nothing on Snicko, there's no nick.

And as I say, it also works in reverse - players have been known to think they've nicked things they haven't.

 

[Engle]

Besides, these umpiring controversies are really coming in the way of the game's enjoyment. The sooner they get resolved, the better.

 

[Sanz]

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

Who defines 'Conclusive Enough' ? It may not have been conclusive enough for you, it was to many who watched the replays.

 

[Sanz]

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%???????

Its not 82 %. ICC is on record saying that even when Bucknor was having a bad year, he still got 96% of the decisions right.

 

[adharcric]

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.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Yeah please list those and also list those which the technology couldn't get right.

 

[adharcric]

I really don't see where this circus stuff comes into it. I'm not much of a circus fan, TBH, but I've never seen anything at cricket (though I have seen it at Twenty20) that even vaguely resembles a circus.

Purely and simply, I like players and Umpires with a bit of character - if those players and Umpires are good at their jobs. If I just want to see bats and balls, you might as well have a game of skittles or something.

How is "character" relevant? Umpires can be legendary, popular figures but in terms of the actual competition (the sport), they are and should be a side-show, a crew to facilitate the game and ensure fair play. That's the way it is in every other sport and that's the way it should be in cricket, as well.