Should we use technology for better decisions?

[Richard]

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.

Yes, I$C$C are simply making their employees look as good as they can. This is based on saying n\o to when someone goes "aaaaooowww" after a ball's hit the pad after pitching 3 feet outside leg.

If you look at decisions which have the potential to go either way, it'll be probably in the low 80s or late 70s.

 

[Richard]

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

I have no intention of listing them, I was clearly being ironic. It's fairly rare for a game to go by without 1, though, and in a bad game there can be 4 or 5 even. Work it out from there.

 

[Sanz]

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.

That's the problem of the technology. A batsman is the best judge of whether or not he has hit the ball.

 

[adharcric]

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.

Uhh, what makes you think the ICC would ever come out with bad figures about their own umpires? As I said earlier, the majority of decisions are quite easy to make. 96% means next to nothing, really. You have to look at how well they fare in close decisions. That's why Simon Taufel is unanimously considered the best umpire in cricket today.

 

[Richard]

That's the problem of the technology. A batsman is the best judge of whether or not he has hit the ball.

No, he's not, same way he's not the best judge of pace of bowling.

 

[adharcric]

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

How many do you think there have been? You can't seriously suggest that the comparison isn't severely lopsided.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, I$C$C are simply making their employees look as good as they can. This is based on saying n\o to when someone goes "aaaaooowww" after a ball's hit the pad after pitching 3 feet outside leg.

If you look at decisions which have the potential to go either way, it'll be probably in the low 80s or late 70s.

Yeah when run out of arguments, start accusing the ICC. I have heard that before.

 

[adharcric]

 

[Sanz]

I have no intention of listing them, I was clearly being ironic. It's fairly rare for a game to go by without 1, though, and in a bad game there can be 4 or 5 even. Work it out from there.

That's clearly overstating the numbers.

 

[Sanz]

Uhh, what makes you think the ICC would ever come out with bad figures about their own umpires?

Why wouldn't they ? They have established an elite panel for a reason. When they remove someone from that panel, they are clearly acknlowedging that the individual(their employee) was not good enough to remain an elite umpire.

 

[Lostman]

Why wouldn't they ? They have established an elite panel for a reason. When they remove someone from that panel, they are clearly acknlowedging that the individual(their employee) was not good enough to remain an elite umpire.

any panel that still has doctrove cant be considered an elite panel.

 

[Engle]

That's the problem of the technology. A batsman is the best judge of whether or not he has hit the ball.

Having been a 'keeper for many years I've seen all manner of snicks/non-snicks.

The batsman is the best judge of whether he has snicked the ball, cuz he feels it.
The next best judge is the 'keeper cuz he closely sees it
The worst judge of the snick is the ump, cuz he's furthest from it, and guesses at it.

Technology is the best bet, cuz it will always be consistent.
(Microscopically, a snick can be so fine as when a loose thread of the ball touches a splinter of the bat).

 

[Sanz]

Technology is the best bet, cuz it will always be consistent.
(Microscopically, a snick can be so fine as when a loose thread of the ball touches a splinter of the bat).

It will be the best bet, when it is reliable enough. Yesterday's dismissal of Karthik is a point, The snick was enough for the batsman and WK to know it and for the umpire to notice it, but not enough for the technology being used to catch it.

It raises my doubts about the consistency of the technology.

 

[Engle]

It raises my doubts about the consistency of the technology.

What I mean about ' consistency ' , is that tech results will be the same regardless of an Indian batsman, Eng batsman, superstar or dud.
It doesn't care if its the last ball of the match with 1 run to win deciding match of the series.

The sensitivity of the machine can be improved with scientific progress.
Just like tech is used for run-outs, similarly extend it to LBW's, then to snicks....etc
Once everyone knows to what parameters the game is being played under, they'll slowly gain acceptance.

 

[Prince EWS]

It will be the best bet, when it is reliable enough. Yesterday's dismissal of Karthik is a point, The snick was enough for the batsman and WK to know it and for the umpire to notice it, but not enough for the technology being used to catch it.

It raises my doubts about the consistency of the technology.

Strangely though, HotSpot was not used at all. Perhaps it wasn't implemented correctly at the Oval to be used for this match as I haven't seen it used all game, but it'd be interesting to see what it made of that dismissal.

Furthermore, even if technology did get one wrong, I'm sure it'd get a lot more right than the naked eye.

 

[Lostman]

I think the best use of technology in cricket would be a NFL system where each team is given 3 challenges. If the on field decision is not over ruled then the team that challenged would have 2 remaining etc etc.

 

[Sanz]

I think the best use of technology in cricket would be a NFL system where each team is given 3 challenges. If the on field decision is not over ruled then the team that challenged would have 2 remaining etc etc.

Why limit it to 3 challenges ? What if all the 3 challenges are wasted and then the batsman gets a wrong decision ? I do watch NFL and despite all the techological advances, there is still plenty of doubt in some calls in pretty much every game.

 

[Sanz]

There was a great debate on Cricinfo on this subject :-

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/wicket_to_wicket/archives/technology_in_umpiring/index.php

 

[open365]

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/wicket_to_wicket/archives/2005/10/the_flaw_is_not.php#more

That's the best post on that blog imo, sums up perfectly what my views are on the situation.

 

[Richard]

Furthermore, even if technology did get one wrong, I'm sure it'd get a lot more right than the naked eye.

How on Earth anyone can think that there's one single thing that matters besides this is beyond me.