Should we use technology for better decisions?

[Richard]

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

A good point well made (by the latter poster) one feels.

 

[Richard]

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.

Or rather, the batsman thought he'd nicked one that he hadn't. Nicks make sounds - unless you're suggesting the stump-mic failed (and if that had happened the producers would know) or that the oscillograph was inaccurately reflecting the sound data present, you're suggesting that the human body is better equipped to find the truth than scientific instruments, which we all know is exceptionally rarely true (otherwise said instruments would never have been developed as they'd have been needless and hence a waste of time and money).

 

[Sanz]

Or rather, the batsman thought he'd nicked one that he hadn't. Nicks make sounds - unless you're suggesting the stump-mic failed (and if that had happened the producers would know) or that the oscillograph was inaccurately reflecting the sound data present, you're suggesting that the human body is better equipped to find the truth than scientific instruments, which we all know is exceptionally rarely true (otherwise said instruments would never have been developed as they'd have been needless and hence a waste of time and money).

I am just suggesting that Snikco isn't as good as you are claiming. And Yes If a batsman says that he edged the ball then I would believe him over any scintific instrument.

 

[Richard]

And I'd believe the instrument. In almost any given case, the instrument will be a better judge than anything within human capability.

 

[andmark]

I personally think we should only have technology if the umpire requests for it.

 

[andyc]

I am just suggesting that Snikco isn't as good as you are claiming. And Yes If a batsman says that he edged the ball then I would believe him over any scintific instrument.

And I'd believe the instrument. In almost any given case, the instrument will be a better judge than anything within human capability.

Agree with Richard tbh. It's kinda like saying that even though there's scientific tests that prove Murali doesn't throw it, it looks like he does, therefore he must throw it. Technology, ftw.

 

[silentstriker]

An umpire might get the vast majority right, but they generally have 3-4 decisions per game that are not accurate. That's way more than any technology would have. Even if you say Karthik would have been not out by snicko & hotspot, that's the first time in perhaps twenty five games that such a decision would have been wrong.

I'll take those odds any day of the week.

 

[biased indian]

Batting team could be given 1 challange per innings.as long as they win the challange they can retain it.so only in the cases where the batsmen is so sure that he is not out they will use the challange.this can be done on a trial basis in FC and this could also be a good indicator of how many mistakes umpires makes.

 

[andyc]

Batting team could be given 1 challange per innings.as long as they win the challange they can retain it.so only in the cases where the batsmen is so sure that he is not out they will use the challange.this can be done on a trial basis in FC and this could also be a good indicator of how many mistakes umpires makes.

Yeah a challenge system would work IMO. And the number of challenges could be pretty small because, unlike in tennis which uses the system, you pretty much always know if you've hit a ball or not, so I don't think there'd be that many unsuccessful challenges by batsmen who were given out.

 

[umop 3p!sdn]

NO, umpires do a good job of it 99% of time...

Where did you get that statistic?

I think with something like a runout, a third umpire is very important. A runout is difficult to judge in real time, and there is a definate answer to most of them. I think that with something like and edge, or hawkeye deciding an LBW decision, isn't proved to be 100% accurate, so until it is I din't think it should be used.

 

[Richard]

Yeah a challenge system would work IMO.

Why is it neccessary, though? You could have a system that would be every bit as likely to result in correct decisions (and waste less time and offer less theatrical nonsense) without all this fiddle-faddle.

I'm glad it was rejected last time Sunil Gavaskar et al tried to impose it, and I hope it will continue to be. I'm all for getting every decision as right as possible (and not just at the international level hopefully) but I'd like to see it done with care rather than randomly.

 

[biased indian]

Why is it neccessary, though? You could have a system that would be every bit as likely to result in correct decisions (and waste less time and offer less theatrical nonsense) without all this fiddle-faddle.

I'm glad it was rejected last time Sunil Gavaskar et al tried to impose it, and I hope it will continue to be. I'm all for getting every decision as right as possible (and not just at the international level hopefully) but I'd like to see it done with care rather than randomly.

i think very few FC games in india have television crew at the ground

and how will the challange system be a waste of time ??? ,given that only one challage per team means that they will not be challaging for every second appeal.

 

[Richard]

The point is, you can have 0 challenges and still get correct decisions.

You don't need TV-owned cameras for my desired system, incidentally - investing in 4 perminant cameras per ground (2 at each end, moveable along the square, 1 parrallell to the creases at each end) would be totally inexpensive for just about anywhere where cricket was played to a decent level - plenty of the reasonably well-off clubs in England could afford it really. Manning the scoreboards and stewards for 1 day would probably cost more than the one-off payment there.

IMO, third-Umpires should be used at every First-Class game of cricket, with the same rules applied all the way down. And it'd be terrific to get it at the local club, too, really.

 

[pietersenrocks]

let the game goes teh the way it is going.All the fun,excitement,sledging will be less .. if we use technology for LBWs,Caught Behinds etc,.

 

[Richard]

I used to think that.

Now I think once we get rid of almost every bad decision, we'll think "how on EARTH did we live when there were 2 or 3 errors per Test? " I'm pretty certain I will.

 

[biased indian]

The point is, you can have 0 challenges and still get correct decisions.

You don't need TV-owned cameras for my desired system, incidentally - investing in 4 perminant cameras per ground (2 at each end, moveable along the square, 1 parrallell to the creases at each end) would be totally inexpensive for just about anywhere where cricket was played to a decent level - plenty of the reasonably well-off clubs in England could afford it really. Manning the scoreboards and stewards for 1 day would probably cost more than the one-off payment there.

IMO, third-Umpires should be used at every First-Class game of cricket, with the same rules applied all the way down. And it'd be terrific to get it at the local club, too, really.

Sorry for ranji Cricket in india i dont think that will be feasible.....
thay play cricket in every possible grounds over here .

 

[biased indian]

I used to think that.

Now I think once we get rid of almost every bad decision, we'll think "how on EARTH did we live when there were 2 or 3 errors per Test? " I'm pretty certain I will.

umpires give u 90% good decisions in a series with technology u can go upto 98% not 100.so is it worth it.i think one challange will be a good idea than going upsatirs for each and every decisiosn that any one feels is not correct.only absolute blunders should be avoided

 

[Richard]

Thing is, there's an absolute blunder far, far more games than not. Anything where a nick\glove is missed is an absolute blunder, just about any bad "out" lbw decision tends to be an absolute blunder, and very obviously out lbws get turned-down often enough. Mind, if something hits batsman on pad between wicket and wicket, I'm all for it being given out. If this means virtually no-one makes a score, so be it. If people consider things are getting too bowler-friendly, change the laws to make lbws more difficult to get. Don't have laws saying something's out but with virtually no-one giving it out.

 

[archie mac]

The author of this article must be kidding http://www.cricketweb.net/article.php?CategoryIDAuto=1&NewsIDAuto=4392

 

[Richard]

Nah, he was 100% serious IMO.