Why not use TV technology more?

[Craig]

Well why not?

We have a 3rd umpire that gets used for borderline run-outs, stumpings and close catches whether the fielder has caught the ball above the ground, well why not have it if there is a borderline descision like a batsman is ruled to have edged (or not) the ball and is caught (like what happened to Sangakkara in Hobart in the 2nd innings) or any close calls (nothing obvious though like an umpire won't call for the 3rd umpire when a batsman is run out a few metres away from the crease) and give each team one appeal each to appeal to the 3rd umpire and then the ruling is final and each appeal has to be used in that innings (like Tests I'm talking about) or they lose it.

I would also use it to help on no-balls as well.

 

[archie mac]

Well why not?

We have a 3rd umpire that gets used for borderline run-outs, stumpings and close catches whether the fielder has caught the ball above the ground, well why not have it if there is a borderline descision like a batsman is ruled to have edged (or not) the ball and is caught (like what happened to Sangakkara in Hobart in the 2nd innings) or any close calls (nothing obvious though like an umpire won't call for the 3rd umpire when a batsman is run out a few metres away from the crease) and give each team one appeal each to appeal to the 3rd umpire and then the ruling is final and each appeal has to be used in that innings (like Tests I'm talking about) or they lose it.

I would also use it to help on no-balls as well.

Didn't someone write an article for the front page on just this topic

 

[The Sean]

Didn't someone write an article for the front page on just this topic

Yeah, some hack no one takes seriously though. Glad it's been forgotten TBH.

 

[Richard]

Didn't someone write an article for the front page on just this topic

Yeah, can't remember who it was TBH.

 

[slugger]

the use of technology would bring an increase into batsmen walking.. Mark Richardson said that he was 95% of the time, aware (or had knowledge) of whether he had nicked the ball or not..

 

[Pratters]

Well why not?

We have a 3rd umpire that gets used for borderline run-outs, stumpings and close catches whether the fielder has caught the ball above the ground, well why not have it if there is a borderline descision like a batsman is ruled to have edged (or not) the ball and is caught (like what happened to Sangakkara in Hobart in the 2nd innings) or any close calls (nothing obvious though like an umpire won't call for the 3rd umpire when a batsman is run out a few metres away from the crease) and give each team one appeal each to appeal to the 3rd umpire and then the ruling is final and each appeal has to be used in that innings (like Tests I'm talking about) or they lose it.

I would also use it to help on no-balls as well.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1291046&postcount=1

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, some hack no one takes seriously though. Glad it's been forgotten TBH.

Yeah, can't remember who it was TBH.

I thought he made some good points

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There was a case on Mark Taylor's last tour of England where he was given out caught behind off the glove and replays seemed to show he was no where near it. When questioned about it he said it "brushed his thumb". He was either being diplomatic or the camera can tell the most awful lies.

 

[pup11]

Well i don't have any problems with use of TV technology unless and until its 100% conclusive but atm i don't think that's the case so i don't think it should be implemented right now, umpiring involves decision making and while decision making human-error is very likely to take place and somewhere down the line it has always been the part of the game and has added to the unpredictable nature of the game.

 

[Richard]

There was a case on Mark Taylor's last tour of England where he was given out caught behind off the glove and replays seemed to show he was no where near it. When questioned about it he said it "brushed his thumb". He was either being diplomatic or the camera can tell the most awful lies.

Well we know beyond doubt that Gilchrist has walked for something that he missed by a good few inches.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Where the technology's still fallible (Hawkeye occasionally shows balls that have clean-bowled the batsman missing the stumps) I'm all for leaving it in the umpires' hands. Or eyes. For line decisions like front-foot no-balls and whether a ball has pitched outside leg I really don't see any justification for not using it tho.

 

[slugger]

Well i don't have any problems with use of TV technology unless and until its 100% conclusive .

a statment like this has been over used and if it continues there is no way it'll be a 100%unless we put sensors in the bat and ball maybe even the stumps..

the point is.. no umpire in the history of the game has a 100%correct decision record.. yet we find this to be acceptable when there is technology that could reduce the error by how much i am unsure, but i would put my money on it its can be more realible than the human eye and every now and then even when techonolgy is used its not going to be conclusive or have grey area, then simple when in doubt cant be out. whats wrong with that iits the same strategy umpires use.

 

[shortpitched713]

a statment like this has been over used and if it continues there is no way it'll be a 100%unless we put sensors in the bat and ball maybe even the stumps..

the point is.. no umpire in the history of the game has a 100%correct decision record.. yet we find this to be acceptable when there is technology that could reduce the error by how much i am unsure, but i would put my money on it its can be more realible than the human eye and every now and then even when techonolgy is used its not going to be conclusive or have grey area, then simple when in doubt cant be out. whats wrong with that iits the same strategy umpires use.

Agree with you 100%

 

[silentstriker]

There was a case on Mark Taylor's last tour of England where he was given out caught behind off the glove and replays seemed to show he was no where near it. When questioned about it he said it "brushed his thumb". He was either being diplomatic or the camera can tell the most awful lies.

Or, maybe because its not foolproof. But I would guarantee that if you used the camera for every decision, and the umpire for every decision, the camera would win 99/100 times. You aren't comparing fallible technology against infallible umpires. You are comparing very fallible umpires with barely fallible technology. What seals the deal for me is that you can count such instances on two hands, while it would take an encyclopedia to fill all umpiring errors committed in the same time period.

A camera is usually inconclusive, in which case we can go with whatever the umpire decided on the field, or its conclusively right. It is almost never both conclusive and wrong. You can start naming every instance of the camera showing the wrong thing and I'll name the instances of an umpire being wrong. Let's see who has the bigger list.

 

[roseboy64]

It'd have to be implemented at all FC levels for me. No sense just having it at the Test level.

 

[Dick Rockett]

a statment like this has been over used and if it continues there is no way it'll be a 100%unless we put sensors in the bat and ball maybe even the stumps..

the point is.. no umpire in the history of the game has a 100%correct decision record.. yet we find this to be acceptable when there is technology that could reduce the error by how much i am unsure, but i would put my money on it its can be more realible than the human eye and every now and then even when techonolgy is used its not going to be conclusive or have grey area, then simple when in doubt cant be out. whats wrong with that iits the same strategy umpires use.

The problem with overreliance on technology is the assumption of its infallibility. The fact is that it's created by humans, who are the same creatures that stand at the end of the pitch in white coats.

I'm a software tester, and one thing I know for sure is that there is no such thing as perfect software, and most comes nowhere near to approaching that. While human umpires do make mistakes - frequently - the flipside is that if there's a bug in the cricket software which you see on the telly (and there will be many), you can be guaranteed it will make the exact same mistake over and over and over.

 

[open365]

Well i don't have any problems with use of TV technology unless and until its 100% conclusive but atm i don't think that's the case so i don't think it should be implemented right now, umpiring involves decision making and while decision making human-error is very likely to take place and somewhere down the line it has always been the part of the game and has added to the unpredictable nature of the game.

That's completely flawed logic.

If technology was used to make decisions, there would be far fewer umpiring errors than if it were left to the umpires.

Will there be times when a TV angle can't conclusively show that someone is out? Of course, but why the hell does that matter? The TV camera improved the reliability of the deicison by a massive margin, just because TV angles are 100% conclusive every time isn't a reason not to use technology.

And anyway, the decisions that TV can't prove conclusively are going to be so close that no side can complain either way, at least if we give the decision the greatest chance to be the right one then that's all we should worry about.

 

[open365]

The problem with overreliance on technology is the assumption of its infallibility. The fact is that it's created by humans, who are the same creatures that stand at the end of the pitch in white coats.

I'm a software tester, and one thing I know for sure is that there is no such thing as perfect software, and most comes nowhere near to approaching that. While human umpires do make mistakes - frequently - the flipside is that if there's a bug in the cricket software which you see on the telly (and there will be many), you can be guaranteed it will make the exact same mistake over and over and over.

That's like saying a calculator is built by a human so a human logicaly can do everything a calculator does.

And surely the whole point in a software tester is to test it till there are no bugs? Or at least recognise what bugs there are and take them into account?

 

[silentstriker]

I'm a software tester, and one thing I know for sure is that there is no such thing as perfect software, and most comes nowhere near to approaching that. While human umpires do make mistakes - frequently - the flipside is that if there's a bug in the cricket software which you see on the telly (and there will be many), you can be guaranteed it will make the exact same mistake over and over and over.

Except it will get better and better with time, and it will start out already being better than the best human.

 

[shortpitched713]

you can be guaranteed it will make the exact same mistake over and over and over.

At which point you can recognize that mistake and fix the program. Don't see whats the big problem.