-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Why not use TV technology more?
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Well some umpires have some value.....so far in this series there is only one answer will he ? Never .
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Well that may be fine if cricket was a amatuer game.Because it will change cricket in an unacceptable way -
remove one of the glorious uncertainities of the game.....
Will he, wont he, will he , wont he, will he.....
But now cricket is a proffesion and people's livelihood's are at stake.One decision can ruin a whole career or make it for someone.
I just do not feel comfortable with people's life and hardwork being dependant on luck and this put's pressure on umpires too.With so much betting in sports umpires are also being more and more fixed which is liable to increase as shown in serie-a football recently.Besides umpires can also at this time take out personal prefernces as they dod not have any challenge.
Not accepting more technology now is like Doctor's not accepting x-rays and scans before
surgery as it eliminates uncertainty .let us see what a surgeon can do without knowing the exact loacation of problem?how uncertain?
Captain Cricket
State Vice-Captain
Introduction of technology to our game of cricket would be nonsense.
Games would take much longer, perhaps only 60-70 overs would be bowled in one day of a test match which would ultimately mess up all the past averages as 90 overs were traditionally bowled in a day of a test match.
Another thing is, if umpires at the top level weren't trusted with their decisions, how would junior and state-level cricketers trust their fellow umpires if they know that they aren't out but there's no technology to prove they're out as a result of too much money that has to be implemented to install the technology? It certainly would not benefit the game, especially if you are opting for technology after only one game of umpiring blunders?
Games would take much longer, perhaps only 60-70 overs would be bowled in one day of a test match which would ultimately mess up all the past averages as 90 overs were traditionally bowled in a day of a test match.
Another thing is, if umpires at the top level weren't trusted with their decisions, how would junior and state-level cricketers trust their fellow umpires if they know that they aren't out but there's no technology to prove they're out as a result of too much money that has to be implemented to install the technology? It certainly would not benefit the game, especially if you are opting for technology after only one game of umpiring blunders?
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Perhaps referal system will help this.There are not many decisions in a day of play that take much time to determine.
I guess as a start you can rely on slow mo and wicket mic only and perhaps pitch mat.
Then if other technologies are made quicker and accurate then you can rely on it.
For example ,for both the symonds not out ,the third umpire could have told bucknor pretty
quickly that it was out as it was apparent iin real time also.
It would have been applicable for the ponting dismissal also in 1st innings and also for his not out appeal.
I think this issue has been going on for long time now and is not as result of one test.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
I think there are many drawbacks with using technology more and allowing referrals, but I think we need to be realistic as well about the costs of not doing something to address the looming problems on the horizon.
There is big money involved in cricket these days, and there is greater scrutiny of umpiring standards than ever before. More than that, it seems likely that teams may increasingly seek recourse off the field for umpiring decisions on the field. The Darrell Hair case was an extreme one, and different from simple errors by umpires in the course of the game, but it has set a precedent for countries who have problems with specific umpires to demand something be done. I'd be quite surprised if Bucknor doesn't announce his retirement very soon, unless the ICC refuse him even that fig-leaf of dignity and just sack him, and moreso if he ever umpires another test involving India.
The problem is, we'll soon find ourselves with no-one willing to be an umpire. They know they'll get exposed in the media coverage if they make any mistakes (as all humans do), they know that the media and possibly countries' boards and teams will go after them, and they probably know that the ICC won't stand up for them. Why would anyone want that job?
Letting them use some technology will take a lot of the pressure off them. Allowing players to appeal umpiring decisions, in a measured controlled way, is less damaging to their status and respect than players and fans being impotent to correct obvious errors. I'm sure Bucknor et al don't deliberately make wrong calls, they have to call it as they see it (once, at full speed). If there was a way for them to have a safety net, they'd probably all be for it.
The slowing the game issue is a problem, but I think there are solutions to that, such as being less precious about rain and light, and lighting a fire under the butts of bowling teams to get on with the game. These things have changed before - in the old old days, team averaged 100+ overs in a full day. Before overrates were introduced, the rate had slipped to 60-70 per day. 90 is the right amount, but there needs to be draconian penalties for teams that don't meet them - penalties so severe that not getting through the overs quickly is just not an option.
There is big money involved in cricket these days, and there is greater scrutiny of umpiring standards than ever before. More than that, it seems likely that teams may increasingly seek recourse off the field for umpiring decisions on the field. The Darrell Hair case was an extreme one, and different from simple errors by umpires in the course of the game, but it has set a precedent for countries who have problems with specific umpires to demand something be done. I'd be quite surprised if Bucknor doesn't announce his retirement very soon, unless the ICC refuse him even that fig-leaf of dignity and just sack him, and moreso if he ever umpires another test involving India.
The problem is, we'll soon find ourselves with no-one willing to be an umpire. They know they'll get exposed in the media coverage if they make any mistakes (as all humans do), they know that the media and possibly countries' boards and teams will go after them, and they probably know that the ICC won't stand up for them. Why would anyone want that job?
Letting them use some technology will take a lot of the pressure off them. Allowing players to appeal umpiring decisions, in a measured controlled way, is less damaging to their status and respect than players and fans being impotent to correct obvious errors. I'm sure Bucknor et al don't deliberately make wrong calls, they have to call it as they see it (once, at full speed). If there was a way for them to have a safety net, they'd probably all be for it.
The slowing the game issue is a problem, but I think there are solutions to that, such as being less precious about rain and light, and lighting a fire under the butts of bowling teams to get on with the game. These things have changed before - in the old old days, team averaged 100+ overs in a full day. Before overrates were introduced, the rate had slipped to 60-70 per day. 90 is the right amount, but there needs to be draconian penalties for teams that don't meet them - penalties so severe that not getting through the overs quickly is just not an option.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
I think that if referrals are to be used effectively without it becoming too 'tacky', teams should only be allowed one incorrect one per fielding innings, once this one has been used up, they cannot refer again in the innings. This has the effect to mean that players can only appeal against shockers and one incorrect referral helps an umpire gain control of the match again.
I don't think batsmen should allowed to appeal against decisions - I just don't think it would work properly. I could give a long rambling answer, but it wouldn't make much sense. I just think that batsmen referring means that they can never be unjustly given out and batsmen getting out to a poor decision is an intangible part of cricket in my opinion.
I don't think batsmen should allowed to appeal against decisions - I just don't think it would work properly. I could give a long rambling answer, but it wouldn't make much sense. I just think that batsmen referring means that they can never be unjustly given out and batsmen getting out to a poor decision is an intangible part of cricket in my opinion.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Totally disagree with most of that especially the last statement. The bowling side are only required to get 10 wickets and anything that ensures that the dismissals are genuine should be implimented just as much as ensuring that every genuine dismissal gained by the fielding side should be given. I don't agree with only appealing against "shockers". Any decision that allows the batsman to continue when he's out or be given out incorrectly needs eradicating. If it's wrong it's wrong and can't be more wrong no matter how bad the decision. If cameras can prove a decision to be incorrect then it should be used to correct it.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Sarcasm is completely lost here.Well that may be fine if cricket was a amatuer game.
But now cricket is a proffesion and people's livelihood's are at stake.One decision can ruin a whole career or make it for someone.
I just do not feel comfortable with people's life and hardwork being dependant on luck and this put's pressure on umpires too.With so much betting in sports umpires are also being more and more fixed which is liable to increase as shown in serie-a football recently.Besides umpires can also at this time take out personal prefernces as they dod not have any challenge.
Not accepting more technology now is like Doctor's not accepting x-rays and scans before
surgery as it eliminates uncertainty .let us see what a surgeon can do without knowing the exact loacation of problem?how uncertain?
Slow Love™
International Captain
I don't really like the idea of referrals, myself. I think there will be social pressure not to use them (maybe this happened in the UK trials?) and I think they will create ill-will between the teams.
It seems to me a very simple and minimal touch would be to allow the third umpire to overrule the ground umpire if a clear and easily detected shocker decision has been made. I think that would have taken care of the Symonds caught-behind not-out and Dravid being given out caught-behind when his bat was tucked well behind his pad, which IMO were the two particularly egregious decisions of the match.
As an additional point, I think umpires need to do a better job of sticking to their established protocols, to. It seemed obvious to me that in the wake of Clarke's disputed catch late in the game that Benson asked Ponting what he thought, and Ponting stuck his finger up and mouthed "it (the catch) was good". That's not how this is supposed to work.
(FTR, despite what expletives might get hurled my way, I thought the catch was good, myself, but that doesn't change the point.)
It seems to me a very simple and minimal touch would be to allow the third umpire to overrule the ground umpire if a clear and easily detected shocker decision has been made. I think that would have taken care of the Symonds caught-behind not-out and Dravid being given out caught-behind when his bat was tucked well behind his pad, which IMO were the two particularly egregious decisions of the match.
As an additional point, I think umpires need to do a better job of sticking to their established protocols, to. It seemed obvious to me that in the wake of Clarke's disputed catch late in the game that Benson asked Ponting what he thought, and Ponting stuck his finger up and mouthed "it (the catch) was good". That's not how this is supposed to work.
(FTR, despite what expletives might get hurled my way, I thought the catch was good, myself, but that doesn't change the point.)
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, I couldn't believe that when I saw it. The replays themselves seemed pretty inconclusive but depending on your orientation you could lean either way. Should of been benefit of doubt IMO.
howardj
International Coach
As noted on the radio this morning, the over rates for the Super Test (when there were unlimited video referrals) were faster than they were for the Test match just completed between Australia and India (where the video was not used). The argument that 'you can't use the video as it slows the game down too much' is absolute dribble.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
A bit late on the argument, but what the heck here is my 2 cents on it..
Well for me looking at what occured in Sydney & for the last few years in International cricket, i reckon technology should be used more to assit the umpires & not for the game on a 100% basis since i wouldn't like to see umpires replaced & technology takes over & for example every LBW decision that haweye says is out is given etc cricket would become a farce. The human element of the game shoudl remain since decisions are proven to even themselves out. (although in instances that just occured in Sydney much Indian fans wouldn't want to hear that drivel).
This is where the ICC could make the umpries jobs alot more easier IMO since there is technology available that can aid umpires in making more correct decision & less bad ones. Firstly i remember only the other day the 3rd umpire was calling the front foot no-ball then they stopped it don't know why but i would think that would help the on-field umpire a great deal in that he would obviously get to concentrate on the play much better.
Secondly for bat-pad catches give the umpire an ear-piece with the snickometer technology so he could be able to detect tho fine edges to the keeper or close in fielders much better. This could also come in very handy in countries in India for example when the crowd is so loud the umpire is reduced to depending on deflections to judge catches.
Finally give the umps a shades where he can see those lines so that he can judge with more certaintly whether the ball has pitches outside leg-stump. A great portion of the LBW problem solved.
Give those umps these gadgets and everything will be peaches & cream in the cricketening world.
Well for me looking at what occured in Sydney & for the last few years in International cricket, i reckon technology should be used more to assit the umpires & not for the game on a 100% basis since i wouldn't like to see umpires replaced & technology takes over & for example every LBW decision that haweye says is out is given etc cricket would become a farce. The human element of the game shoudl remain since decisions are proven to even themselves out. (although in instances that just occured in Sydney much Indian fans wouldn't want to hear that drivel).
This is where the ICC could make the umpries jobs alot more easier IMO since there is technology available that can aid umpires in making more correct decision & less bad ones. Firstly i remember only the other day the 3rd umpire was calling the front foot no-ball then they stopped it don't know why but i would think that would help the on-field umpire a great deal in that he would obviously get to concentrate on the play much better.
Secondly for bat-pad catches give the umpire an ear-piece with the snickometer technology so he could be able to detect tho fine edges to the keeper or close in fielders much better. This could also come in very handy in countries in India for example when the crowd is so loud the umpire is reduced to depending on deflections to judge catches.
Finally give the umps a shades where he can see those lines so that he can judge with more certaintly whether the ball has pitches outside leg-stump. A great portion of the LBW problem solved.
Give those umps these gadgets and everything will be peaches & cream in the cricketening world.
Captain Cricket
State Vice-Captain
For all of you supporting the introduction of technology...
From this second test we've learnt that umpires are far from perfect and we've also seen different sides of players that we thought we would never see. IMO umpires are there to judge what is out and what is not out, alongside many other things. If Clarke says he caught that delivery then so be it, it may be another blunder but no-one cares - it's the thing that is officially in the books is what counts, nothing else. All the Indian supporters, as much as you would hate to hear it: Australia won the game.
Sure, decisions have gone astray but I am afraid to say cricket is slowly losing it's repuatation as the 'gentleman's game.' In every single other sport in the world, the umpire rules the game. Take soccer for example, if a player kicks a goal there's nothing stopping the scoreboard person from putting an extra goal on the scoreboard for that team. Whereas cricket, a player can choose to stand his ground. One thing that contributes to cricket's fading of the 'gentleman's game' status is a lack of technology. Sure, this would have been introduced a long time ago if there were no repercussions but look at what this would do to our game:
Only 60-70 overs would be managed in a day's play of a test match, ultimately giving less time for players to manage a score which would therefore mess up all their past test averages and players would score less more, the game would be boring; and that's the last thing the faithful cricket community wants. All the talk about Twenty20 replacing ODI's and Test's would hurt Test cricket even more if there was another thing standing in the way of Test cricket sustainence.
Another disadvantage of introducing technology would be questioning the existence of umpires. And what about junior/amateur cricketers? No way a local cricket club can afford the proper technology to refer to appeals etc. which makes an amateur cricketer think: "How come we trust umpires in our level of cricket when they can't trust umpires internationally?"
Introduction of technology would also lead to players walking a lot more. An obvious point but nontheless important.
Everyone can opt for the introduction of technology, but why leap to conclusions when all that we are basing our ideas on is THIS particular match and THESE two particular umpires. No game has ever been bad as this in terms of umpiring mistakes, but now because of these two umpires, players will stand their ground a lot more frequently 'hoping' that a 'stupid' umpire would give them not out. I don't care which path the ICC choose to take in terms of handling Bucknor and Benson but whatever happens I wish those two the best in life. It's time to get over all the racism, it's just a sport. Forget whatever happened and the results in this match because it's only one test, India can still draw the series and I hope they win a test from here because imo they solely deserve to. Get over what happened in the match and whatever mistakes were made, just hope different umpires are of good standard and they continue to do their job for the sake of this wonderful game.
From this second test we've learnt that umpires are far from perfect and we've also seen different sides of players that we thought we would never see. IMO umpires are there to judge what is out and what is not out, alongside many other things. If Clarke says he caught that delivery then so be it, it may be another blunder but no-one cares - it's the thing that is officially in the books is what counts, nothing else. All the Indian supporters, as much as you would hate to hear it: Australia won the game.
Sure, decisions have gone astray but I am afraid to say cricket is slowly losing it's repuatation as the 'gentleman's game.' In every single other sport in the world, the umpire rules the game. Take soccer for example, if a player kicks a goal there's nothing stopping the scoreboard person from putting an extra goal on the scoreboard for that team. Whereas cricket, a player can choose to stand his ground. One thing that contributes to cricket's fading of the 'gentleman's game' status is a lack of technology. Sure, this would have been introduced a long time ago if there were no repercussions but look at what this would do to our game:
Only 60-70 overs would be managed in a day's play of a test match, ultimately giving less time for players to manage a score which would therefore mess up all their past test averages and players would score less more, the game would be boring; and that's the last thing the faithful cricket community wants. All the talk about Twenty20 replacing ODI's and Test's would hurt Test cricket even more if there was another thing standing in the way of Test cricket sustainence.
Another disadvantage of introducing technology would be questioning the existence of umpires. And what about junior/amateur cricketers? No way a local cricket club can afford the proper technology to refer to appeals etc. which makes an amateur cricketer think: "How come we trust umpires in our level of cricket when they can't trust umpires internationally?"
Introduction of technology would also lead to players walking a lot more. An obvious point but nontheless important.
Everyone can opt for the introduction of technology, but why leap to conclusions when all that we are basing our ideas on is THIS particular match and THESE two particular umpires. No game has ever been bad as this in terms of umpiring mistakes, but now because of these two umpires, players will stand their ground a lot more frequently 'hoping' that a 'stupid' umpire would give them not out. I don't care which path the ICC choose to take in terms of handling Bucknor and Benson but whatever happens I wish those two the best in life. It's time to get over all the racism, it's just a sport. Forget whatever happened and the results in this match because it's only one test, India can still draw the series and I hope they win a test from here because imo they solely deserve to. Get over what happened in the match and whatever mistakes were made, just hope different umpires are of good standard and they continue to do their job for the sake of this wonderful game.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
If we do introduce technology without a referral system, and leave it to the umpires to ask for assistance, I think we'll see it become like the 3rd umpire with regards to runouts, where they refer it upstairs all the time just to make sure that they don't look stupid if they make the wrong decision. Which really will extend out the day.
Unless they're Bucknor.
Unless they're Bucknor.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Pretty much one of the all-time CW greats returns!!!! You've been badly missed mate!!!
:
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
Scintillating OP. 
Best thing that could be done, IMO, is a frequent turnover of ICC Elite umpires - which renders fatigue and/or jading an irrelevancy. Would be thrilled at the prospect of incentives, performance pay or any other quality control system that ensures the survival of only the best. I mean, there's no way Asad Rauf - let alone Bucknor - is one of the ten or so best umpires in the world.
Best thing that could be done, IMO, is a frequent turnover of ICC Elite umpires - which renders fatigue and/or jading an irrelevancy. Would be thrilled at the prospect of incentives, performance pay or any other quality control system that ensures the survival of only the best. I mean, there's no way Asad Rauf - let alone Bucknor - is one of the ten or so best umpires in the world.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Considering how slow cricket is already (slowest sport in the world?) I hardly see time as being an issue.
Over rates are poor, it takes plenty of time for both bowler and batsman to be ready after one delivery, it takes plenty of time for a batsman to actually come out to bat following a dismissal etc.
All these things add nothing to the game, whereas referrals will add accuracy and fairness. I can't see why I wouldn't sit and wait an extra 2 mins to see if a batsman is actually out or not if I'm going to sit and wait for Lee and Akhtar to go back to their run-up, or Ganguly walk away and chat with himself whilst the bowling team is ready, or for 3 helmets to be called out from the pavillion etc.
Also, shouldn't this go in the technology thread? There's an overflow of topics regarding many issues of the Sydney test atm, and its hard to remember which one you posted in atm lol.
Over rates are poor, it takes plenty of time for both bowler and batsman to be ready after one delivery, it takes plenty of time for a batsman to actually come out to bat following a dismissal etc.
All these things add nothing to the game, whereas referrals will add accuracy and fairness. I can't see why I wouldn't sit and wait an extra 2 mins to see if a batsman is actually out or not if I'm going to sit and wait for Lee and Akhtar to go back to their run-up, or Ganguly walk away and chat with himself whilst the bowling team is ready, or for 3 helmets to be called out from the pavillion etc.
Also, shouldn't this go in the technology thread? There's an overflow of topics regarding many issues of the Sydney test atm, and its hard to remember which one you posted in atm lol.