cricket changes

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by debbotheiron

there is no way you could use TV replays for no-balls

There is an argument for using TV replays and "hawkeye" for LBWs, but my personal opinion is that these should be tested further.

Hmmmm Some comentaters change their opinion after seeing a TV replay,I think by and large umpires get the no balls correct.

I am not for change if it can be helped,and you have to draw the line in the sand at some point,there have been some very bad decisions on LBWs in this Windies tour,umpires have not been consistant on LBWs for a while,and then the wonder when a player decents out of frustration,knowing they where not out.

I think if there is a strong doubt the third umpire should come into play.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

As so many days are lost to the weather Obviously you cant enclose the ground as in rugby/tennis (due to humidity i think the ball behaves unusually?) Could the bat be covered in a plastic or the ball waterproofed somehow without affecting the play. Perhaps you'll still have to come off if it rods it down

I think there are ways you could enclose a ground,super air conditioning would help the humidity problam,If need and only if need be,it could break down when Hoggard was bowling.

A ball in a plastic bag Hmmm,could give it several coats of varnish I suppose.

They should play in the drizzle,

I can remember when England played Australia,it was dark,and the rain was heaving down,England did this so Australia could win,It was a one dayer I think,Cant remember the ground or year,but I remember watching it on the BBC.one of them things that sticks in ones mind.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by debbotheiron

I realise that I'm a bit late on this, but only online during the day. Although I think that an electronic eye like that used at Tennis tournaments is a reasonable idea, I can't see it being at all practical. What happens with regard to the non-striker backing up and breaking the crease at the same time as the bowler is bowling?

debbotheiron

Hi there, thanks for your input into this discussion, I was the one who originally put the forward the idea of the front foot fault 'electronic eye'.

In my original post to this thread, I answered the question of what changes if any you would like to see in Cricket. In my mind, the most important thing I'd like to see changed is the ability to get decisions right. I suggested one way of achieving this is to automate some of the decisions that the umpire currently has to make - one of which is the bowlers front foot fault. This is a relatively simple process - is any part of the foot behind the line? Simple you'd think, but umpires still get it wrong! I'm sure I don't have to point out to you, how important a no ball can be on the game, I've seen recently one instance when Vaughan clean bowled Ridley Jacobs only to have the decision nullified by a noball!

Now, I'm not going to get into a discussion on umpiring abilities and how they do a good job most of the time in difficult circumstances - all I'm saying is - automate some of the simple processes, so the umpire can concentrate on others things and be sure that he doesn't have to worry about front foot faults.

The idea I put forward was for some kind of 'electronic eye' to cross the line where the front foot is judged and have this linked to an ear piece that the Umpire can wear (or it could be something in his pocket that vibrates or anything else that can indicate when something's happened) to alert him to whether there is a problem with the front foot.

Now, I'm not going to say how that will be achieved, but I'm pretty sure that if technology like Hawkeye can plot the path of the ball travelling at anything up to 90 mph, they can figure out a system to decide whether that front foot fault line is crossed or not !

Lets not get caught up in technicalities - judge the idea on its merits - not on how it will be achieved.

When a company decides it wants a networked enterprise MIS, they don't go to the IT Consultants and say we want an IBM RS6000, on a 10 Base T, star configured network, running Oracle Financials to dumb 'networked' terminals, they say - we want this MIS System to do this, this and this - come up with a solution!

All I'm saying is - automate the bowler front fault process - how you do it is up to you.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Scott - I think you are probably right about the catches: the third umpire has been called in the past to determine carry, not bat contact, hasn't he?

OF

I'm sure I've seen umpires refer to the third umpire to decide if a ball has carried, and also to determine whether a ball has either carried to the boundary rope when he was obscured by the player, or whether it carried over the boundry for a six.

But the instances here are largely irrelevant, the most import point out of all this is that the standing field umpire has the option to either refer decisions or to ask for clarification of what happened to the third umpire. If he has this ability to look to the third umpire for guidance on 'some' instances - he can also do it to 'nicked catches' and LBW's the fact he doesn't is entirely his decision.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I'm surprised to hear that LBWs are already referrable. I really didn't know that. If that's the case, I don't know why they are not referred more often, because there is no doubt that these are the most contentious calls in most matches.

See my point above on this - if he can refer 'some' decisions he can refer them all if he chooses to. The reason he doesn't refer LBW decisions I think is more to do with tradition and the need take responsibilty for making decisions himself. Lets face it - if umpires did choose to start referring some LBW decisions it would set a precedent that suggests that umpires themselves wern't confident enough to make LBW decisions themselves. This is why I think, their hand should be forced to an extent by allowing the batsman or the fielding Captain to challenge some decisions that get made.

I'm not saying at all that batsmen or Captains should have the power to start challenging any and every decision the Umpire makes that would be rediculous, but in situations where a contentious decision gets made that could have a big impact on the outcome of the game, I feel the need to get the 'right' decision made, not a 'best guess' by the umpire over-rides everything else. Umpires often refer run-out decisions right? Quite rightly in most instances the umpire simply is not in a position to make a decision on runouts - usually it happens so fast, or he's in the wrong position to see, he just cannot make a decision based on what actually happend. So why are LBW's seen as being so different to run outs? Can you honestly tell me - hand on heart - that when an Umpire gives an LBW decision he's 100% sure that 1/ when the ball hits the pad its inline with the stumps and 2/ that that ball was going on to hit the stumps? 3/ the batsmen didn't get a little bat on it? Theres no way at all he can be 100% sure any of these things happens - he's 'best guessing' what happend or may have gone on to happen. Now I'm not saying that every single LBW decision should be referred, 80% of them the field Umpire can make the decision, but on those 20% dubious cases, I feel he's duty bound to get clarifiction of what happend.

Scott

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

debbotheiron

Hi there, thanks for your input into this discussion, I was the one who originally put the forward the idea of the front foot fault 'electronic eye'.
I've seen recently one instance when Vaughan clean bowled Ridley Jacobs only to have the decision nullified by a noball!



The idea I put forward was for some kind of 'electronic eye' to cross the line where the front foot is judged and have this linked to an ear piece that the Umpire can were.

Scott

Hi scott

Interesting post to debbotheiron,

Electronic eyes can go wrong,and if connected to an umpire it could be off putting,tv replays can pick up no balls,and if a captain objects,it could be refered to the third umpire,who could then make a decision based on the replay.

I respect your opinion scott,and the only fault I find with this post,and quite right you brought it up in the first place.Do the umpires get noball decisions wrong enough times to make it nesessary to bring in hi tec solutions

[Occasional Fan]

Overall, Scott, I agree that the objective should be to get decisions right. But even with the third umpire it's not going to be 100%. Of course I can't say that umpires are always 100% sure when they raise the finger on an LBW call - but they should be, since an element of doubt should always go in the batsman's favour. Mistakes are made, of course, and we have the chance to see or hear about all of them and discuss them long after the batsman has stayed or walked.

I don't think I made any direct comparison of run out calls to LBW calls, but actually since you raise it I feel that too many run out calls are referred these days. Umpires in the top flight - and it is only they who will ever have access to TV replays, electronic eyes, etc. - jolly well SHOULD be in the right place to get these calls right, and usually are. There are times, I think, where a call is blindingly obvious even at full pace, but the umpire feels that he needs to take a TV replay simply to cover his backside. That disrupts play and is bad for the game - as, indeed, is the case of the batsman who is out by a yard but still hangs around waiting for the red light (can't remember who this was, but one of the Englishmen run out on Sunday played this game, at least according to the TalkSport commentator).

I'm all for trying out technical stuff in the interests of eliminating errors - it has worked pretty well in some other games, notably top flight rugby union - and I'm sure we'll see some experimentation with this over the coming seasons. However, I think it will take a lot to get me to change my view on allowing captains to request review of the field umpires' decisions. That can only lead to umpires being undermined where the technology is available but not used, or branded as being of doubtful competence where the technology is not available (you can imagine the amateur players muttering "It would never have happened if we'd had a TV umpire" as they sling their bats through the pavilion windows).

One last point: you say "If umpires can refer some decisions they can refer them all". Is that the law at the moment, or is it where you would like to get to? I think the number of referrable cases at the moment is pretty restricted isn't it - basically to line calls for run outs, stumpings and boundaries? Could well be wrong, but I don't think the umpires are yet given a completely free rein.

Will be interesting to see how this develops over the coming years.

[debbotheiron]

Hi

As you say it can be tricky for umpires to look at the front foot and then look up to see where the ball pitches (the next thing to look for in an LBW decision (after the foot for No Ball you have to see the width on the crease obviously)), however I can see no way of automating this without an instant sound. After all a batsman may change their shot on hearing it is a no ball, particularly in a OD game. Perhaps an alternative is to have a 3rd umpire on the pitch as say a "line judge" who could stand square to the line at the bowler's end just to judge on the no ball.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by debbotheiron

Hi

As you say it can be tricky for umpires to look at the front foot and then look up to see where the ball pitches (the next thing to look for in an LBW decision Perhaps an alternative is to have a 3rd umpire on the pitch as say a "line judge" who could stand square to the line at the bowler's end just to judge on the no ball.

Hi
I would sooner see 3rd umpires,looking ar replays,maybe it is becuse I am a traditionalist,but I would not like to see a ( line judge),taking the game to much away from cricket if you see what I mean.

Just a thought,before we could see bad decisions on the big screen,how many umpires have got away with less than propper decisions.Hmmm

[debbotheiron]

Yes I see exactly what you mean re. taking the game away from cricket, however, traditionally part of the "joy" of cricket has been the interpretation of the umpire. "The umpire is always right, even if he's wrong" being something drummed into us as young cricketers. Maybe we should all just accept this at all levels of the game (Some hope!) after all there is guidance that the benefit of any doubt goes to the batsman.
As you hint TV replays actually put a lot of pressures on umpires, as indeed they do on football referees.

[Rich Greenfield]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I'm surprised to hear that LBWs are already referrable. I really didn't know that. If that's the case, I don't know why they are not referred more often, because there is no doubt that these are the most contentious calls in most matches.

They are not referrable, They tried it in the champions trophy in Sri Lanka but the feed back they got from the umpires wasn't favourable