Cricket changes poll

[R W S]

Consistency or accuracy?

I often hear sports people say that they value consistency of decision making by arbiters. Decision making in Cricket is made by humans and is therefore inconsistent. I think the arguement that Hawkeye is not 100% accurate is spurious.

Hawkeye is 100% consistent as it is based on the logic in the software that translates the camera images into those fancy graphics we are now familiar with - whether it be in Cricket, Tennis, Footie etc

It is commonplace for teams to consider the attributes of a referee/umpire - eg, cricket - does he tend to give LBWs, footie - does he easily dish out yellow/red cards, rugby - does he strictly apply the offside law - and teams adapt their play as appropriate.

All of this can be removed with a consistent approach. Whether it is Hawkeye or another application is not important to me.

In a marketplace where cricket struggles to compete for spectators and sponsorship and a decreasing pool of player resource - a way to attract new followers, especially the generation that grew up with visual multimedia & now have spending power, would be to embrace the new technologies and make an asset out of them.

In my experience rule changes in sports are accomodated very quickly - eg, football back pass, rugby mauls vs rucks.

I would like Cricket to boldly go forward. In my lifetime? What are the odds on that!?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by R W S

In my experience rule changes in sports are accomodated very quickly - eg, football back pass, rugby mauls vs rucks.

I would like Cricket to boldly go forward. In my lifetime? What are the odds on that!?

Cricket is a game steeped in tradition,a game that does not change rules,or anything to do with the running of cricket lightly,this is a good post to follow and to put into words,The Need For Change.

Before the advent of sky,with their replays,backed by Hawkeye,being able to show if a LBW desicion was right or not,and being 98% accurate,the time has come for us to take Hawkeye on board,and use it.

It is not erroding the power or standing of umpires,quite the reverse,it is an aid which the can use,because if they dont every mistake they make is there for all to see,so it follows by getting more desicions right,their standing will go up.

I dont think the quality of Umpires has gone down,I think Hawkeye would have found a lot of umpires wanting,and that includes Dicky Bird.

What Hawkeye as done,is to show us that the human eye is not capable of checking if a bowler has overstepped the line,then turn his attention to a possible LBW desicion,or maybe a desputed slip catch. It would seem to me that even the best umpires cannot make these decisions,in fractions of a second.

Why we need change,is because unlike the days before Hawkeye,and all other forms of replays,it did not matter as much,because the decisons evened themselves out,but now there is another dimension,players and spectators alike can see in an instant,if the Umpire has got it wrong,this causes frustration,and to a degree you can understand a player showing his,or her annoyance,when they can plainly see they where not out,or in the case of a bowler the ball was plumb.

The sooner they change the rules on this one the better,I am a die-hard traditionalist,but even I can see change is unavoidable,on this one we have to move with the times.

[R W S]

Good points well made.

Originally Posted by ernest

because the decisons evened themselves out

Ernest On this point ....

This is a commonly held falacy. I used to take this statement as a trusim myself but I got to thinking . . . .

How many international careers have been stunted or even halted by an umpires erroneous decision leading to selectorial impaitience? How many potential record breaking innngs were allowed/cut short? What about a decison in your favour against Bangladesh and one against you in an an ashes series? Is this even?

How can a technique be improved to put these marginal decisions in your favour? Every batsman should know where his off stump is. But when an umpire can move it what can he do? And bowlers deserve thier just rewards also.

Maybe we say such is life. That is an amaturish answer.

Would any of us allow an incorrect decision affect our pay review. annual assesment or career prospects when we could demonsrate otherwise?

One of the best rule changes in recent years has been the introduction of neutral umpires and match referees. This shows that the powers that be recognise the need to improve in this area. Now lets go to the next level.

[Richard Jenkins]

Today is the last day to vote in the poll. I'll send the results to the ICC (not that it'll make a blind bit of difference. So vote if you haven't already!

i'd get rid of duckworth Lewis also.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by R W S

Ernest On this point ....

This is a commonly held falacy. I used to take this statement as a trusim myself but I got to thinking . . . .

How many international careers have been stunted or even halted by an umpires erroneous decision .

How can a technique be improved to put these marginal decisions in your favour? Every batsman should know where his off stump is. But when an umpire can move it what can he do? And bowlers deserve thier just rewards also.


Would any of us allow an incorrect decision affect our pay review. annual assesment or career prospects when we could demonsrate otherwise?

One of the best rule changes in recent years has been the introduction of neutral umpires and match referees. This shows that the powers that be recognise the need to improve in this area. Now lets go to the next level.

I agree ,the point I was making was that before the advent of Hawkeye,and tv replays and such like,we had to rely on the Umpires,and what the TV replays have shown, umpires are just not up to it,they cant look for no balls,then look up and be expected to get every LBW decision right.

They are now being showed up,they have been made to look incompetent,and will continue to do so until the rules are changed,to allow replays,at least for LBWs.

Before Hawkeye the only thing that could be said was,ok the umpire was wrong,but things will even themselves out,what else could you say?you could not argue with umpire every time you new a decision was wrong against you.yes they have to move with the times.

[R W S]

The ICC's cricket committee has proposed a number of radical innovations to the game at its two-day meeting in Dubai. Among the changes suggested, all of which will first be trialled in domestic competitions, are:

Allow the batting team to nominate the 15 overs in which fielding restrictions for one-day games would apply. The overs would not have to be bowled consecutively Select 12 players for each game, with only 11 batting and fielding

Disallow overthrows resulting from the ball hitting the batsman, and only allowing overthrows when the ball hits the stumps

Allow a baseball-style "double play", in which the ball remains live after the dismissal of a batsman, allowing the other batsman also to be dismissed during the same phase of play.

The 12-a-side format has already being implemented in Australia in their domestic one-day competition – they switched back to 11 per team last season after experimenting with an extra player for a couple of years. Meanwhile, the idea of modifying the 15-over fielding restrictions in one-dayers has often been mooted by experts – most notably by Martin Crowe – to bring back some excitement into the middle overs of a one-day international.

The cricket committee also recommended some changes to the current playing conditions: # The minimum number of overs required to constitute an ODI be reduced from 25 to 20 # If playing time is lost due to any reason, the amount of time lost should be made up, rather than the number of overs. Currently, the playing conditions specify that the time lost should be converted into overs – at four minutes per over – which should then be made up over the subsequent days.

It was also suggested that in case of ODIs where no play is possible, the match would enter the record books if the toss had taken place. Also, in matches which had a reserve day, there would be no provision for a re-toss on that day if the toss had already taken place on the previous one. The committee also studied, and proposed further trials, to the experiment of having tramlines drawn on the pitch and providing the umpires with earpieces attached to the stump microphones.

[Richard Jenkins]

I sent an email to the ICC with the results of our poll

Here is the response.

"Dear Richard

Thank you for your email which has been read and noted.

Yours sincerely
ICC Corporate Affairs "

[R W S]

Thought I'd bring this thread to the front page as we seem to getting some old and new friends visiting today.