I've never been too keen on umpires using technology as there are too many decisions that are never "clear cut" and I was brought up the believe the umpires always right.

Its interesting reading this article:
Cricinfo - Review system under the scanner

Umpire Benson has had two decisions changed by technology but both of his original decisions have since been proved correct!! This to me makes a joke of the system and to my mind vindicates my personal thoughts.

I bet at the time Benson must have felt a bit angry to be proved wrong twice but i bet now he's feeling pretty pleased that he got the decisions right and technology got them wrong.

Umpires 2 Technology 0!

If we are to use technology it must be foolproof or we should only use it for line decisions and I cant see it ever being foolproof .

__________________
Mark.

In a word, yes.

Looking at Dilshan's decision, it sounds like there was a lot of room for doubt there (admittedly I didn't see it), but if it was given not out and subsequently appealed, then it might have worked considerably better. One example doesn't disprove the theory.

As for it being foolproof- nothing is ever going to be 100%, but the amount of times technology has got it wrong compared to the amount of ludicrous decisions being made by umpires suggests to me that the technology is more reliable. Of course, that doesn't mean that this appeal system isn't the optimum way to use it, but IMO it's a step in the right direction.

actually looking at the review system, it seems there are quite a few flaws in the system and technology is being used but not enough of it is used . Hotspot for instance wouldve been a brilliant tool to detect whether Dilshan was out in that case you talk about, but hotspot isn't provided.

In the case of being inline with the stumps, lots of umpires would need a ball completely pitching within the stumps and will not consider an appeal where the ball pitches even marginally outside the leg stump, but the new rule says its inline if the majority(>50%) of the ball pitches within the stumps.

Actually if you have a look during the review system, after a review is called for the third umpire sees the review and conveys his views but the final decision has to be taken by the field umpire and not from upstairs. So Mark Benson has himself to blame for the decisions he might have got correct the first time and decided to change it after it went upstairs for another look. As it stands I think the system is looking to empower the umpires to make better decisions. I think there were a couple of decisions which were rightly changed by Technology, so its not a lopsided contest between Umpires and technology. The Indians though were at the recieving end of most of those decisions with Tendulkar looking really dissapointed by after his review, would they now cry foul against the review system?? We'll have to wait and see!!.

I have seen a bit of American Football while in the US and there the referee when challenged on a decision has access to a replay on the field itself. Maybe instead of involving the third umpire he can have a look himself the same way(maybe with the help of a portable device) and superior technology like hotspot definitely needs to be provided.

Its still early days in the system,its still in the trial phase and still has a long way before it is deemed efficient. Hopefully there will be a lot of lessons learnt after the trial and every review scrutinized to pick out the errors and prevent them from happening in future. It is a step in the right way and hasn't in any way undermined the authority of the umpires at all from what I saw. I only wish people here would actually see the review system themselves and talk about the merits and demerits instead of basing their opinions on what they read on the internet.

Not really, a lot of caught behind decisions are similar to that one and there was little doubt in the eyes of the umpire. The fact was the umpire got it right and technology messed it up. These are the kind of decisions that will get referred and technology cant cope, yes the umpires may get the odd "easy" decision wrong but that's the same in all sports.


Perhaps the main problem with umpires is that there too much politics involved and not always the best umpires are being used.

According to the ICC the umpires get well over 90% of the tough decisions right and that's something i doubt technology ever will. As has been shown in a lot of "tight" decisions technology is next to useless, especially in terms of catches this nearly always results in a not out decision. Tight caught behind decisions are also going to be difficult for technology as again it isn't always decisive.

All that will happen is that a lot more not out decisions will be made as technology wont be able to say with certainty that the decision was out. Cricket will become even more of a batsmans game.

__________________
Mark.

Yes, and in many other sports they refer tough decisions to third umpires when they themselves can't make the decision on the spot.

Or, decisions which would've normally been given not out would be given out- eg. the Symonds appeal in Sydney. Sanketh's right- the problem is with the application of the technology, not the technology itself. Hotspot should certainly be used more than "snicko."

I cant see how you can say that. The advice he received in both cases from the third umpire suggested he should change his decision.

Probably .

In that case then why trial it in tests! Surely it should be trialled in first class cricket to see if its suitable.

Please don't patronise me, my beliefs on technology are long standing and have nothing to do with whatever i may read on the internet. I was brought up to believe the umpire is always right and that yes, they will and do get decisions wrong sometimes these go for you and sometimes against you.

If the technology was good enough my views my soften a bit but i doubt it. At the moment the technology is no where near good enough to be used in the test arena especially when some of the technology available isn't being used.

__________________
Mark.

And mostly the third "TV" official has to play safe and give no goal, no try, not out etc. because the technology isn't conclusive.


I can agree there, but why not give the third umpire access to all technology and let him base his decision on all the available evidence??

I still find it frustrating that TV companies can have access to better angles for run outs and more technology than the third umpire has

__________________
Mark.

Exactly! Is this one of those situations where we both really agree with each other, but keep convoluting it so we have no idea what we're saying to each other? Because I hate it when that happens!

Just to be sure- I'd love for the TV ump to have access to everything- Hotspot, snicko, Hawkeye, money, guns, women...

As I already said the role of the third umpire is to guide the on field umpire(ofcourse with the help of slow motion replays and use of hawkeye to establish where the ball pitched and where it struck the batsman) and not make the decisions for him, if he has the courage and conviction that his previous decision is correct he can stick by it. Perhaps it will be clearer if we could hear the conversation between the on-field and third umpire during the review.


I believe it has already been tried in county cricket and with disastrous results as you probably already know.Its been trialled so events like Sydney 2008 dont repeat again with Bucknor being replaced for the 3rd test. I dont think any decision(like in the case of contentious catches) will ever see two parties being happy with it. I dont think its an attempt to please everyone but to improve the standard of umpiring and take away some very blatant errors in judgement.

I can already see a couple of decisions(i'm sure you would agree too) during Eng Vs SA series that would've gone the batsman's way in the review after the third umpire just looked once at the replay and adviced the on-field umpire.


I believe you have a right to hold your own opinion. I do understand the view that sometimes things go for you and against you, but I feel sorry for the players when someone given out in crucial circumstances leading to losing test matches or some decisions leading to a draw when the game shouldve been won by a team. I do feel that this review system will give some power to the players instead of being silent spectators to some attrocious decisions.

I agree reliable technology like hotspot isn't being used and I agree that sometimes replays are inconclusive whether a contentious catch was taken and technology isn't upto the mark. But then all of us dont start walking as soon as we're born, we stumble, fall over many times etc before learning how to walk. We cannot be sure every close run-out call is judged correctly by the 3rd umpire, how many times is the benefit of doubt given to the batsmen??, so do we then need to stop referring those close runouts to 3rd umpires??

So IMHO its a bit naive to expect the review system ever to be 100% fool proof or that the ICC will get it right the very first time. I'm sure maybe 2-3 years down the line there would be more efficiency and consistency in the system and we'd all appreciate it. If some errors are made in the trial phase(even though have mostly affected india) so be it!!, all in the greater interests of the game!!.