Umpires: Is 92% enough?

[Andy Mellon]

According to the latest statistics reported from the ICC

Originally Posted by Icc Elite Umpire Panel (but uttered by Malcolm Speed)

The Elite Panel of ICC umpires is operating at a correct decision rate of around 92%, which compares to 94% achieved in Major League Baseball. Our view is that cricket is a more difficult game to umpire than baseball, so if we want our officials to attain a higher percentage of correct decisions we may need to provide them with greater support through extra technology.

This raises several questions.

Firstly, the statistics show an accuracy of 92% at present. Are people and players happy with that? Should we really be aiming for 100% accuracy?

Secondly, this seems to suggest that the ICC intend to use technology to a greater extent to increase that percentage.

Are people in favour of this to improve umpiring when chances are, technology will only be able to improve accuracy by 1 or 2 percentage points without completely eradicating the need for an umpire at the top level?

(NB. The 92% applies only to the Elite Panel, not all umpires!!)

[R W S]

I listened to an old interview with Nasser this afternoon (sad but true) and he said that he was a confirmed non walker on the grounds that if you were to walk you'd be conceding about 20% of your wicket. Now I cant corroborate or even elaborate on how he came up with this figure but it suggests the umpires are (at least in the case of appeals against the batsmen) only 80% accurate.

From watching hawkeye on the tele I find it hard to believe the umps are over 90% accurate. It's a tough job and they should be given every assistance possible - cue the air drawing of a square from the man in white - as long as it doesnt adversley affect the flow of the game.

For anyone who would like to hear Nasser's views on walking and many other subjects go to bbc.co.uk and then paste in this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/rpms/5L_nasser.ram

(sorry but it's the only way I have managed to get it to work)

[nice move Andy!]

[The Great DonTalon]

hell yea...92%is great ..perfect really..the 8% inaccuracy is dished out between basmen getting lucky breaks and unlucky breaks...and lets face it hawkeye says that they are mostly out when they are given not out anyway..


so yes 92% is great



unless some team needs one run to win the ashes and gets one part of the 8% percent inaccuracy.

[Occasional Fan]

I think there are a couple of points which are important to me here. The main one is that I hate to see measures being introduced at the top level of the game which are not available at lower levels. Reliance on replays to make decisions, therefore, is something which I am only really accepting reluctantly. That said, I guess I have grown used to seeing umpires at the top of the tree call for replays to adjudicate run out decisions of less than about a yard and a half. I'd like to see fewer referrals to the third umpire - there are too many where the call is clear, even at full speed - but I wouldn't be so much of a Luddite as to ask for abolition of the third umpire's TV replay for line calls.

The second point is that I don't mind the technology helping the umpire to determine the facts, but I wouldn't want it to replace the determination of the umpire's opinion. For two reasons, therefore, I would be very reluctant to see hand-held Hawkeyes as a matter of routine, since not only would this only be available at the top levels of the game, it would actually change the way the game is played (by removing the human judgment element which is inherent in the lbw law). There is a difference between using technology on a run out decision - where whether a player should be in or out is a matter of fact - and an lbw decision, which requires the umpire to form an opinion (as to the likely trajectory of the ball). We may not like the opinion he forms sometimes, but the law requires him, and only him, to form it. We can all complain about it in the pub afterwards, but the umpire can say quite genuinely "I called it as I saw it", and, with respect, drinkers in the pub, your opinion is merely of academic interest.

Third point, and much less serious in some ways given the non-continuous nature of cricket, is that technology in the form of TV replays can be disruptive to the flow. That needs to be fought. I sometimes wonder what a third umpire gains from seeing the same angle at the same speed for a third or fourth time. I can tolerate the idea of giving him six different angles to review (as long as it can be done quickly), but he should get each one once. If he's not sure from a particular angle, he can't say a batsman is out, and if he has to see an angle more than once, he can't be sure.

Overall, 92% isn't at all bad. If we bung a load of technology at the top flight of the game, risk reducing over rates below even their present woeful level, and risk replacing Steve Bucknor and Simon Taufel with Metal Mickey and R2D2, we can lift it to the lofty heights of baseball's 94%, can we?

Hmm. Push off ICC: leave this one to the MCC who set the laws and administer the game for everyone who doesn't happen to be an international player and get on with something serious which genuinely only affects international cricket.

[Alison]

I think in view of how hard it must be, 92% is very impressive. Although aiming for 100% would be good, I'm not sure it would actually be achievable.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by R W S

[nice move Andy!]

Even though I moved it?

[R W S]

Oops - wrong assumption - i guessed that as it was Andy's thread he moved it - my thanks go to you then Maranello!

[Maranello]

Good point Alison. It would be interesting to see how this 92% number is arrived at. I would like to strip out all the obvious edges and easy no-ball calls etc from it, and then break it up into LBWs, caught behinds, etc. The figures would then make interesting reading.

I agree with OF that judging LBWs is a matter of opinion, and so I am not sure how anyone can calculate a "correct" % for that. We cannot rely on Hawkeye in its entirety; as various other posts on this forum have shown, the technology as yet is far from perfect.

On the other hand, no-balls, beamers, caught behinds etc are a matter of fact, and if these are adjudicated using the available technology, correct results ratio should increase to 98-100%. This has already happened for run-outs and stumpings, where I am sure umpires get almot 100% of calls right.

PS: I do agree that current technology for caught behinds is not perfect, but still snickometer, super slow-motion etc should be an improvement and take the ratio up to 95% or 98%; I am sure it is closer to Nasser's 80% currently (as the 92% number is a composite figure for all forms of decisions, not just contentious ones or dismissals).

[haseebbutt007]

I think tecnology should be involved in the game to greater extent. It will improve umpiring standard .

[imaginarydiva]

Yeah no matter what people say about umpires being human; small errors may go a long way in deciding the fate of the match.An umpires role is so important that he may as well get the man of the match award for his right/wrong decisions.Anyway if technology is going to help reduce the margin of error its cool cuz atleast the viewers are happy.