Dangerous precedent?

[Mr Kiwi]

thanks,

i would like to see hawkeye 'tested' by using it to analyse a ball which has bowled the batsman, or a ball which the batter has allowed to let through which then came perilously close to the stumps to see if hawkeye can pick up the close ones accurately. i'm not sure if, with the way the system is set up, such a test is possible but the results would be a pretty good measure i think.

then again the media may not want their feature being shown up . . .

[Zainub]

An umpire ideally should not be influenced by the body language of either a) the fielding side b) the batsmen.

[Seamer]

I started this thread talking about Woolmers display at the end of the tour regarding umpires and somehow it has drifted onto, among other things, Australia unfairly using positive body language and anecdotal evidence in reference to Ian Healy's commentry. If someone lies, you can tell by body language. If someone is attracted to you, you can tell by body language. If someone appeals for LBW and genuinely believes it is out, you can tell by body language. Unlike say, India, who appeal loudly and excessively - and lose credibility with umpires because of it - Australia only appeal if it is close and gain credibility. Maybe that is what it is - credibility as opposed to body language.
Looks like my original posting has gone by the wayside by the way

[Zainub]

On your request to bring this back to topic, to date, if my interpretetions are correct, you are the only person to have opined Woolmer's comments brought the game into disripute.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Looks like my original posting has gone by the wayside by the way

I think the current discussion about appealing directly relates to the original topic because Woolmer stated that he thought the appealing has a subconscious effect on umpires particularly when the appeals are strong and genuine rather than appealing constantly in "hope". Whether this point is a direct criticism of umpires is debatable. I personally don't think it is and I certainly don't think Woolmer brought the game into disrepute by making it.

[Seamer]

Did you notice the timing of this call for neutral umpires. Straight after a series when the team Woolmer was coaching was heavily defeated. Where was this call beforehand? And all this pseudo-psycho nonsence about body language and crowd pressure - neutral umpires will not fix that problem if it even exists. The fact is, if any player were to say what Woolmer said -ie 29-5 decisions against his team, he would be punished but apparently, it is allright for coaches to do say what they want. And do it publicy through the media while you are at it. I guess we can now forget one of the oldest tenets of cricket "Accept the umpires decision"