Home-town umpiring decisions upset Pakistan

[Beny]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...08FEB2005.html

Pakistan were so worried about the umpiring on their Australian tour that they completed a team investigation into contentious decisions which showed the home side was almost six times better off. "It went 29-5 against us," Bob Woolmer, the coach, told the Brisbane Courier-Mail.

[Shaka]

A fan of Hawk-Eye's ball-tracking technology, Woolmer believes it should be used for decisions even though it is not perfect. "At the very least it is the same for both sides so you take all those other factors out of play," he said.

He has a point. Hawkeye, assuming it is implemented under strict supervision, would be a consistent and impartial solution to getting rid of the current atmosphere of suspicion and doubt. The introduction of technology for line decisions has made for a massive improvement, even if it isn't fool-proof, as has been seen in recent days. Hawkeye isn't as good at judging the situation as an umpire on the field, but at least the decisions will be the same for both teams. For me that is all we can ask for.

[Seamer]

Hawkeye is far from perfect. As are Umpires. Implementing Hawkeye will just create a different type of contreversy. For example, if Gilchrist has an LBW shout against him and Hawkeye shows that it MIGHT have pitched outside legstump, but not conclusively, and the third umpire (D.Hair) says not out to Ahktar,s appeal, would,nt we have the same situation? LBW decisions would be a nightmare! Hawkeye is not the solution. The solution is accepting the umpires decision as all cricketers have done for the last hundred years.
P.S we have to take Woolmers word on the 29-5 statistic. How do we know that what he is saying is true?

[Zainub]

Just a few things, Seamer.

First of all I'm (for some known and unknown reason) still a bit skeptical of Hawk Eye my self, but even not actually being a fan of it I don't deny that it is a decent if not perfect guide to what the ball will do once it pitches. The scientists who came up with it claim it is 99% accurate, and I don't think I'd like to argue with sciencetists because I'm not one. I still think though that there is more to the debate of its usage then just accuracy. Over all, I'm not sure about it, but its not that totally anti-hawk eye. I don't think it is logical to be one in today's times.

I doubt any of the hawk eye supporters want to get rid of umpires altogether. People like Amit Varma (who writes the cricket blog 23 Yards at cricket info) have said that the idea here is not of replacing umpires, but perhaps, aiding them (almost in an identical fashion as of replays for decisions adjudicated by the 3rd umpire). They theory here is to allow using hawk eye as guide, not as a definative verdict giver. So seamer, even if Hawk Eye is adopted, players will have to, eventually act according to what the umpires thinks, like as you say they have doing for 100s of years.

The thing I'm concerned about is what affect it might have on batting in general, you would suspect more batsmen getting out LBW, so would it mean low scoring matches will become a common thing? I don't know. And I would want assurances in this reguard to get rid of the doubt I still have. Then there is also the doubt of Hawk Eye resulting into too much time wasting. We already have a sceanrio where over rates by many teams have been deplorable, if LBW appeals are frequently reffered to Hawk Eye, that does increase the possibility of the game slowing down a bit. Is it worth the risk? I don't know. I would want to though. Then, there is also the question of if Hawk Eye will be too expensive to get into place for first class-cricket (if you adopt it at test level, you would automatically have to adopt it at four day level too, wouldn't you?).

I don't know when, but as some point, we will have to actually use this technology to find out how things go, I would suspect the best way to go about this would be to set a date to experiment with its usage, if it works out well, good enough, accept it, but if those grey areas I pointed about, and other things people migh have to add, still remain, then don't use it. Simple enough. Finally, I don't know how valid your example of Adam Gilchrist being given out LBW is, especially since this morning I read some astonishing stats in Dawn today:

Originally Posted by Dawn Newspapers/PPI

While Australia's standing as best in the world in both forms of the games is not in doubt, occasions such as one-day tri-series are fast losing credibility because of number of dubious decisions that fall Aussies' way. One of the most astonishing statistics involves wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist, a player New Zealand thought they had leg before wicket on three separate occasions in Test series. In his 37 Tests at home Gilchrist is yet to be trapped in front, while in 77 one-day innings in Australia he has only been out in that manner twice. All told, he has been adjudged leg before twice in 128 international innings on Australian soil. (Read full story here)

[Seamer]

The fact that Gilchrist has never been given LBW in 37 home tests actually undermines Pakistans argument for two neutral umpires. Think about it - never been given out by TWO NEUTRAL UMPIRES!!! . Whick makes me think, what does Pakistan actually hope to achieve by this call for them in one dayers.
Shaka, the fact is that Woolmer should be under pressure for Pakistans poor performance in Australia. Instead, he has quite intelligently deflected criticisism from himself onto the umpires. Very smart - he has succesfully manipulated the lot of you!
Instead of talking about his performance as coach and Pakistans performance in general, we are now talking about umpires, hawkeye ect, and Woolmer is getting off scot free! He is a master spin doctor and his talents are being wasted as a coach, he should get a job for the U.S republican party,s P.R team!
Nobody has seen this (suspect) video of the 29-5 decisions against Pakistan. It does,nt exist except in the imagination of Mr Woolmer! Cricket and umpires have operated this way for over a hundred years and i don,t think it should be changed because of Woolmers spin doctoring
Don,t let him manipulate your mind Shaka, instead, perhaps you should think about weather Woolmer should be Pakistan,s coach.
In my opinion, Woolmer is a good spin doctor, poor coach

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

The theory here is to allow using hawk eye as guide, not as a definative verdict giver. So, even if Hawk Eye is adopted, players will have to, eventually act according to what the umpires thinks, like as you say they have doing for 100s of years.

However, Zainub, if Hawkeye is actually made available to umpires, perhaps by them carrying a palm device in their increasingly bulky white coats, it would be a very brave umpire who refused to consult it when an LBW appeal was made and a braver one still who over-ruled it. In effect, I rather think that, if this is made available to the umpires, the judgmental issues which are presently involved in LBW decisions will be gone forever, and the umpire will, in this respect at least, have been replaced by a box of electronics.

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Then, there is also the question of if Hawk Eye will be too expensive to get into place for first class-cricket (if you adopt it at test level, you would automatically have to adopt it at four day level too, wouldn't you?).

Well, not necessarily. All the electronic gizmos which are presently available to third umpires (replays, principally) are governed by the ICC regulations for tests and ODIs, not the Laws of Cricket. Some domestic competitions may also use them, but I'd be prepared to bet that the rules of those competitions only require the replays to be made available if the match is being televised (as do the ICC regulations). In the UK, where very little domestic cricket is televised, we would have to draft the regulation in this way: it is not the cricket authorities which provide the replay cameras for the umpires and Hawkeye for the TV fans, but the TV companies, and we cannot force them to attend games which they are not broadcasting. This brings me to one of my hobby-horses: it is illogical to introduce regulations, technology or umpiring methods at the top level of the game if they cannot also be introduced at lower levels (as you imply). That, for me, is as good a reason as any for minimising the amount of technological assistance which is available to umpires: if my local club can manage without it, test players with the assistance of the best umpires in the world should also be able to get along just fine.

[Mike]

I'm satisfied that Hawkeye is very reliable and, more importantly, unbiased! I think the technology should be offered to the umpires to use. If they are happy to use it I'll go along. I think more LBWs will be given so the delay in consulting the hawkeye will be compensated for the loss of the wicket and shortening the game overall. Looks like Bradman's average will be very safe if Hawkeye is implemented in umpiring decisions.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Seamer Post # 37654

The fact that Gilchrist has never been given LBW in 37 home tests actually undermines Pakistans argument for two neutral umpires. Think about it - never been given out by TWO NEUTRAL UMPIRES!!! . Whick makes me think, what does Pakistan actually hope to achieve by this call for them in one dayers.

It depends on how you are interpreting it Seamer, other people, someone like Mark Richardson for instance, will use this statistic to back his claim of Australian players trying to pressurize Umpires by their mean and and manner. Richardson actually claims umps tend to get in "awe" of the Australian team and so on and so forth. What are we trying to achieve by asking for nuetral umpires? Well, I think at best, we are minimizing our chances of complaining about poor umpiring in future. I don't think umpires are cheats or biased or anything like that, neither do I think we lost because of them in VB or test series, we lost entirely because of our own shortcomings with bat, ball and in the field, but they are humans who can be tempted, so we must make their job easier, and not give the bashers any chance of calling them names. The media in Pakistan is hypocritical of umpires and will report on it endlessly, if their are neutral umpires, at least they will do so less. Or I hope so in any case. I also think you are being harsh on Bob, I don't think he is one of those guys to try and hide away if he's not up to it, when in the past we've done badly he's accepted it and not blamed the umpires, in this case too, I don't think he blamed umpires, just said that it didn't help. And I do think there is a difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan Post # 37670

This brings me to one of my hobby-horses: it is illogical to introduce regulations, technology or umpiring methods at the top level of the game if they cannot also be introduced at lower levels (as you imply). That, for me, is as good a reason as any for minimising the amount of technological assistance which is available to umpires: if my local club can manage without it, test players with the assistance of the best umpires in the world should also be able to get along just fine.

I think the only difference here is perhaps that at club level you only go by what you see, there are no replays to confirm if the umpire was wrong or right, their is no tv coverage, and no media to report on it, so less pressure on both umpires and players, so perhaps its quite a different scenario altogther. But in principle I do agree with you, I'd like to see game at lower levels played in as similar circumstances to the highest levels as practically and humanly possible.

Originally Posted by Mike Post # 37672

I'm satisfied that Hawkeye is very reliable and, more importantly, unbiased! I think the technology should be offered to the umpires to use. If they are happy to use it I'll go along. I think more LBWs will be given so the delay in consulting the hawkeye will be compensated for the loss of the wicket and shortening the game overall. Looks like Bradman's average will be very safe if Hawkeye is implemented in umpiring decisions.

I think the fact that Hawk Eye will be unbiased is perhaps is biggest attraction, even if its not perfectly accurate it will effect both sides on an identical scale, which is what Bob Woolmer pointed out too. You make a good point about how more dismissals will compensate for time lost in looking at replays, but that does raise (as I previously) said concerns of shorter test matches, finishing in 3 days, and low batting scores become a common thing. I'm not as I said sure how hawk-eye will affect the game in general, I'm skeptical to admit it about its chances but even then somewhat willing to try it out, because the fact remains that unless its tried out we'll never know how good or bad it is. Untill then we will all be doing nothing but speculation.

[Maranello]

A sensible decision by the PCB, to clear Woolmer for his comments about the umpiring in the VB series (link).

The Pakistan Cricket Board has exonerated Bob Woolmer for criticising the umpiring in Australia during Pakistan's recent tour. Woolmer, who had said that "umpiring decisions went 29-5 against us", was spared a potential ban or fine after the ICC handed over the matter to the PCB.

His points were well-made, and quite reasonable, and hence to have censured him for expressing sensible thoughts such as those would have been quite wrong. Hopefully his calls for greater technology will also be heeded.

Woolmer did clarify his comments in great detail on his own website (link); definitely some good arguments there for increasing the use of technology in the game in those 18 points.

Some selected excerpts:

Originally Posted by Bob Woolmer

Why have I asked the analyst? Before the Chairman of Pakistan’s letter to the ICC I wanted to have a sense of why we seemed to be getting out so much apart from poor decision making on our batsman’s behalf and why we were not being successful in our appeals. If we are to improve as a team I as coach have to spend as much time on the petty problems as I do on the wider issues of how to get better. Umpiring errors allow me to make a percentage evaluation on how we are getting out. [...]

In respect of neutral umpires for one-day Internationals I do not have a problem for or against. I fully believe that all umpires are neutral and that no umpire today cheats or is biased. I do believe however that a winning team gets more of the benefit that the teams on the losing end. It is not a new phenomenon. My own experience in playing for Kent during the halcyon winning days of the 70’s, coaching Warwickshire in 1994 when we won three trophies and bring involved with South Africa for a very good period of victories led me to understand that we also received the benefit of the doubt more often than our opposition.

[Zainub]

Sense has prevailed thankfully.