Going by the evidence of today's play, the on-field umpire is still best placed to take decisions on certain aspects of the game - such as the existence of a fatal nick and judgment of bounce. Under the current referral system, the third umpire is expected to take into account all aspects of the referred decision.
The problem is that most referred 'out' calls have enough element of doubt on camera - technology still unable to conclusively distinguigh a ball-on-bat and bat-on-ground sounds, or predict the trajectory of a delivery or determine the legality of a close catch. It is almost certain that an 'out' call will be overturned by the third-umpire and a batsman can ride his luck on doubtful catches and faint edges. Wait for a crucial wicket before further action on this debate.
Showing posts with label umpiring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label umpiring. Show all posts
24 July 2008
12 February 2008
Taufel undecided..
The sport is in danger of losing its best umpire, and it is not difficult to imagine why at the age of 37, he is thinking it is already a bit too much.
I was hoping it would not need something like this, for the ICC to start getting its act together on broadening the panel to make life easier for those already on it.
Without compromising on accountability, that is..
I was hoping it would not need something like this, for the ICC to start getting its act together on broadening the panel to make life easier for those already on it.
Without compromising on accountability, that is..
24 January 2008
Another one?!
Sehwag was caught at slip off a superb Lee delivery. It was a no-ball and Billy did not see it! And as far as no-balls go, this was a pretty big one. Somebody has got to do something soon, about these wrong no-ball calls.
06 January 2008
On line calls
Jaffer was bowled by a scorcher from Lee in the first innings. Problem is, the ball wasn't entirely legal, like doing a line of coke isn't entirely legal. It was a no-ball.
No-ball calls require an umpire to look down at his feet and then adjust his line of vision to meet the stumps at the other end, before a leather ball delivered at speeds of up to 155 kmph crosses 22 yards.
The argument that an instant call made by an umpire allows a batsman to take advantage of the
ball's illegality and adjust his stroke is specious. Most of the time, it is only after a stroke has been played that the players realize that a no-ball call has been made.
It does not need Stephen Hawking or Michael Hussey to tell me that error can be reduced if the umpire did not have to adjust his line of vision, in the split second prior to being called to make an LBW or edge decision.
The case with other line calls is similar. They are the one proven area where it has been found that technology can reduce error in close to a 100% cases. There is no need for the human element to be involved in run outs, stumpings and no-balls. It only gives the disgruntled another reason to complain. Not only should umpiring be fair, but it should also appear to be fair, and making every attempt to reduce error is the way to go about it.
For run outs and stumpings, the umpires are required to make a determination of whether there is enough doubt to make the referral upstairs. This is unnecessary. The fielding team should be allowed to appeal directly to the third umpire. As far as decisions regarding whether a fielder or ball has touched the boundary rope is concerend, the present system of referring a question works fine and there is no need to change it. For no balls, most certainly, the decision must be exclusively that of the third umpire.
No system will be 100% perfect. There will still be instances where a batsman will escape the third umpire's finger, like Andrew Symonds did, despite evidence to the contrary. But we will have to live with it, just like we will need to live with humans making edge and LBW decisions until we can conclusively say that technology will bring greater certainty to the decision.
By the way, this is not the first time I have let off steam on line calls.
No-ball calls require an umpire to look down at his feet and then adjust his line of vision to meet the stumps at the other end, before a leather ball delivered at speeds of up to 155 kmph crosses 22 yards.
The argument that an instant call made by an umpire allows a batsman to take advantage of the
ball's illegality and adjust his stroke is specious. Most of the time, it is only after a stroke has been played that the players realize that a no-ball call has been made.
It does not need Stephen Hawking or Michael Hussey to tell me that error can be reduced if the umpire did not have to adjust his line of vision, in the split second prior to being called to make an LBW or edge decision.
The case with other line calls is similar. They are the one proven area where it has been found that technology can reduce error in close to a 100% cases. There is no need for the human element to be involved in run outs, stumpings and no-balls. It only gives the disgruntled another reason to complain. Not only should umpiring be fair, but it should also appear to be fair, and making every attempt to reduce error is the way to go about it.
For run outs and stumpings, the umpires are required to make a determination of whether there is enough doubt to make the referral upstairs. This is unnecessary. The fielding team should be allowed to appeal directly to the third umpire. As far as decisions regarding whether a fielder or ball has touched the boundary rope is concerend, the present system of referring a question works fine and there is no need to change it. For no balls, most certainly, the decision must be exclusively that of the third umpire.
No system will be 100% perfect. There will still be instances where a batsman will escape the third umpire's finger, like Andrew Symonds did, despite evidence to the contrary. But we will have to live with it, just like we will need to live with humans making edge and LBW decisions until we can conclusively say that technology will bring greater certainty to the decision.
By the way, this is not the first time I have let off steam on line calls.
10 August 2007
Glaring errors
Howell's howler could yet be a significant point of this Test match. There was a thick (yo edge so thick, that.... ) edge on to the pad, and given out leg before. So what can we do about such umpiring errors that are so bad, that significant numbers of viewers on TV could see that it was wrong, without the benefit of a replay.
Ian Chappell made a sensible suggestion on air yesterday, that cricket move to a back-foot no-ball rule so that the umpire has more time to look at the batsman.
Taking the argument a little further, why are the on-field umpires being bothered with line calls any more? Where a determination needs to be made about whether someone's foot was inside or outside the line, why are we still relying on the naked eye, when the alternative is faster and less error prone? And one would think the umpires would only be happy to not bother with those irksome no-balls, and stumpings and run-outs. A system of appeals from the on-field umpire to the third umpire just takes too long. Instead, divest the umpires of all discretion in these dismissals.The third-umpire makes the decision as soon as the fielder's appeal for a run out or a stumping, or as soon as the bowler oversteps.
Ian Chappell made a sensible suggestion on air yesterday, that cricket move to a back-foot no-ball rule so that the umpire has more time to look at the batsman.
Taking the argument a little further, why are the on-field umpires being bothered with line calls any more? Where a determination needs to be made about whether someone's foot was inside or outside the line, why are we still relying on the naked eye, when the alternative is faster and less error prone? And one would think the umpires would only be happy to not bother with those irksome no-balls, and stumpings and run-outs. A system of appeals from the on-field umpire to the third umpire just takes too long. Instead, divest the umpires of all discretion in these dismissals.The third-umpire makes the decision as soon as the fielder's appeal for a run out or a stumping, or as soon as the bowler oversteps.
06 August 2007
Atherton
Michael Atherton has recommended in the Sunday Telegraph that Dravid drop Sree Santh for the Oval Test.
The point he makes is that a beamer has no place in cricket. Capable of taking a batsman's head clean off, it deserves to be condemned, irrespective of whether it was accidental or whether the bowler apologized. Of course, the bowler is going to apologize, and of course he will claim that it was accidental, and so there is no way out but to ban the errant bowler.
So a beamer needs to be made into a strict liability offence? That is his solution?? That the beamer be elevated to the status of a drug or terrorist offence, and to assume that every beamer has murderous intent behind it? That is such bull shit. Umpires are adequately empowered to deal with beamers, and I believe there is a warning system that is already in place. If anyone knows more on how an umpire may deal with a fast bowler who lets rip, two consecutive beamers, do leave a note.
The point he makes is that a beamer has no place in cricket. Capable of taking a batsman's head clean off, it deserves to be condemned, irrespective of whether it was accidental or whether the bowler apologized. Of course, the bowler is going to apologize, and of course he will claim that it was accidental, and so there is no way out but to ban the errant bowler.
So a beamer needs to be made into a strict liability offence? That is his solution?? That the beamer be elevated to the status of a drug or terrorist offence, and to assume that every beamer has murderous intent behind it? That is such bull shit. Umpires are adequately empowered to deal with beamers, and I believe there is a warning system that is already in place. If anyone knows more on how an umpire may deal with a fast bowler who lets rip, two consecutive beamers, do leave a note.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
