Cricket Umpiring

Watching the series between England and SA we've seen some quite 'interesting' decisions by the umpires.
It's been a while since I've seen so many bad decisions by basically all the umpires in one test series; and this is only the start of the 3rd test.

With all the technology at our disposal today, why can't it be utilised to help the umpires make the right decision?

Cricket is a game where individual performance of players is very important. It impacts international ratings and probably influences selector decisions to a small degree as well.
And don't forget the impact a bad decision at a crucial time in a test match can make on the whole test...

Surely the 3rd umpire can be easily brought into the game using all the replays with masks for LBW decisions and the 'snickometer' for small nicks? What about checking the bowler's foot for no-balls on every ball as well?
Hell, the 3rd umpire has almost nothing to do in tests. Make him earn his keep!

Originally posted by Crowley
Watching the series between England and SA we've seen some quite 'interesting' decisions by the umpires.
It's been a while since I've seen so many bad decisions by basically all the umpires in one test series; and this is only the start of the 3rd test.

With all the technology at our disposal today, why can't it be utilised to help the umpires make ...[text shortened]... ball as well?
Hell, the 3rd umpire has almost nothing to do in tests. Make him earn his keep!

I couldnt agree more. There was a perfect example yesterday. A batsman (I think it was Smith) got an edge onto his pad and the catch was taken. He was given not out although the replay clearly showed that he had indeed hit the ball. Rudolph was given out when the ball came off his arm.(2nd test in Durban) The problem is that the better technology becomes the more obvious the it will be to the viewer when the umpire makes a mistake. They need to use this technology and they need to use it soon. How I miss Ali Bacher....

True, it is quite annoying.

I'm more annoyed by rugby referees, but there you have it.

PS crow, 257/0 with aus and 257/2 with SA at stickcricket 🙂

cheers

Originally posted by pcaspian
PS crow, 257/0 with aus and 257/2 with SA at stickcricket 🙂

Rugby can't really use more technology than the TV referee. The game is already stop start affairs (especially with some Northern Hemisphere referees) and more replays etc. will just kill the game.

Cricket, on the other hand, can really use it.
Every ball needs to be checked by the 3rd umpire for no-balls, especially the bowler's front foot. He can sound an alarm or hooter if it's a no ball. Hell, we could probably use the same type of system used in tennis on the serves...
Every LBW that isn't plum but has merit must be referred. We have super slow motions, LBW mats and even hawkeye could be used to check LBW decisions.
Catches can also be referred. Especially the ones that get close to the ground. Very faint nicks and nicks that are close to the body should also be referred.

If these options aren't used I think the fielding captain should have the option to overrule the umpire a few times in an innings.
Sometimes the fielding side are convinced a batsmen is out but the umpire can't make a decision (and the batsmen doesn't walk). Umpires are only human - I understand that.
The fielding side should then be able to have 2 or 3 'referals' or something like that, that they can use to ask the 3rd umpire to have a look at the appeal.

Continuing on the cricket thread, I was thinking about 'a perfect cricket team'.

Now let's define a perfect team. This is what I think:

3 frontline bowlers.
Preferably 2 quicks and a spinner. Your frontline strike bowlers should both be able to get speeds of up to 160 Km/h. Your frontline spinner should be a wrist spinner that can bowl a good 'wrong one' and can spin it 'a mile'

3 all-rounders.
Again, 2 good quicks and a spinner. One of the quicks should be a good swinger of the ball and one should be your number 3 seamer who can get it up to 140Km/h. Your spinner should be the opposite spinner of your frontline spinner. Some people might rather have 2 all-rounder spinners with one seamer. I think it's better to have 2 seamers and one spinner and maybe have one of your batsmen who can turn his arm over for a few overs of spin.
All your all-rounders should have batting averages in the 30's.

1 wicket keeper who bats with an average of 30+.

4 top order batsmen who should have a collective average and strike rate of 200+.
Between your 6 bowlers there should be 2 left handers and 2 left handed batsmen.

This is my perfect team composition. Maybe I'm looking for too much?

Now, which current team actually gets closest to this composition?
Who would be your World XI?

i agree either bin the technology or use it to the FULLEST.

i think the problem @ the moment with Hawkeye is that it is not fully trusted, i myself am not convined that it will always predict the correct movement after the bounce but with that said i think it probably better than the best umpire. certainly for no balls they should be checking, possibly when the batsmen is given out then have a quick check with the 3rd ump.

perfect team

Langer (1 L/H)
Hayden (2 L/H)
Dravid (3 R/H)
Ponting (4 R/H)

Gilchrist (WK)

Kallis (AR - Swing)
Flintoff (AR - Seem)
Tendulkar ( AR Off spin)

Warne (Leg spin)
Gillespie ( A backup all rounder ;-) )
Mcgrath

that team would really take some beating. i did struggle with left arm quick bowlers though. the only lefties i can think of

nehra
z khan
giles
boje
vettori

now i dont think any of these would add the strength i would lose but i suppose you could replace Flinoff with Vettori.

if i could delve into the past then Flintoff with Wasim.

have not checked the averages etc but they should be close.

Daniel

cricket is a game that can allow for the interferance of technology but i feel that at the end of the day what is lost in the arguement is that the umpires don't intentionally make the wrong decidsions but in a split second have to interpret all the information and make a decision. this while sometimes can lead to injustices keeps the flow of the game and while some may feel cheated it really does work itself out in the end.

as for referees in Rugby and football, i really appreciate referees in rugby most (not all) are simply there to keep the game flowing and allow as much scope as possible but maintain order and keep the players honest. Footballers are the biggest disgrace to watch, they show no respect for the referee and question every decision, appeal against every offside and free kick, swear and abuse linesman (they're not assistant referees) and never play either advantage or benifit of the doubt for attacking players, both rules in the game.

i really feel that the game would be better of if it was approached with the sort of zero tolerance to descent as in Rugby.

Originally posted by dan182
i agree either bin the technology or use it to the FULLEST.

i think the problem @ the moment with Hawkeye is that it is not fully trusted, i myself am not convined that it will always predict the correct movement after the bounce but with that said i think it probably better than the best umpire. certainly for no balls they should be checking, possibly whe ...[text shortened]... lintoff with Wasim.

have not checked the averages etc but they should be close.

Daniel

Originally posted by kcams
the umpires don't intentionally make the wrong decidsions but in a split second have to interpret all the information and make a decision. this while sometimes can lead to injustices keeps the flow of the game and while some may feel cheated it really does work itself out in the end.

Ha! New look stick cricket. Check it out!
http://www.stickcricket.com

Originally posted by Crowley
[b]That split second is not enough to always make a correct decision. This is my point.
If those close decisions can be refered we wouldn't have to worry about the good/bad decisions evening out over a players career.
A different perspective: What if a talented youngster comes into a side and gets 5 bad decisions in a row and is then dropped from the national side. Now there's no chance of any more decisions in his favour.

Originally posted by kcams
the team would always be aware of bad decisions and wouldn't drop a yougn prospect because of bad luck, my contention is that technology is fine and when used correctly it can erradicate mistakes and make the end result more meaningful, however i think there is something to be said for keeping the decisions in the hands of the umpires, although mistakes may b ...[text shortened]... an exact science and even with modern technology i'm often left questioning certain decisions.

Cricket is a professional game played by professional athletes (term used loosely in the case of Shane Warne and Inzamam)