Cricket Umpiring: Why not use technology?

No balls fine, but catches no way. Primarily because different TV angles show different results. The fielder knows whether he has caught it. The umpire can then judge not only whether he agrees with the catch, but also the fielders reaction to it.

Originally posted by invigorate
No balls fine, but catches no way. Primarily because different TV angles show different results. The fielder knows whether he has caught it. The umpire can then judge not only whether he agrees with the catch, but also the fielders reaction to it.

Catches = "No way"? For most catches, sure, I agree because they speak for themselves but sometimes the fielder can take a very low catch or a "catch" on the half-volley. In this case, the fielder may not know that the ball bounced first - the fielder believes that he did take it where a replay may prove otherwise.

From another angle, there may be some doubt whether the batsman actually hit the ball - the ball may have come off the pad. This shows that there is a good case for a video replay.

But overall, the umpires usually get it right and it's better to keep the human element in the game - as it's been discussed earlier.

Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK

As for Kallis there are times, I am sure, when he has been "out" but hasn't been given. I am also sure he has claimed LBWs when the batsmen has hit it, or caimed a caught behind when the ball has missed the bat.

Exactly! You can't whinge when a tough decision goes against you but happily claim the close decisions when they're in your favour. You've just gotta take the good with the bad.

Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK
The fact remains that upires do make mistakes (Just as players do) and whilst it is frustrating, it would become dull if we removed the human error from the game.

Bull! Why would the game become dull if we removed these stupid and unnecessary umpiring mistakes from the game?
Why would anyone cling to an archaic system if we can move the game forward with the technology we have available?

The technology is being used now, but only by commentators and all it's doing now is highlighting more umpiring mistakes. Rather use it to help umpires make the right decision on the spot.

Originally posted by invigorate
No balls fine, but catches no way. Primarily because different TV angles show different results. The fielder knows whether he has caught it. The umpire can then judge not only whether he agrees with the catch, but also the fielders reaction to it.

I'm not saying every decision should be scrutinized. All I want is to give the batsman the option of appealing a decision when he KNOWS he is not out.

Surely everyone here can't believe that suddenly all batsmen will start abusing such a system? Jeez, there is usually only one or two controversial decisions per match - this is all I would like to stamp out...

Originally posted by AussieG
Exactly! You can't whinge when a tough decision goes against you but happily claim the close decisions when they're in your favour. You've just gotta take the good with the bad.

WRONG!

We have the technology now - let's use to get the correct decision every time. No more 'good with the bad' crap.
Right decision, every time.

Originally posted by Crowley
WRONG!

We have the technology now - let's use to get the correct decision every time. No more 'good with the bad' crap.
Right decision, every time.

i cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!

Originally posted by spurs73
i cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!

Absolutely!

Often decisions are inconclusive and even with technology, there will still be some doubt. Even some proven use of technology (ie. for run outs and stumpings) create some doubt - for example, the critical moment(when the stumps are broken) could be inbetween a frame - so the benefit goes with the batsman - even if it looks like he could be out.

And how long do we have to wait while everyone sits aorund waiting for the umpires to get the right decision? The over rates are slow already without having to sit around for 5 minutes for the umpires to make their decision!

You guys can't seem to grasp this, can you?

There may be one or two appeals by batsmen from the ENTIRE team per GAME. This might 'waste' 5 minutes time, but we will ultimately get bad decision out of the game.
If, when using all the technology including ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones, there is no conclusive proof, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt and the game continues.

*pats self on back*

Originally posted by spurs73
i cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!

I know there will be times when we won't be able to be 100% sure and these decisions should always (still) give batsmen the benefit of the doubt...
BUT
we will remove 100% of blatant bad decisions from the game.

Case closed.

Originally posted by Crowley
You guys can't seem to grasp this, can you?

There may be one or two appeals by batsmen from the ENTIRE team per GAME. This might 'waste' 5 minutes time, but we will ultimately get bad decision out of the game.
If, when using all the technology including ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones, there is no conclusive proof, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt and the game continues.

*pats self on back*

crowley.. there is one major thing you have missed. When you say we should use all this technology of 'ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones..' do you want all this to be used in all cricket or just TEST MATCHES?

The problem is you cant have one RULE for test cricket and another for county cricket or even club cricket?

Can you see people waiting around for 10, 15 minutes while watching a county game waiting for the 'right' result.

Also does the sport have enough money to have all this equipment in all country grounds?

what about club cricket, they are not going to have this technology. You seems to be just concentrating on test and ODI cricket, but we need to bring this rule for all cricket not for certain matches or special matches, that wouldmake the whole rule of cricket a joke

Originally posted by Crowley
[b]You guys can't seem to grasp this, can you?

there are a lot of issues that need addressing before bringing in new tech.

Originally posted by spurs73
crowley.. there is one major thing you have missed. When you say we should use all this technology of 'ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones..' do you want all this to be used in all cricket or just TEST MATCHES?

The problem is you cant have one RULE for test cricket and another for county cricket or even club cricket?

Can ...[text shortened]... not for certain matches or special matches, that wouldmake the whole rule of cricket a joke

Don't be stupid. Obviously most clubs and some county or provincial grounds won't have this type of technology.
I couldn't care less about what happens at club or county level.
I'm talking about the games that matter. ODIs and Tests.

All grounds where international matches are played has the technological infrastructure in place, so let's use it!

Originally posted by Crowley
Don't be stupid. Obviously most clubs and some county or provincial grounds won't have this type of technology.
I couldn't care less about what happens at club or county level.
I'm talking about the games that matter. ODIs and Tests.

All grounds where international matches are played has the technological infrastructure in place, so let's use it!

no sorry you cant have that. the rules of cricket should be used in all matches not just test and ODI.. that is STUPID

Originally posted by spurs73
no sorry you cant have that. the rules of cricket should be used in all matches not just test and ODI.. that is STUPID

There aren't third umpire decisions at many club and school games - what do you make of that then, Mr. Smartypants?
Should we just scrap run-out decisions by the 3rd umpire because schools can't afford slow-motion cameras?
Don't be stupid.

At test and ODI level there is ALWAYS basically the same level of infrastructure, so let's use it.
These guys are professionals, why would we let bad decisions from umpires impact their jobs?