Originally posted by Crowleywell.. what about county cricket and state cricket? are they not pros?
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?
It may have excaped your notice that the TEST AND ODI.. which seems to be the only cricket YOU WATCH...gets their players from the county and State teams.
Without county cricket and league cricket there would be no TEST and ODI players... by blinkered friend🙄🙄
Originally posted by Crowleyone concern is that the cricket boards of the poorer test playing nations (e.g. Bangladesh) may not be able to afford the technology.
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?
the weird thing, at least here in Australia, is that the cricket broadcaster is way further up the technology curve than the game's administration. the result is that the commentators can often show fairly conclusively that the umpires have made a mistake. this wasn't true not so many years ago.
i used to be against the increased use of technology to assist umpires, but i think i'm changing my mind. i can't see why a third umpire, equipped with all the technology the broadcaster has at its disposal, shouldn't be used to ensure a higher percentage of correct decisions. As someone pointed out, the players are professionals, and it's time the umpriing became more professional too.
Ha!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/30/1093852179008.html?from=storyrhs
Seems some of the technology I've been talking about is being introduced.
Obviously Ricky Ponting is whinging about it, because the Aussies know how to manipulate a flawed system and don't forget that he is one of the guys who doesn't walk when he's out.
From another article on a private site, written by Neil Manthorp:
"It's not rocket science, it's just a statement of the obvious," an exasberated Woolmer said on his return to Cape Town after the tour. "You take 70 000 at the MCG or 45 000 at the SCG, fill them full of beer and then listen to them yell abuse at you all day. Then Shane Warne appeals three times an over as though his life depends on it. It's incredibly hard for the umpires...and the Australian team knows that, and knows how to maximise, too," Woolmer said over dinner.
So when a wicket is desperately needed and the umpire is acting and looking suitably frazzled, the Aussies 'strike'. Ask Rahul Dravid how it works.
"Next one past the edge, boys, and everyone goes up like he's smashed the cover off it. Bucknor's past his sell by date and Benson's on the verge of cracking." Or words to that effect.
Sorry for the copy and paste, but I believe you guys can't access this article.
It's very fitting here!
Ponting protects Aussie way
by Neil Manthorp | 09 January 2008 (10:59)
Australian captain Ricky Ponting is right to call for an end to the increased use of technology in umpiring decisions and to defend the charm of the 'human element' to the game.
Ponting's most important job as captain of the greatest cricketing nation on earth (and beyond), apart from scoring runs, is to protect its best interests. And to use technology to avoid umpiring gaffes would most certainly not be in Australia's best interests.
The reason that men like Ponting and Ian Chappell enjoy the 'human element' so much is not for the charm or the tradition but because they are the best at manipulating it.
The last time Pakistan toured Australia Bob Woolmer was reprimanded by the ICC for daring to suggest that more umpires made more mistakes when in Australia than anywhere else. The reason, he said, was that they were intimidated, in equal measure, by the size and volume of the crowds and by the Australian team.
"It's not rocket science, it's just a statement of the obvious," an exasberated Woolmer said on his return to Cape Town after the tour. "You take 70 000 at the MCG or 45 000 at the SCG, fill them full of beer and then listen to them yell abuse at you all day. Then Shane Warne appeals three times an over as though his life depends on it. It's incredibly hard for the umpires...and the Australian team knows that, and knows how to maximise, too," Woolmer said over dinner.
So when a wicket is desperately needed and the umpire is acting and looking suitably frazzled, the Aussies 'strike'. Ask Rahul Dravid how it works.
"Next one past the edge, boys, and everyone goes up like he's smashed the cover off it. Bucknor's past his sell by date and Benson's on the verge of cracking." Or words to that effect.
Why on earth would Ponting, or any other Australian cricketer, want that particular part of their wicket-taking arsenal removed? Or even compromised? The fact that 70 000 people turn up for a single day of test cricket (more than South Africa get for a whole series) is good enough reason for the team to use them to its advantage. Any other team that was suitably well supported would almost certainly do the same.
Chappell is fond of rubbishing the use of technology and becomes agitated at the thought of 'computers ruling the game'. Ponting, too, refers back to the history of the game and fondly recalls that the human element has always been there and should remain.
What that means, in effect, is that stupid mistakes have been made for the last 128 years of test cricket and, therefore, should continue to be made. It is easy to understand the 'Australian way' but not Australian logic, if that is what it is. Or perhaps Chappell and Ponting are just good old fashioned Luddites with an aversion to progress and improvement.
The position and use of the third umpire is hardly unexplored territory in this column, but while nothing changes it needs to be explored again. Give the third umpire and/or match referee the right to over-rule an umpire's decision in the case of undisputable error.
Inside edges which result in lbw, batsmen missing the ball by several inches and being given out caught, or caught off the arm, or helmet. We are NOT talking about deliveries which may or may not have pitched marginally outside leg stump; we are NOT talking about the use of hawkeye or the snickometer, which are visual aids for viewers.
We are talking, instead, of the kind of mistake which is instantly obvious to a million television viewers but which remains unchanged. The kind of mistake that usually happens only once or twice per test match (outside Australia).
They are not 'charming' and, just because they have 'always been part of the game', that does not mean they still have to be today.
When a million people know instantly that an incorrect decision has been made, the game they are watching loses credibility. Really bad mistakes can be eradicated from test cricket tomorrow if the ICC gives the match referee and third umpire the right to over-rule. And if there are any umpires who would object to being over-ruled, then they shouldn't be in the game anyway. There's no place for an umpire's ego in cricket.
At the moment Australia would still beat everybody even if they did have to take all 20 wickets properly, but it would at least give other teams more of a fighting chance. And it would certainly have cost them victory in Sydney against India.
Originally posted by CrowleyFunny how you say this when 2 very bad decisions went against Australia on the 4th day at the WACA.
Sorry for the copy and paste, but I believe you guys can't access this article.
It's very fitting here!
[b]Ponting protects Aussie way
by Neil Manthorp | 09 January 2008 (10:59)
Australian captain Ricky Ponting is right to call for an end to the increased use of technology in umpiring decisions and to defend the charm of the 'human element' to ...[text shortened]... ould certainly have cost them victory in Sydney against India.[/b]
Hussey and Symonds both given out LBW when clearly Hussey's was way too high and Symonds gets an inside edge first.
It evens itself out in the long run.India got a few rough decisions in Sydney,Australia got a few in Perth.
Originally posted by boarmanSo let's remove the bad decisions.
Funny how you say this when 2 very bad decisions went against Australia on the 4th day at the WACA.
Hussey and Symonds both given out LBW when clearly Hussey's was way too high and Symonds gets an inside edge first.
It evens itself out in the long run.India got a few rough decisions in Sydney,Australia got a few in Perth.
Originally posted by boarmanJeez, you've posted some ridiculous things in the past, but this one takes the cake.
Lets just keep it how it is ,with the human element.
Technology can be wrong and inconclusive also.
There will always be close calls, all we would like to see change are the useless calls by half-blind umpires who sometimes seem to just throw up a mental coin to decide a players' fate, or umpires being intimidated by players/fans/etc.
If the technology is inconclusive, let's give the batsmen the benefit of the doubt.
The status quo is dying a quick and (hopefully) painlful death, gramps. Wake up and smell the microchips!
Originally posted by CrowleyBUT
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.
we will remove 100% of blatant bad decisions from the game.
Case closed.
Crowley - just look at rugby - when they first brought out television replies for tries etc I thought brilliant! I now wish we went back to not having it.
blatant bad decisions - just one - Wilkinson's try in last years 6N (I think against Ireland) foot in touch - blatantly - missed by video ref?! All comes out in the wash in cricket I believe - and as already said 95% or even close calls are correct.
Regarding the use of technology - one thing I'd like to see is error bars on the Hawkeye predictions. There is no way they are 100% accurate, so the question is, how accurate are they? It wouldn't be too hard for them to work it out.
As it is, I never trust a Hawkeye judgement because I don't know how much inaccuracy they're hiding from us. If they admitted how much it was, I'd be much more inclined to believe it.
Originally posted by CrowleyThe next thing you know you'll want to serve instant tea.
I watched in dismay as Kallis was adjudged caught behind off his shoulder in the second innings against the Windies, causing yet another South African batting collapse, when he was in a position to save the test for us.
He looked in fearsome form and while he was there, we had a definite chance to still win the game...
Why is this allowed to happen?
...[text shortened]... in Jacques' eyes as the obviously blind umpires' finger went up.
Let's get it right ICC!
It just isn't cricket old chap!
Originally posted by Mat KelleyApples and oranges, mate.
[b]BUT
we will remove 100% of blatant bad decisions from the game.
Case closed.
Crowley - just look at rugby - when they first brought out television replies for tries etc I thought brilliant! I now wish we went back to not having it.
blatant bad decisions - just one - Wilkinson's try in last years 6N (I think against Ireland) foot in touch ...[text shortened]... out in the wash in cricket I believe - and as already said 95% or even close calls are correct.[/b]
With rugby there are situations where 10 odd players are obscuring the ball, so video evidence may be lacking.
In cricket it's much easier to see and in some cases even hear, what happened.
Originally posted by CrowleyI guess my point was blatant mistakes - these still happen in rugby - aka Wilkinson's try
Apples and oranges, mate.
With rugby there are situations where 10 odd players are obscuring the ball, so video evidence may be lacking.
In cricket it's much easier to see and in some cases even hear, what happened.