New year, old story

New year, old story

Post by Southpa » Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:55:50


Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
 KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

-Samarth.

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gireesh K. Bha » Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:32:56

Quote:

> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

> -Samarth.

yes this one was atrocious...

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Trie » Wed, 03 Jan 2007 23:44:17

Quote:


>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

>> -Samarth.

> yes this one was atrocious...

So what are the options one have:
* Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
   But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
* Always go to third umpire.
   That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
   and modern day changes.

I think when a 3rd umpire has a clear picture of what is happening,
he should have the right to reverse the decision made by a field umpire.
If such a thing is done, one should not really look it as a setback
for field umpire, but rather should be viewed as collectively they
are trying to get a fair decision.

Wondering what are these useless referees for. These inputs should go
back to ICC technical panel strongly and should result in changes.
More faster the better considering the quality of decisions made off late.

Trier

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gavin Cawle » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 07:12:18

Quote:



> >> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
> >> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
> >> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
> >> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
> >> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
> >> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
> >> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
> >> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
> >>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

> >> -Samarth.

> > yes this one was atrocious...

> So what are the options one have:
> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
> * Always go to third umpire.
>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
>    and modern day changes.

Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
now!

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> I think when a 3rd umpire has a clear picture of what is happening,
> he should have the right to reverse the decision made by a field umpire.
> If such a thing is done, one should not really look it as a setback
> for field umpire, but rather should be viewed as collectively they
> are trying to get a fair decision.

> Wondering what are these useless referees for. These inputs should go
> back to ICC technical panel strongly and should result in changes.
> More faster the better considering the quality of decisions made off late.

> Trier

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:12:18

Quote:




>>>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
>>>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
>>>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
>>>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
>>>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
>>>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
>>>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
>>>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
>>>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

>>>> -Samarth.

>>> yes this one was atrocious...
>> So what are the options one have:
>> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
>>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
>> * Always go to third umpire.
>>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
>>    and modern day changes.

> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
> now!

Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
third umpire's decision is always right, and that the view obtained in
2D is always better than the live 3D view.  It also assumes that the
technology is infallible.  In addition to this it potentially means that
a batsman could have his innings split up into numerous chunks and the
scorecards would become a messy nonsense.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by alve » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:43:02

snip

Quote:

>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
>> now!

> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
> third umpire's decision is always right,

No it doesn't. It's based on the fact that on-field umps sometimes get it
so badly wrong that 5 seconds of replay will prove it.

Quote:
> and that the view obtained in
> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.  

Rubbish comparison Colin. One 2d view is probably not as accurate as a
"live 3d view", but how about comparing that once only "live 3d view" with
the raft of slomo replays from a variety of angles that we get now?

Quote:
> It also assumes that the technology is infallible.  

Oh FFS. What is it with you cranks and this "infallible" crap? Would you
please name one reputable source who claims that TechUmp is infallible? Or
that it needs to be. The point Colin is that TechUmp is considerably more
accurate than any whitecoat. Don't you want accuracy?

alvey

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gavin Cawle » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:59:18

Quote:





> >>>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
> >>>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
> >>>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
> >>>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
> >>>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
> >>>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
> >>>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
> >>>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
> >>>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

> >>>> -Samarth.

> >>> yes this one was atrocious...
> >> So what are the options one have:
> >> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
> >>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
> >> * Always go to third umpire.
> >>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
> >>    and modern day changes.

> > Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
> > the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
> > is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
> > advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
> > end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
> > idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
> > now!

> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.

Wild overstatement, not normally an indication of a well though out
reply.

Quote:
>Firstly it assumes that the
> third umpire's decision is always right, and that the view obtained in
> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.

No, it assumes that the third umpire may spot something that the
on-field umpires missed.  For instance that the bowler overstepped,
which is quite often missed by the on-field umpires - a 2-d issue.  The
third umpire also has the benefit of seeing it in slow motion and can
have as many replays as they like.  They DO have a better view of
whether the ball pitched outside leg for LBW decisions, they have the
snickometer etc.  The third umpire does not have to be infallible, but
it does provide a useful safeguard.

Quote:
>It also assumes that the
> technology is infallible.

No it doesn't, the third umpire is just as able to exercise their
judgement as the on-field umpires.  He would be able to use technology
to recind the decision, but it would be his judgement whether it was
justified by the evidence.

Quote:
>In addition to this it potentially means that
> a batsman could have his innings split up into numerous chunks

I did say it was still unfair on the bastman, but not as unfair as
being given permanently out, i.e. it is an improvement on the current
situation.

Quote:
> and the scorecards would become a messy nonsense.

rubbish, batsmen occasionally retire hurt and resume their innings
later, has never caused a problem for a competent scorer.

Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:10:00

Quote:


> snip
>>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
>>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
>>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
>>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
>>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
>>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
>>> now!
>> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
>> third umpire's decision is always right,

> No it doesn't. It's based on the fact that on-field umps sometimes get it
> so badly wrong that 5 seconds of replay will prove it.

>> and that the view obtained in
>> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.  

> Rubbish comparison Colin. One 2d view is probably not as accurate as a
> "live 3d view",

Probably??????????????????????????????????????????????

Quote:
> but how about comparing that once only "live 3d view" with
> the raft of slomo replays from a variety of angles that we get now?

Which are very often inconclusive

Quote:

>> It also assumes that the technology is infallible.  

> Oh FFS. What is it with you cranks and this "infallible" crap? Would you
> please name one reputable source who claims that TechUmp is infallible?  Or
> that it needs to be. The point Colin is that TechUmp is considerably more
> accurate than any whitecoat. Don't you want accuracy?

I prefer that the man in the best position to make the decision (on the
ground that is) makes the decision and that cricket does not head down
the Yank way of doing sport.

Yep umps sometimes get the decision wrong, so what.  That is not a new
occurrence.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:15:37

Quote:






>>>>>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
>>>>>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
>>>>>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
>>>>>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
>>>>>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
>>>>>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
>>>>>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
>>>>>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
>>>>>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

>>>>>> -Samarth.

>>>>> yes this one was atrocious...
>>>> So what are the options one have:
>>>> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
>>>>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
>>>> * Always go to third umpire.
>>>>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
>>>>    and modern day changes.
>>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
>>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
>>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
>>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
>>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
>>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
>>> now!

>> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.

> Wild overstatement,

Not an overstatement at all.

Quote:
> not normally an indication of a well though out
> reply.

Well that would have put it streets ahead of what was being responded to.

Quote:

>> Firstly it assumes that the
>> third umpire's decision is always right, and that the view obtained in
>> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.

> No, it assumes that the third umpire may spot something that the
> on-field umpires missed.  For instance that the bowler overstepped,
> which is quite often missed by the on-field umpires - a 2-d issue.  The
> third umpire also has the benefit of seeing it in slow motion and can
> have as many replays as they like.  They DO have a better view of
> whether the ball pitched outside leg for LBW decisions, they have the
> snickometer etc.  The third umpire does not have to be infallible, but
> it does provide a useful safeguard.

Safeguard for What?

Quote:
>> It also assumes that the
>> technology is infallible.

> No it doesn't, the third umpire is just as able to exercise their
> judgement as the on-field umpires.

Why bother with on field umpires then?

 > He would be able to use technology

Quote:
> to recind the decision, but it would be his judgement whether it was
> justified by the evidence.

So what of a decision to give a batsman not out incorrectly?  Does the
3rd ump then retrospectively give the batsman out and the game rewind to
the point where the incorrect decision was made?

Quote:
>> In addition to this it potentially means that
>> a batsman could have his innings split up into numerous chunks

> I did say it was still unfair on the bastman, but not as unfair as
> being given permanently out, i.e. it is an improvement on the current
> situation.

I would say that your suggestion is far more unfair to the fielding side
as it would only rectify the incorrect decisions made against the
batsman and not those against the fielding side!!

Quote:
>> and the scorecards would become a messy nonsense.

> rubbish, batsmen occasionally retire hurt and resume their innings
> later, has never caused a problem for a competent scorer.

Yes but they wouldn't have retired hurt now would they?

And if you were to take your ridiculous idea to its logical conclusion
and make it fair to both sides then incorrect not out decisions would
have to be reversed as well and therefore runs/wickets that had occurred
after that event would have to be rubbed out.  It would be a farce!!

Colin Kynoch

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gavin Cawle » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:19:10

Quote:



> > snip
> >>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
> >>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
> >>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
> >>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
> >>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
> >>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
> >>> now!
> >> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
> >> third umpire's decision is always right,

> > No it doesn't. It's based on the fact that on-field umps sometimes get it
> > so badly wrong that 5 seconds of replay will prove it.

> >> and that the view obtained in
> >> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.

> > Rubbish comparison Colin. One 2d view is probably not as accurate as a
> > "live 3d view",

> Probably??????????????????????????????????????????????

> > but how about comparing that once only "live 3d view" with
> > the raft of slomo replays from a variety of angles that we get now?

> Which are very often inconclusive

Duh, in which case the third umpire doesn't recind the decision!  I did
say the third umpire could rescind the decision, not the technology
itself.

Quote:

> >> It also assumes that the technology is infallible.

> > Oh FFS. What is it with you cranks and this "infallible" crap? Would you
> > please name one reputable source who claims that TechUmp is infallible?  Or
> > that it needs to be. The point Colin is that TechUmp is considerably more
> > accurate than any whitecoat. Don't you want accuracy?

> I prefer that the man in the best position to make the decision (on the
> ground that is) makes the decision and that cricket does not head down
> the Yank way of doing sport.

As it happens, I have some sympathy with this view.  My suggestion is
pretty much the minimal change that would have a useful effect.  It is
only a safeguard, it takes no time out of the game and you wouldn't get
players appealing the umpires decisions on the field (i.e. Duncan
Fletchers plan) which I would view as the thin end of the wedge.

Quote:
> Yep umps sometimes get the decision wrong, so what.  That is not a new
> occurrence.

no, but if it is an obvious error that can easily be corrected to some
extent by sending the batsman back in at the fall of the next wicket,
then why not do so?

Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:28:18

Quote:




>>> snip
>>>>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
>>>>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
>>>>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
>>>>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
>>>>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
>>>>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
>>>>> now!
>>>> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
>>>> third umpire's decision is always right,
>>> No it doesn't. It's based on the fact that on-field umps sometimes get it
>>> so badly wrong that 5 seconds of replay will prove it.

>>>> and that the view obtained in
>>>> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.
>>> Rubbish comparison Colin. One 2d view is probably not as accurate as a
>>> "live 3d view",
>> Probably??????????????????????????????????????????????

>>> but how about comparing that once only "live 3d view" with
>>> the raft of slomo replays from a variety of angles that we get now?
>> Which are very often inconclusive

> Duh, in which case the third umpire doesn't recind the decision!  I did
> say the third umpire could rescind the decision, not the technology
> itself.

>>>> It also assumes that the technology is infallible.
>>> Oh FFS. What is it with you cranks and this "infallible" crap? Would you
>>> please name one reputable source who claims that TechUmp is infallible?  Or
>>> that it needs to be. The point Colin is that TechUmp is considerably more
>>> accurate than any whitecoat. Don't you want accuracy?
>> I prefer that the man in the best position to make the decision (on the
>> ground that is) makes the decision and that cricket does not head down
>> the Yank way of doing sport.

> As it happens, I have some sympathy with this view.  My suggestion is
> pretty much the minimal change that would have a useful effect.  It is
> only a safeguard, it takes no time out of the game and you wouldn't get
> players appealing the umpires decisions on the field (i.e. Duncan
> Fletchers plan) which I would view as the thin end of the wedge.

>> Yep umps sometimes get the decision wrong, so what.  That is not a new
>> occurrence.

> no, but if it is an obvious error that can easily be corrected to some
> extent by sending the batsman back in at the fall of the next wicket,
> then why not do so?

Why favour the batsman so much?

What if the decision to give the batsman not out was clearly wrong?

Shouldn't the fielding side have the same benefit?

And if they do then it would make the situation a farce.

The game is weighted in favour of the batsman already, your proposal
would only push that advantage even further.

Colin Kynoch

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gavin Cawle » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:30:02

Quote:







> >>>>>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
> >>>>>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
> >>>>>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
> >>>>>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
> >>>>>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
> >>>>>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
> >>>>>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
> >>>>>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
> >>>>>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

> >>>>>> -Samarth.

> >>>>> yes this one was atrocious...
> >>>> So what are the options one have:
> >>>> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
> >>>>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
> >>>> * Always go to third umpire.
> >>>>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
> >>>>    and modern day changes.
> >>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
> >>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
> >>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
> >>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
> >>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
> >>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
> >>> now!

> >> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.

> > Wild overstatement,

> Not an overstatement at all.

It is, few suggestions on change to the laws have no benefits at all.
You may not like them, but doesn;t mean they don't make any sense at
all.

Quote:

> > not normally an indication of a well though out
> > reply.

> Well that would have put it streets ahead of what was being responded to.

not convinced you actually read it.

Quote:

> >> Firstly it assumes that the
> >> third umpire's decision is always right, and that the view obtained in
> >> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.

> > No, it assumes that the third umpire may spot something that the
> > on-field umpires missed.  For instance that the bowler overstepped,
> > which is quite often missed by the on-field umpires - a 2-d issue.  The
> > third umpire also has the benefit of seeing it in slow motion and can
> > have as many replays as they like.  They DO have a better view of
> > whether the ball pitched outside leg for LBW decisions, they have the
> > snickometer etc.  The third umpire does not have to be infallible, but
> > it does provide a useful safeguard.

> Safeguard for What?

The on-field umpires making an obvious incorrect decision, such as not
noticing the bowler overstepping.  I think I mentioned this a few
sentences earlier.

Quote:

> >> It also assumes that the
> >> technology is infallible.

> > No it doesn't, the third umpire is just as able to exercise their
> > judgement as the on-field umpires.

> Why bother with on field umpires then?

As I said, the third umpire would provide a safeguard for on-field
mistakes.  If you got rid of the onfield umpires it wouldn't be a
safeguard would it?

Quote:
>  > He would be able to use technology
> > to recind the decision, but it would be his judgement whether it was
> > justified by the evidence.

> So what of a decision to give a batsman not out incorrectly?  Does the
> 3rd ump then retrospectively give the batsman out and the game rewind to
> the point where the incorrect decision was made?

Most umpires would agree that giving the batsmen out incorrectly is
worse that giving the batsmen not out incorrectly.  This is why the
batsman is normally given the benefit of the doubt.  It is more
important therefore to have a safeguard for the former than the latter,
and also the former is more easily remidied.  It is an assymetrical
game already, so why is that a problem.

If you really wanted, you could always have the third umpire monitor
the not out decisions and not send the batsman back in if he should
have been given out earlier.

Quote:
> >> In addition to this it potentially means that
> >> a batsman could have his innings split up into numerous chunks

> > I did say it was still unfair on the bastman, but not as unfair as
> > being given permanently out, i.e. it is an improvement on the current
> > situation.

> I would say that your suggestion is far more unfair to the fielding side
> as it would only rectify the incorrect decisions made against the
> batsman and not those against the fielding side!!

So?  The fielding side will be batting themselves later, so it all
evens out.  The benefit would be that it takes an unhelpful random
element (a subset of possible umpiring mistakes) out of the game so
that onfield performance becomes more important in deciding the
outcome.  Surely that is a good thing.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >> and the scorecards would become a messy nonsense.

> > rubbish, batsmen occasionally retire hurt and resume their innings
> > later, has never caused a problem for a competent scorer.

> Yes but they wouldn't have retired hurt now would they?

> And if you were to take your ridiculous idea to its logical conclusion
> and make it fair to both sides then incorrect not out decisions would
> have to be reversed as well and therefore runs/wickets that had occurred
> after that event would have to be rubbed out.  It would be a farce!!

> Colin Kynoch

> > Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by alve » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:25:42

snip

Quote:

> Yep umps sometimes get the decision wrong, so what.  That is not a new
> occurrence.

Whoops! I forgot that you're a Dictorian and therefore one who is perfectly
happy with 1956. Carry on.

alvey

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Gavin Cawle » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:35:25

Quote:





> >>> snip
> >>>>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
> >>>>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
> >>>>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
> >>>>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
> >>>>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
> >>>>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
> >>>>> now!
> >>>> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.  Firstly it assumes that the
> >>>> third umpire's decision is always right,
> >>> No it doesn't. It's based on the fact that on-field umps sometimes get it
> >>> so badly wrong that 5 seconds of replay will prove it.

> >>>> and that the view obtained in
> >>>> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.
> >>> Rubbish comparison Colin. One 2d view is probably not as accurate as a
> >>> "live 3d view",
> >> Probably??????????????????????????????????????????????

> >>> but how about comparing that once only "live 3d view" with
> >>> the raft of slomo replays from a variety of angles that we get now?
> >> Which are very often inconclusive

> > Duh, in which case the third umpire doesn't recind the decision!  I did
> > say the third umpire could rescind the decision, not the technology
> > itself.

> >>>> It also assumes that the technology is infallible.
> >>> Oh FFS. What is it with you cranks and this "infallible" crap? Would you
> >>> please name one reputable source who claims that TechUmp is infallible?  Or
> >>> that it needs to be. The point Colin is that TechUmp is considerably more
> >>> accurate than any whitecoat. Don't you want accuracy?
> >> I prefer that the man in the best position to make the decision (on the
> >> ground that is) makes the decision and that cricket does not head down
> >> the Yank way of doing sport.

> > As it happens, I have some sympathy with this view.  My suggestion is
> > pretty much the minimal change that would have a useful effect.  It is
> > only a safeguard, it takes no time out of the game and you wouldn't get
> > players appealing the umpires decisions on the field (i.e. Duncan
> > Fletchers plan) which I would view as the thin end of the wedge.

> >> Yep umps sometimes get the decision wrong, so what.  That is not a new
> >> occurrence.

> > no, but if it is an obvious error that can easily be corrected to some
> > extent by sending the batsman back in at the fall of the next wicket,
> > then why not do so?

> Why favour the batsman so much?

> What if the decision to give the batsman not out was clearly wrong?

> Shouldn't the fielding side have the same benefit?

> And if they do then it would make the situation a farce.

dealt with in another post.

Quote:
> The game is weighted in favour of the batsman already, your proposal
> would only push that advantage even further.

better than that, go back to playing on uncovered pitches and put the
boundary ropes back out.  The imbalance in the game is more due to the
pitch preparation than the laws (in my opinion).

Gavin

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Colin Kynoch

> > Gavin

 
 
 

New year, old story

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:46:23

Quote:








>>>>>>>> Harris to Karthik, OUT, and he strikes first ball! Great start for
>>>>>>>> South Africa! Tossed up on the stumps, Karthik loses balance in trying
>>>>>>>> to flick it to leg, the ball lobs up to silly point, they all go up in
>>>>>>>> appeal, and Asad Rauf lifts the finger! Karthik isn't happy...but he
>>>>>>>> has to go...replays clearly show that there was no contact with the
>>>>>>>> bat...in fact, Amla let it go as soon as he'd taken in, throwing it
>>>>>>>> back to Boucher to try for the stumping, and even the 'keeper didnt
>>>>>>>> appeal until he'd taken the throw in...a bad call from Rauf...
>>>>>>>>  KD Karthik c Amla b Harris 63 (240m 170b 7x4 0x6) SR: 37.05

>>>>>>>> -Samarth.

>>>>>>> yes this one was atrocious...
>>>>>> So what are the options one have:
>>>>>> * Bring in 3rd umpire into picture when in doubt.
>>>>>>    But what if the fielding umpire decides w/o any doubt in his mind
>>>>>> * Always go to third umpire.
>>>>>>    That might not be liked to keep cricket in balance of tradition
>>>>>>    and modern day changes.
>>>>> Or have the third umpire review all dismissals while play continues, if
>>>>> the third umpire thinks the batsman shouldn't have been given out, he
>>>>> is allowed to go back in at the fall of the next wicket.  This has the
>>>>> advantage that it doesn't take any time out of the game, and you don't
>>>>> end up with players appealing the umpires decision (Duncan Fletchers
>>>>> idea).  Bit unfair on the batsman still, but less unfair than it is
>>>>> now!
>>>> Hmmm. This idea makes no sense at all.
>>> Wild overstatement,
>> Not an overstatement at all.

> It is, few suggestions on change to the laws have no benefits at all.
> You may not like them, but doesn;t mean they don't make any sense at
> all.

>>> not normally an indication of a well though out
>>> reply.
>> Well that would have put it streets ahead of what was being responded to.

> not convinced you actually read it.

I will admit that I was laughing so hard that I had to go back and
reread it to see if it was as ridiculous as I first thought.  It was.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>>>> Firstly it assumes that the
>>>> third umpire's decision is always right, and that the view obtained in
>>>> 2D is always better than the live 3D view.
>>> No, it assumes that the third umpire may spot something that the
>>> on-field umpires missed.  For instance that the bowler overstepped,
>>> which is quite often missed by the on-field umpires - a 2-d issue.  The
>>> third umpire also has the benefit of seeing it in slow motion and can
>>> have as many replays as they like.  They DO have a better view of
>>> whether the ball pitched outside leg for LBW decisions, they have the
>>> snickometer etc.  The third umpire does not have to be infallible, but
>>> it does provide a useful safeguard.
>> Safeguard for What?

> The on-field umpires making an obvious incorrect decision, such as not
> noticing the bowler overstepping.  I think I mentioned this a few
> sentences earlier.

So a safeguard for the batsman only then.

Quote:
>>>> It also assumes that the
>>>> technology is infallible.
>>> No it doesn't, the third umpire is just as able to exercise their
>>> judgement as the on-field umpires.
>> Why bother with on field umpires then?

> As I said, the third umpire would provide a safeguard for on-field
> mistakes.

But only those that went against the batsman.

Quote:
>  If you got rid of the onfield umpires it wouldn't be a
> safeguard would it?

It wouldn't be anyway.

Quote:
>>  > He would be able to use technology
>>> to recind the decision, but it would be his judgement whether it was
>>> justified by the evidence.
>> So what of a decision to give a batsman not out incorrectly?  Does the
>> 3rd ump then retrospectively give the batsman out and the game rewind to
>> the point where the incorrect decision was made?

> Most umpires would agree that giving the batsmen out incorrectly is
> worse that giving the batsmen not out incorrectly.

I doubt many bowlers or fielding captains would agree.

Quote:
> This is why the
> batsman is normally given the benefit of the doubt.

But if the umpire has no doubt why should the batsman receive any benefit?

Quote:
> It is more
> important therefore to have a safeguard for the former than the latter,
> and also the former is more easily remidied.  It is an assymetrical
> game already, so why is that a problem.

Your proposal would further tips the scales (to over balancing point I
would suggest) in the favour of the batsman.

Quote:
> If you really wanted, you could always have the third umpire monitor
> the not out decisions and not send the batsman back in if he should
> have been given out earlier.

So a***for tat sort of thing.  Would you like another spade?  The one
you are digging with must be wearing down real quick.

Quote:
>>>> In addition to this it potentially means that
>>>> a batsman could have his innings split up into numerous chunks
>>> I did say it was still unfair on the bastman, but not as unfair as
>>> being given permanently out, i.e. it is an improvement on the current
>>> situation.
>> I would say that your suggestion is far more unfair to the fielding side
>> as it would only rectify the incorrect decisions made against the
>> batsman and not those against the fielding side!!

> So?  The fielding side will be batting themselves later, so it all
> evens out.

Why bother with the changes then as they all even out at present.

Quote:
> The benefit would be that it takes an unhelpful random
> element (a subset of possible umpiring mistakes) out of the game so
> that onfield performance becomes more important in deciding the
> outcome.

Not really.  As you are taking only one half of the set which would
alter the balance even further in favour of the batsmen.

Quote:
>  Surely that is a good thing.

unless you take the out both sides of the equation you create
inequality.  So no I don't think that would be a good thing at all.

<snip>

Colin Kynoch