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.
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
by