>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> not normally an indication of a well though out
>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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
But only those that went against the batsman.
> If you got rid of the onfield umpires it wouldn't be a
> safeguard would it?
It wouldn't be anyway.
>> > 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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
>>>> 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
>> 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.
> 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
Not really. As you are taking only one half of the set which would
alter the balance even further in favour of the batsmen.
> 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.