Umpiring Decision Review

As the other sports forums seem to have taken old to some respect, well here is a cricket forum. NOTE: This forum will be heavily moderated and can be revoked at any time is discussions go out of hand.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:25 am

CricInfo gives details of umpiring decision review: Procedure.  The ICC has kept up its stupidity.

1. Signals from outside the field are not permitted.  Why?  If the objective is to get the decision correct, then signals from infants and dead people from Mars should also be permitted, if we get them that is.  Take in the entire information and decide.

2. Snicko and Hot Spot are not to be used.  Hot Spot has been shown to be extremely accurate, near 100%.  Why not permit it?

ICC moves slower than molasses.

User avatar
puneets
Member
Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: US

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby puneets » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:59 am

I don't know what 'tradition' they are trying to preserve. Cricket administrators are too hung up on the 'sanctity' and 'tradition' of this 'wonderful' game which was invented by colonial masters who had no regard for human life in most of their colonies.
It's time to change the antiquated rules and bring in as much technology as they can (in order to assist the umpires).

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:10 pm

Not used on the short first day.  Sangakarra was lbw early on per Virtual Eye, but, Kumble did not refer.  What should be a good strategy to use the three tries?  If 8 wickets were down with all three tries left, I would try it, but, perhaps on a marginal decision early on for an lbw, you save the tries.  I would actually prefer that they systematically study the prediction function of Virtual Eye, and if it is above 95% accurate, then use it.  But this is better than the previous system, unless, the 3rd umpires become stubborn as in the English League and refuse to overrule their brethren in the field.  Even if it is used in a handful of decisions in the series, they should keep it and not say that we got 93% of the decisions correct and do not need the technology for 1-2 decisions per match.  At least, it adds some suspense and drama.

User avatar
Kumar
Authors
Authors
Posts: 4825
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:59 am

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby Kumar » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:20 pm

Even though the predictive aspect of Virtual Eye will not be used, the third umpire will still have visual evidence of the pitch of the ball and the point of impact.


This is BS!!! How can a third umpire judge if the ball is going up or down without the predictive aspect!!! We are asking an umpire to make a three dimensional decision based on two dimension picture!!! How is that even possible...If there is even a slightest doubt, I hope the batsman will get the benefit of doubt.  

If we are not going to use predictive aspect, third umpire can check only for two things.
1) is the ball pitching in the line of the stump 2) Was there a edge to the bat. He has no business predicting if the ball will go onto hit the stump

Each team can make three unsuccessful requests per innings, which must be made within a few seconds of the ball becoming dead; once made, the requests cannot be withdrawn.


I have more problem with the above rule than the 'outside the field' rule. how do you define "few seconds"?  In American football, rule is clearly defined 'before the start of next play'... they need to make a clear definition here...

Prasen, how do you feel that a person 'outside the field' can make a better decision unless a replay is shown on the tv within  those "few seconds"? If you allow replays and 'outside the field' decision (and more time), Then the home broadcasting unit can decide whether to show a good angle for replay shots!!!

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:29 pm

Kumar wrote:This is BS!!! How can a third umpire judge if the ball is going up or down without the predictive aspect!!! We are asking an umpire to make a three dimensional decision based on two dimension picture!!! How is that even possible...If there is even a slightest doubt, I hope the batsman will get the benefit of doubt.

Not really, if there is the slightest doubt, the field umpire's decision should stand.  As it is the game is heavily stacked in favor of the batsman. 

Each team can make three unsuccessful requests per innings, which must be made within a few seconds of the ball becoming dead; once made, the requests cannot be withdrawn.


I have more problem with the above rule than the 'outside the field' rule. how do you define "few seconds"?  In American football, rule is clearly defined 'before the start of next play'... they need to make a clear definition here...
  It should effectively be before the start of the next play.

Prasen, how do you feel that a person 'outside the field' can make a better decision unless a replay is shown on the tv within  those "few seconds"? If you allow replays and 'outside the field' decision (and more time), Then the home broadcasting unit can decide whether to show a good angle for replay shots!!!
  How does preventing someone outside the field from making signals hurt?  Admittedly, it does not help unless the replay is shown immediately.  There may be a pathological case, where the coach is merely helping strategically whether to go for the challenge or to save it without any knowledge of the merits of the call.  The home broadcasting unit should be told to make all feeds available to the 3rd umpire and he should be able to choose which angles he wants to choose and play.  Theoretically, they can do that even now by refusing feeds to the 3rd umpire that can hurt the home team.

User avatar
Kumar
Authors
Authors
Posts: 4825
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:59 am

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby Kumar » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:01 pm

Not really, if there is the slightest doubt, the field umpire's decision should stand.  As it is the game is heavily stacked in favor of the batsman.


I have a feeling that we are opening pandora box by referring the LBW decision's to third umpire (without predictive aspect). when a third umpire has to make a subjective decision as to how high the ball is going to rise and if the ball is turning enough!!!I think field umpire is better placed to make this decision and third umpire is terribly disadvantaged... What if a third umpire affirms or overrules a field umpire's decision and predictive aspect shows that field umpire was right!!!

How do you define start of next play, when the batsman is out? The batsman starting to walk? or before the next batsman enters the field? In case of fielding team, they can take a long time to bowl the next ball...

Actually it makes the game more interesting to leave the choice to onfield players...Batsman are in good position to make the decision (every batsman knows whether he nicked it or not).. it may be little difficult with lbw decisions (but they would definitely know if they got the bat to the ball).

i am curious about one thing though.. ARe the field umpires going to refer runouts /stumpings automatically to third umpire ? or the players have to now request for review...

User avatar
Kumar
Authors
Authors
Posts: 4825
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:59 am

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby Kumar » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:54 pm

One other aspect to all this when should field umpire give his LBW decision.

He needs to probably wait till the ball is dead, before giving his 'out' decision...

For example, team may need two runs to win off the last ball of the match.. ball hits the pad and races away to fine leg boundary (quick runners can probably take two runs). Assume the umpire gives him "out" as soon as it strikes the pad (ball is dead as soon as umpire gives some one out). the batsman refer third umpire and third umpire says "not out".. What do they do now? Do they replay the final delivery? (they do replay in tennis, though)

So in order to avoid these complications, the field umpire has to wait for the batsman to complete their runs and the ball to be dead before declaring the batsman to be out.. If his decision is overturned, the batting team wins... if his decision stays, the bowling team wins...

btw, can batsman challenge no 'no-ball' call if the non-striker saw the bowler overstepping?

I may be wrong.. but  in today's world, when there is a close direct hit runout and ensuing overthrow, the field umpire doesn't signal for third umpire until the ball is dead.

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:14 pm

Kumar wrote:
Not really, if there is the slightest doubt, the field umpire's decision should stand.  As it is the game is heavily stacked in favor of the batsman.


I have a feeling that we are opening pandora box by referring the LBW decision's to third umpire (without predictive aspect). when a third umpire has to make a subjective decision as to how high the ball is going to rise and if the ball is turning enough!!!I think field umpire is better placed to make this decision and third umpire is terribly disadvantaged... What if a third umpire affirms or overrules a field umpire's decision and predictive aspect shows that field umpire was right!!!
Maybe I should try to write more precisely the next time.  What I meant this is that if the third umpire does not have clear evidence to overrule the field umpire, then the field umpire's ruling should stand.  If the third umpire finds that the ball pitched outside the legstump, the ball struck the batsman offering a stroke outside the offstump, the ball was on an upward trajectory and it is extremely clear from the sideon view that the ball would be going over the stumps, etc., then he can overrule the ground umpire.  Otherwise, the ground umpire's ruling stands.

How do you define start of next play, when the batsman is out? The batsman starting to walk? or before the next batsman enters the field? In case of fielding team, they can take a long time to bowl the next ball...

Actually it makes the game more interesting to leave the choice to onfield players...Batsman are in good position to make the decision (every batsman knows whether he nicked it or not).. it may be little difficult with lbw decisions (but they would definitely know if they got the bat to the ball).

The challenge can be called anytime before the bowler reaches the crease to deliver the next ball.  If the fielding team is taking a long time, the umpire has to hurry them up.  And they will have to finish 90 overs anyway during the day, otherwise, they cop fines and get suspended.  So, just wasting time for the sake of doing it will not happen.  If there is genuine confusion and the captain wants to consult, just give them reasonable time and the umpire can hurry them up if it is unreasonable.  They take a long time sometimes to simply set the field.  So, it is okay by me to have 2-3 more unnecessary stoppages during the day and if a stoppage results in an overrule, then a bit of extra time does not matter.
i am curious about one thing though.. ARe the field umpires going to refer runouts /stumpings automatically to third umpire ? or the players have to now request for review...
I would prefer the umpires referring them.  If they refuse then the players can use their challenge.

-pm

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:16 pm

Kumar wrote:One other aspect to all this when should field umpire give his LBW decision.

He needs to probably wait till the ball is dead, before giving his 'out' decision...

For example, team may need two runs to win off the last ball of the match.. ball hits the pad and races away to fine leg boundary (quick runners can probably take two runs). Assume the umpire gives him "out" as soon as it strikes the pad (ball is dead as soon as umpire gives some one out). the batsman refer third umpire and third umpire says "not out".. What do they do now? Do they replay the final delivery? (they do replay in tennis, though)

So in order to avoid these complications, the field umpire has to wait for the batsman to complete their runs and the ball to be dead before declaring the batsman to be out.. If his decision is overturned, the batting team wins... if his decision stays, the bowling team wins...
I think your suggestion is spot-on.

btw, can batsman challenge no 'no-ball' call if the non-striker saw the bowler overstepping?
I would support this challenge though I think the ICC may not be allowing this now.
I may be wrong.. but  in today's world, when there is a close direct hit runout and ensuing overthrow, the field umpire doesn't signal for third umpire until the ball is dead.
  Yes.  The same should apply for the challenges as you rightly mentioned.

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:54 am

Stupid call from Kumble to use up one review.  Don't challenge close lbw decisions.  Save it for nicks.  There are 8 wickets left in this batting pitch.  And don't let Harbhajan make the call; he thinks everything is out.

CricInfo (Dileep Premchandran) says that there were very few nonsense appeals.  I think this is good.  No pressurising the umpires: even better.  Once you know the system will not make a wrong decision, then you will not try to "cheat" by appealing on things you know is not out.

The ICC has good intentions.  However, one thing it has got is horribly wrong.  The US-NFL got it right and it is very crucial.  The NFL says that unless you have indisputable video evidence that the umpire is wrong, his decision stands.  This should be the guiding principle and would be a much cleaner system than benefit of doubt going to the batsman.  It will also give more power and authority to the umpires.  They make the best call knowing it will stand unless they are horribly wrong.

Consider the case of the bumped-ball catches.  We know that clean catches look inconclusive or bumped in replays.  If you use benefit of doubt goes to batsmen principle, then the batsmen get undue advantage even in clean catches.  As they need to do is appeal and create some doubt because the TV technology does not have enough resolution.  However, if you go by the NFL principle, then the system works.  If the umpire saw it as a catch he gives it out, if the video is inconclusive, then nobody knows better, the umpire's decision stands, nobody can create any controversy, no undue advantage to a batsman, no confusion, problem solved. 

Instead I fear that this experiment in using technology may be canned if we get more wrong decisions because of incomplete use of technology and a bad system.
Last edited by prasen9 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
prasen9
Member
Member
Posts: 11208
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:49 pm
Please enter the middle number: 1
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby prasen9 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:31 pm

prasen9 wrote:CricInfo gives details of umpiring decision review: Procedure.  The ICC has kept up its stupidity.

1. Signals from outside the field are not permitted.  Why?  If the objective is to get the decision correct, then signals from infants and dead people from Mars should also be permitted, if we get them that is.  Take in the entire information and decide.

2. Snicko and Hot Spot are not to be used.  Hot Spot has been shown to be extremely accurate, near 100%.  Why not permit it?

ICC moves slower than molasses.
I had said this 9 years ago. These two issues were ironically at the top of the DRS issues.

The ICC should do away with this nonsense. If I really wanted to cheat, I would wear a little sensor in my underwear which would send a signal from the dressing room as to whether to ask for a review or not. One vibrate - do nothing. Two vibrates - call for review. How is the ICC going to prevent that?

Anyway, the core rationale for the objection still remains. If the main objective is to make more correct decisions, then why not allow any input from anyone to be taken into account. Legalize this. Makes no sense.

Thankfully, issue #2 was already addressed. I hope the BCCI gets the equipment in short order to support HotSpot/Snicko. There are reports that will happen from the next series.

The issues (apart from #1 above) now should be:

1. Take away the batting reviews. All outs will be automatically reviewed.

2. Bowling teams should not lose reviews for umpire's calls. Or, allocate more reviews (less preferred). For example, two reviews every 40 overs or so.

sameerph
Moderators
Moderators
Posts: 20961
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:26 pm
Antispam: No
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: MUMBAI

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby sameerph » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:10 am

Review of all batting decisions will cause a lot of delay. I guess that is the reason for keeping limited number of reviews.

User avatar
Atithee
Member
Member
Posts: 3086
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm

Re: Umpiring Decision Review

Postby Atithee » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:31 am

No, the real reason is that vibrations in the underwear can cause, ahem, undesirable results. Especially in women's games.


Return to “The Cricket Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests