Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
Article 1:
"Humanity is an essential concept in any sport. Whether it’s the players, the coaching staff, or the umpires, sport is still, in essence, human play. As far as cricket is concerned, it is one of the great challenges of mind, body and spirit. It is a game that can last 5 days, and one that contains as much personal willpower and strength as is possible. It is a game that requires, overall, humanity.
As is the case in all sports, there are adjudicators of the laws of the game, in cricket’s case, umpires. Umpires jobs are to enforce the laws of the spirit and playing of the game, and to ensure that playing conditions and standards are reasonable. It is not an easy job. One of the most difficult decisions for an umpire is judging ‘leg before wicket’ (LBW) decisions. This requires them to decide, when the ball has hit the batsman’s pads; whether the ball would have hit the wickets and; whether the ball had touched the bat first. This is complicated further when the ball was moving off the seam, swinging or spinning, and when there are many people screaming, obscuring the noise of any edges. Not an easy task, considering the fact that there are no small decisions in cricket. A lot rests on umpire’s shoulders.
Whilst in certain decisions, such as run outs, umpires may call for the ‘third umpire.’ This is an umpire who sits in a box, and adjudicates by watching a TV replay of the ball in slow motion from as many angles as he wants. Recent technologies such as Hawk-eye, a tool that projects, based on many camera angles, where the ball may have gone and landed, and Hot Spot and Snick-o-meter, tools that can help tell if the ball met bat or pad first, are not allowed.
Much of this is due to the humanity factor. It all brings us to the age old debate, should technology replace human umpires, eradicating mistakes but losing the humanity of umpiring?
On technology’s side, there is the simple factor that mistakes will be gone. No longer will a hot-headed batsman make his way back to the pavilion in the 90’s when he clearly didn’t get an edge before the keeper took it. No more will appeals that could have won a team the match end up allowing a batsman to score the winning runs. No longer will the cries of “We was robbed” come from the Bogans sitting in Bay 13 (or the international equivalency). The matches will finally be decided based on the team that scores the most runs and takes the most wickets, or lasts the longest. In short, fairness will rule all.
So what is the downside? Put simply, it is the humanity. Where is the excitement of waiting for an umpire to raise his finger or shake his head after an appeal, where is the sheer happiness of an incorrect decision that can win your team the game, and the enjoyment of watching opposition fans whinge about an incorrect decision when you can always say, “The umpire’s decision is final?” Where is the human nature of a mistake free society where everything is done ‘robotically’ and is always correct?
So what is the answer? Is it technology, or humans? The question, it seems, will not be decided upon for a while. Umpires have long said that they don’t want to be replaced, and personally I appreciate the difficulty that comes from being an umpire. Should cricket become the sport to eradicate them altogether?
Opinions are divided all-round. Some believe that bad decisions are too costly, and after all, we have the technology to eradicate them, so why not use it? Others are on the opposite side, and believe that there is no humanity in simply enforcing a rule, rather than having a real life person making the decisions. After all, there are human cricketers who make mistakes, umpires do too! Some people are even unhappy when an umpire enforces a law that is perhaps a little robotic itself, rather than taking into account human decency."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2:
"Firstly, I’m not one to mind having a bit of tradition in cricket. I think it’s great that in a cricket match the match can end in a draw even though the umpire said that it was over about 450 times. I think it’s great that in cricket the players go for tea at 4:00, despite normal people having tea between 6:00 and 8:00. (Except for cheapskates trying to get the 5-6 early bird specials.) But tradition is holding back a significant untapped resource in cricket – technology.
A cricket ball can travel across a pitch at 160km/hr. An umpire, while the bowler is delivering this ball at 160km/hr is supposed to be looking at the crease to make sure the bowler doesn’t overstep it. Once the bowler has let go of the ball, the umpire has to look up and make judgements on whether the ball was going to hit the stumps or not, even though the stumps are a good 22 yards away from him and the ball is sometimes covered by the bat. It’s a job they shouldn’t have to do. And when an LBW appeal occurs, the umpire isn’t expected to hesitate as that apparently means that he isn’t confident. Another problem with umpiring is that so few decisions are made in the game compared to the amount of balls bowled without decisions needing to be made that it’s easy to relax and lose concentration for a ball or two. A computer wouldn’t lose concentration; it stays awake until the battery goes flat.
Hawk Eye is one of the greatest innovations of cricket on television since the snickometer was introduced. I think that with benefit of the doubt going the way of the batsmen when it is only clipping the stumps would be a reasonable measure to take. I know that some people say that Hawk Eye is rubbish and they wouldn’t trust any of the decisions it makes, but I also know that absolutely everyone says that Asoka de Silva is rubbish and they wouldn’t trust any of the decisions he makes.
When people complain about umpires, it’s generally greeted with a cliché such as “Oh well, that’s cricket” or “Bad decisions are a part of the game” but I’ve never seen a law of cricket stating that umpires may make mistakes in the game. There are two teams in cricket, and the umpires are basically part of the equipment needed to play the game. The teams should be the ones deciding the result of the game, and the game shouldn’t be decided by a couple of dodgy decisions going one way or the other. For the record, Michael Kasprowicz being given out at Edgbaston in 2005 has nothing to do with this matter at all and I am definitely not bitter about what was possibly the most devastating decision made in a long time.
Umpires, while getting paid a lot of money, are simply doing a job they don’t have the ability to do. Cyclops technology should be borrowed from tennis at least to get rid of the issue with umpires having to look out for no-balls. But soon after checking the no-balls, the umpire has to look up and pretend he knows where the ball is going. It has to be a case of pretending, because if the umpire actually did know where the ball was going and understood all of the physics behind the game absolutely amazingly well, then he should probably consider playing. Technology should take over the umpires job, because not only are they more accurate in almost every case, they have one things umpires strive for but never achieve – consistency."
"Humanity is an essential concept in any sport. Whether it’s the players, the coaching staff, or the umpires, sport is still, in essence, human play. As far as cricket is concerned, it is one of the great challenges of mind, body and spirit. It is a game that can last 5 days, and one that contains as much personal willpower and strength as is possible. It is a game that requires, overall, humanity.
As is the case in all sports, there are adjudicators of the laws of the game, in cricket’s case, umpires. Umpires jobs are to enforce the laws of the spirit and playing of the game, and to ensure that playing conditions and standards are reasonable. It is not an easy job. One of the most difficult decisions for an umpire is judging ‘leg before wicket’ (LBW) decisions. This requires them to decide, when the ball has hit the batsman’s pads; whether the ball would have hit the wickets and; whether the ball had touched the bat first. This is complicated further when the ball was moving off the seam, swinging or spinning, and when there are many people screaming, obscuring the noise of any edges. Not an easy task, considering the fact that there are no small decisions in cricket. A lot rests on umpire’s shoulders.
Whilst in certain decisions, such as run outs, umpires may call for the ‘third umpire.’ This is an umpire who sits in a box, and adjudicates by watching a TV replay of the ball in slow motion from as many angles as he wants. Recent technologies such as Hawk-eye, a tool that projects, based on many camera angles, where the ball may have gone and landed, and Hot Spot and Snick-o-meter, tools that can help tell if the ball met bat or pad first, are not allowed.
Much of this is due to the humanity factor. It all brings us to the age old debate, should technology replace human umpires, eradicating mistakes but losing the humanity of umpiring?
On technology’s side, there is the simple factor that mistakes will be gone. No longer will a hot-headed batsman make his way back to the pavilion in the 90’s when he clearly didn’t get an edge before the keeper took it. No more will appeals that could have won a team the match end up allowing a batsman to score the winning runs. No longer will the cries of “We was robbed” come from the Bogans sitting in Bay 13 (or the international equivalency). The matches will finally be decided based on the team that scores the most runs and takes the most wickets, or lasts the longest. In short, fairness will rule all.
So what is the downside? Put simply, it is the humanity. Where is the excitement of waiting for an umpire to raise his finger or shake his head after an appeal, where is the sheer happiness of an incorrect decision that can win your team the game, and the enjoyment of watching opposition fans whinge about an incorrect decision when you can always say, “The umpire’s decision is final?” Where is the human nature of a mistake free society where everything is done ‘robotically’ and is always correct?
So what is the answer? Is it technology, or humans? The question, it seems, will not be decided upon for a while. Umpires have long said that they don’t want to be replaced, and personally I appreciate the difficulty that comes from being an umpire. Should cricket become the sport to eradicate them altogether?
Opinions are divided all-round. Some believe that bad decisions are too costly, and after all, we have the technology to eradicate them, so why not use it? Others are on the opposite side, and believe that there is no humanity in simply enforcing a rule, rather than having a real life person making the decisions. After all, there are human cricketers who make mistakes, umpires do too! Some people are even unhappy when an umpire enforces a law that is perhaps a little robotic itself, rather than taking into account human decency."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2:
"Firstly, I’m not one to mind having a bit of tradition in cricket. I think it’s great that in a cricket match the match can end in a draw even though the umpire said that it was over about 450 times. I think it’s great that in cricket the players go for tea at 4:00, despite normal people having tea between 6:00 and 8:00. (Except for cheapskates trying to get the 5-6 early bird specials.) But tradition is holding back a significant untapped resource in cricket – technology.
A cricket ball can travel across a pitch at 160km/hr. An umpire, while the bowler is delivering this ball at 160km/hr is supposed to be looking at the crease to make sure the bowler doesn’t overstep it. Once the bowler has let go of the ball, the umpire has to look up and make judgements on whether the ball was going to hit the stumps or not, even though the stumps are a good 22 yards away from him and the ball is sometimes covered by the bat. It’s a job they shouldn’t have to do. And when an LBW appeal occurs, the umpire isn’t expected to hesitate as that apparently means that he isn’t confident. Another problem with umpiring is that so few decisions are made in the game compared to the amount of balls bowled without decisions needing to be made that it’s easy to relax and lose concentration for a ball or two. A computer wouldn’t lose concentration; it stays awake until the battery goes flat.
Hawk Eye is one of the greatest innovations of cricket on television since the snickometer was introduced. I think that with benefit of the doubt going the way of the batsmen when it is only clipping the stumps would be a reasonable measure to take. I know that some people say that Hawk Eye is rubbish and they wouldn’t trust any of the decisions it makes, but I also know that absolutely everyone says that Asoka de Silva is rubbish and they wouldn’t trust any of the decisions he makes.
When people complain about umpires, it’s generally greeted with a cliché such as “Oh well, that’s cricket” or “Bad decisions are a part of the game” but I’ve never seen a law of cricket stating that umpires may make mistakes in the game. There are two teams in cricket, and the umpires are basically part of the equipment needed to play the game. The teams should be the ones deciding the result of the game, and the game shouldn’t be decided by a couple of dodgy decisions going one way or the other. For the record, Michael Kasprowicz being given out at Edgbaston in 2005 has nothing to do with this matter at all and I am definitely not bitter about what was possibly the most devastating decision made in a long time.
Umpires, while getting paid a lot of money, are simply doing a job they don’t have the ability to do. Cyclops technology should be borrowed from tennis at least to get rid of the issue with umpires having to look out for no-balls. But soon after checking the no-balls, the umpire has to look up and pretend he knows where the ball is going. It has to be a case of pretending, because if the umpire actually did know where the ball was going and understood all of the physics behind the game absolutely amazingly well, then he should probably consider playing. Technology should take over the umpires job, because not only are they more accurate in almost every case, they have one things umpires strive for but never achieve – consistency."
Done let anyone know who made it 
