rahuldravidfan
International Cricketer
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Leave only lbws to umpires: Tendulkar
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
Getting as many decisions right is far better than having that little bit of spice in a game due to a bad decision. As much as that Sydney test 2007 created a big rivalry between the two teams, it would definitely be better if we had got the right decision. After all in the end, its about being as fair as possible.
I agree with Tendulkar too.
I agree with Tendulkar too.
You don't even need bad calls to create spice in a series. Get a Warne and McGrath in your team and they will create all the spice you need. From 5-0 Ashes predictions, to bunnies, to txt scandals. What more spice do you need.
jkartik
Chairman of Selectors
my point here is why leave just the LBWs then ? even that
should directly be consulted with the third umpire.
umpires should only count the deliveries, hold the caps, call it an over etc....
if this happens, then there wont be any need for the "ELITE" panel ! :sarcasm
If you see my point, the umpires still have the first and final say, which is basically what the referral system is so its not that far fetched. They call for the 3rd umpire to assist them with close LBW, catches, etc. The no ball is a no brainier though, why should we force the umpires to look down and then up all the time when technology can do it and do it more accurately and which in turn improves their decision making.
CaptainOZ
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I think doing that will take away heaps of the appeal of the game. I like the fact that umpires are under pressure, and are trying to perform well along side the players. You bring all these conditions in, then the game would feel sterile.
I really think they should use Hawkeye. What's everyone scared of? It's used at the top in tennis and it's become accepted pretty quickly, especially by fans. It's just the players who can't challenge correctly that don't like it. It would be the same with cricket.
And I think it would add great suspense if Hawkeye were shown on the replay screen so the crowd could SEE the ball hitting/missing the stumps and know exactly why it was/wasn't out LBW. Give the TV umpire 2 or 3 replays MAXIMUM to look for an inside edge and once he gives the all clear, the Hawkeye result goes up on the big screen and the call is made.
To me it's only a question of when and how often an LBW should be referred to the TV umpire. I don't like the players being in charge of challenging the call, especially LBWs. For nicks, yes, because they should know if they've nicked it. But for LBWs a coach/team official watching the replay should look for questionable decisions and alert the umpires that a challenge should be made.
And I think it would add great suspense if Hawkeye were shown on the replay screen so the crowd could SEE the ball hitting/missing the stumps and know exactly why it was/wasn't out LBW. Give the TV umpire 2 or 3 replays MAXIMUM to look for an inside edge and once he gives the all clear, the Hawkeye result goes up on the big screen and the call is made.
To me it's only a question of when and how often an LBW should be referred to the TV umpire. I don't like the players being in charge of challenging the call, especially LBWs. For nicks, yes, because they should know if they've nicked it. But for LBWs a coach/team official watching the replay should look for questionable decisions and alert the umpires that a challenge should be made.
srikarr12
Club Cricketer
The thing with hawkeye is that its predicting the path in cricket whereas in tennis hawkeye shows almost the exact replay as theres no interference with the ball.
Gurjot95
National Board President
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Yeah seen that news on cricinfo a week ago and I agree with him.
Paki007
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Location
- Lahore, Pakistan
I was against Referral system but After seeing the Pakistan vs Nzl Semi final of ct2009
i was very shocked and now i am in favor of referral system because of the umpire monopoly
i was very shocked and now i am in favor of referral system because of the umpire monopoly
Fatal Shot
Club Cricketer
Wrong decisions are part of the game. Every other sport has become so dependent on technology, that refs/umpires just have to point out common sense. Cricket actually gives the Umpire some authority, and that's what I love about it. If you're going to use technology, then use it to it's extreme. Don't just use it here and there. Use all of it. Hot spot, hawkeye, snicko etc. If you are going to be implementing it, then don't just use bits and pieces and rather use it to it's fullest. ICC needs to decide whether to have Umpires or too completely remove them.
sohum
Executive member
Because LBW's are not deterministic in nature. With all other forms of dismissal, there's usually a pretty clear line between out and not out. With catches, if you've hit the ball you've hit the ball. If you've caught the ball, you've caught the ball. Both can be verified with cameras and closeups and if they're not conclusive, the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman.
With LBW's, you actually need to predict what the ball is going to do. Which is much more a judgment call than anything else. The Hawkeye technology does not "know" where the ball is going to go--it's just a prediction.
sohum added 1 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...
Apart from srikarr's note about hawkeye in cricket having to predict after collisions, there's also the fact that it's much easier to get the high frame-rate cameras in at the perfect angles in a tennis court--since it's so much smaller. The level of accuracy is a lot better. Compare this with a cricket field where the distance of the camera to the ball is a lot greater--even though the algorithms are perfect, the error percentages are a lot higher.
sohum added 2 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...
Isn't that the point of umpires... the enforce the rules? Every sport (and this sport, too) does not default to technology. It just makes all the technology available to the umpire/ref's use.
There's no need to jump to extremes? Why is everyone always obsessed with the "all or nothing" view. You use technology in everyday life. You're using a computer right now to post on a forum. Why don't you just replace everything in your life with a technology that is available? Why have a real dog when you can get an aibo? Why use one's brain when you can use a computerized decision-maker? There's no need to jump squarely one way or another. You have to find an equilibrium, just like every other sport has.
sohum added 2 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...
--
All that said, I'm not sure if I agree with what Sachin is suggesting, especially with dismissals. As Boycott suggested a few years back when Hawk-Eye was first introduced, if we rely on technology to make all our decisions, we'll start seeing sides bundled out for under 100. Batsmen get away with a lot during the course of their innings since all the benefit of the doubt is stacked their way. Take that away and you might as well bid adieu to monumental innings'.
Fatal Shot
Club Cricketer
If we can get the whole hawk eye analysis, then why don't we use it? Why not show the predicted path and go by it? They just show where the ball pitched and the point of impact and leave the rest to the umpire. That's just blatantly dumb. You have the prediction, but don't want to show it... why the fearsome tweak not? You might as well, to get the utmost right decision.
sohum
Executive member
Because the prediction is a prediction. You notice with all other technologies there's no predictive portion--it's a replay of what's already happened. By showing Hawk-Eye to the point of showing what's already happened, they are using the technology to the same level. I reckon Hawk-Eye's level of accuracy decreases quite a bit when there's swing or spin involved, especially reverse swing where the ball is not changing direction at a continuous rate.
