Light meters
- Thread starter Sureshot
- Start date
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
It's not the light meters I have the main problem with, it's the offering of the light to the batsmen. You're the umpire, you decide if it's too dark or not, not the batsmen. Bin the light meter and the offering of light to the batsmen. Both useless.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
It's gash. The referral system is gash too. The ICC is just a whole gash fest tbh. But I don't care because it won us the Ashes a bit in 2005. Still gash tho.
Insomniac
Title Recipient
The light meters in my opinion are only there to "look like" that the light offerings are consistent around the world.
And honestly, this idea of comparing the light to the first reading taken (when the batsmen first came off) is epic bull crap. I wonder what they're going to do if a team is 391/2, and continues to bat till its pitch black, and then the next innings a team is struggling 130/9, and the light is "pretty bad" but not pitch black, like in the first innings.
Then what? Complete farce, to be honest. Just let common sense prevail, and please do not give Asoka de Silva the power to judge the light
This is test cricket, umpired by two neutral (or should be) umpires. I think it is fair to say that if the players respect the umpires as they are suppoused to, the judgement of coming off should lie with the umpires' senses, and not technology. Has this game become that dependent on technology that we have to use a meter to judge the light?
But then again, remember the pictures you see on TV is not the actual light - the lenses are enhanced in those feeds. I think only the stump cam does not have that "enhancer" which actually depicts the light.
And honestly, this idea of comparing the light to the first reading taken (when the batsmen first came off) is epic bull crap. I wonder what they're going to do if a team is 391/2, and continues to bat till its pitch black, and then the next innings a team is struggling 130/9, and the light is "pretty bad" but not pitch black, like in the first innings.
Then what? Complete farce, to be honest. Just let common sense prevail, and please do not give Asoka de Silva the power to judge the light
This is test cricket, umpired by two neutral (or should be) umpires. I think it is fair to say that if the players respect the umpires as they are suppoused to, the judgement of coming off should lie with the umpires' senses, and not technology. Has this game become that dependent on technology that we have to use a meter to judge the light?But then again, remember the pictures you see on TV is not the actual light - the lenses are enhanced in those feeds. I think only the stump cam does not have that "enhancer" which actually depicts the light.
Sartaj
Panel of Selectors
yes.what you said makes sense.
its just that common sense seldom prevails in cricket and thus,cricket will never be a global phenomenon like soccer.
sorry to say this,but its true.
its just that common sense seldom prevails in cricket and thus,cricket will never be a global phenomenon like soccer.
sorry to say this,but its true.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
A fair point when the umpires have the discretionary power to end a dangerous spell of bowling.
The problem I have with the meters is that they're just used to enable archaic methods rather than replace them. It's easy to blame the tool and throw it in the bin, but the fact is that it's not being used as best it should. They're not used to determine when the light falls below a predefined level, they really just measuring the rate of change between readings. In this way, I don't think abandoning the light meters will have much of a positive effect, because the light meters don't decide for themselves when to take a reading. Darkness will still be a variable that is defined by the umpires.
sohum
Executive member
The usage of light meters, as angryangry said, is not the problem. In fact, it HAS to be used to get an objective value of the amount of light available. You cannot rely on one umpire being able to compare the light one day to the light another day.
I think there are two issues that need rectifying:
(1) If stadiums have lights, by all means use them if necessary to get the required number of overs in. Drop all the useless writing about whether the light is a certain amount before the artificial light can be turned on and all that other randomness about keeping the lights on.
(2) Determine a minimum level of light required and standardize the light meter equipment (if its not already) so they are all looking at that same level. If the light falls below that amount, the light is offered automatically to the batsmen. During inspection, if the light is back above that limit, then play must be restarted.
I think there are two issues that need rectifying:
(1) If stadiums have lights, by all means use them if necessary to get the required number of overs in. Drop all the useless writing about whether the light is a certain amount before the artificial light can be turned on and all that other randomness about keeping the lights on.
(2) Determine a minimum level of light required and standardize the light meter equipment (if its not already) so they are all looking at that same level. If the light falls below that amount, the light is offered automatically to the batsmen. During inspection, if the light is back above that limit, then play must be restarted.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Nice thread.
This is in my opinion, the most broken aspect of the game. It's especially bad in gloomy old England where it can get "too dark" with sometimes an hour of play to go. It's unfair and game breaking. How many times have we seen the light take away 5 days worth of hard work and the game is called a draw? It annoys the hell out of me.
As for the solution - that's a tricky one. I want to know why they can't just turn the lights on. Get to the minimum amount of overs bowled or the time limit. If the light is too dark, turn the lights on.
This is in my opinion, the most broken aspect of the game. It's especially bad in gloomy old England where it can get "too dark" with sometimes an hour of play to go. It's unfair and game breaking. How many times have we seen the light take away 5 days worth of hard work and the game is called a draw? It annoys the hell out of me.
As for the solution - that's a tricky one. I want to know why they can't just turn the lights on. Get to the minimum amount of overs bowled or the time limit. If the light is too dark, turn the lights on.
I know the arguement but I was actually at Chester-le-street on Saturday and Sunday and no way should they have gone off on Sunday night. The light was absolutely fine.
Insomniac
Title Recipient
Colin for England captain? 
Or maybe an umpire...
Or maybe an umpire...
Jakester1288
School Cricketer
Completely agree with all the posts in this thread. Umpires should have enough sense to know what is safe to bat in and what's not. They should inforce it. No light metre should be able to change what they believe.
Kev
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Light Meters aren't being used by umpires in this seasons English County Championship. Following the removal of the option to "offer the light" they were deemed unnecessary. Will be interested to see if this makes any difference. Quite often when sitting in the stands or watching on TV I think the light isn't that poor (but then I haven't just had a ball go inches past my face at 85mph either!). I don't know if its absolutely required to have consistent judgements day by day based on an arbitrary amount of light being present. If the batsman are all of a sudden struggling to see the ball (this is usually obvious) then it's probably too dark. As long as umpires aren't conned by the batsmen and are able to decide for themselves then its probably a much fairer system than offering the light and using light meters.
