Offering the light?

[Kev]

I'm still unsure if removing the offer is a good or a bad thing.

Speak to most cricket fans and they'll regale you with stories of how their team batted in virtual darkness to win some important match or another. I guess this can still carry on, as the umpires would have stopped said matches if they had deemed it dangerous anyhow. What it will remove is that get out of gaol free card that teams sometimes get when they come off in what pretty much everyone else thinks is good light, I'm sure we can all think of times when teams have regretted taking the light too.

 

[usy]

I cant see the tennis ball at 5pm..

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Hehe, I have lost count of the number of tennis ball matches I've played it where it got so dark the batsmen and fielders couldn't see the ball. Made for some hilarious last few overs!

 

[SciD]

Most of times you are watching telecast on TV where the pictures enhance the current view of the conditions. Therefore you cannot say about light looking at TV pictures.

 

[angryangy]

And if you've ever been able to watch one of the few games held at Docklands in Melbourne, where the roof is usually closed before sunset, you can see the difference between sunlight and artificial light, even with the enhancement provided from tv, the rest of the ground is under a relative shadow.

I think what needs to be done is to establish in more certain terms what is bad light and what is good light. Testing must be possible to determine at what point the light is unreasonable. I guess the difficulty is that cloud cover moves and the light can ebb and flo quite quickly.

Here's a fair comparison. Lighting inside is quite good.

But broad daylight is simply so much brighter that the banks of lights appears as just pinholes.

 

[aussie1st]

Just think of the WC final to see the difference between the TV image and the actual image.

They should have some lightmeter along with the umpires eye to say whether light is taken or not. Giving it to the batsmen means they use it according to the match situation which more times than not results in less cricket time for the fans.

 

[SciD]

And if you've ever been able to watch one of the few games held at Docklands in Melbourne, where the roof is usually closed before sunset, you can see the difference between sunlight and artificial light, even with the enhancement provided from tv, the rest of the ground is under a relative shadow.

I think what needs to be done is to establish in more certain terms what is bad light and what is good light. Testing must be possible to determine at what point the light is unreasonable. I guess the difficulty is that cloud cover moves and the light can ebb and flo quite quickly.

Here's a fair comparison. Lighting inside is quite good.

But broad daylight is simply so much brighter that the banks of lights appears as just pinholes.

The lightning effect in open stadium and closed stadium have different effects. There are only 2 indoor cricket stadiums in world.

 

[Insomniac]

The lightning effect in open stadium and closed stadium have different effects. There are only 2 indoor cricket stadiums in world.

Which is the second one, other than Telestra in Melbourne?

 

[SciD]

Which is the second one, other than Telestra in Melbourne?

Millennium stadium in Cardiff.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Millennium stadium in Cardiff.

That was used as a one off for that "power cricket" thing a few years ago. I remember you got 12 runs if you hit the roof! Hardly qualifies as a cricket ground.