Umpires being blamed

[smssia0112]

The point about this issue is, no umpire is perfect, and no umpire can make all the right decisions. There are so many factors going into each particular decision, and you will rarely get a match with perfect umpiring.

We need to take the good with the bad and remember that every side cops it and every side gets it when it's a tough decision at times.

 

[Sureshot]

Perfect umpiring is impossible, heck even all the technology we have doesn't make perfect decisions, still some decisions can't be made positively by technology.

 

[harishankar]

Perfect umpiring is impossible, heck even all the technology we have doesn't make perfect decisions, still some decisions can't be made positively by technology.

I think the issue here is not that umpiring can ever become perfect, but can the number of bad decisions (a.k.a howlers) be reduced with the help of technology?

I think it can, particularly in the case of inside edges for LBWs and for bad pads which are obvious and missed by the umpires.

I think technology can help in the sense that it can reduce the number of bad "OUT"s rather than bad "NOT OUT"s.

Whenever there's a doubt, it should go in favour of the batsman. Nowadays a lot of umpires seem to favour the bowlers whenever a decision has to be made and there's a small doubt. Of course, the umpire can always say there was no doubt in his mind. But if replays can prove otherwise, his decision should be over-ruled...

 

[Kev]

I don't think you see all that may howlers in international cricket anyway, certainly the 2 decisions mentioned in the first post can in no way be described as howlers, regardless of if they were correct or not. Absolutely if the umpire has doubt he should rule not out, but then the other hand there are umpires that don't give anything and they are lambasted for that.

The thing with tv/hawkeye etc is that they dont give you 100% certainties, hawkeye is basically a guess as to where the ball would have gone, ok its a damn good guess but a guess none the less and tv replays are often inconclusive anyway, stumpings and run-outs often appear clear cut when you look at the replay but the problem there is the umpire probably only referred it because the technology is there, had it not been available he probably would have got the decision correct, its just safer to refer. The tight stumpings and runouts are just down to what the third umpire thinks at the end of the day. I've seen these decisions on TV (and am sure everyone else has) where you are sure that a batsman is safe only for it to be given out and vice versa.

 

[harishankar]

I don't think you see all that may howlers in international cricket anyway, certainly the 2 decisions mentioned in the first post can in no way be described as howlers, regardless of if they were correct or not. Absolutely if the umpire has doubt he should rule not out, but then the other hand there are umpires that don't give anything and they are lambasted for that.

The thing with tv/hawkeye etc is that they dont give you 100% certainties, hawkeye is basically a guess as to where the ball would have gone, ok its a damn good guess but a guess none the less and tv replays are often inconclusive anyway, stumpings and run-outs often appear clear cut when you look at the replay but the problem there is the umpire probably only referred it because the technology is there, had it not been available he probably would have got the decision correct, its just safer to refer. The tight stumpings and runouts are just down to what the third umpire thinks at the end of the day. I've seen these decisions on TV (and am sure everyone else has) where you are sure that a batsman is safe only for it to be given out and vice versa.

OK, but what about LBWs when the camera shows that the batsman has clearly edged it? A couple of decisions of recent memory seem to stick out...

Thing is, you cannot generalize that technology is either failsafe or not. It is failsafe in some cases and not failsafe in other cases like snicko and hawkeye.

So for those where there is direct camera evidence of a mistake, I suggest that umpiring decisions be reversed. Like the thin inside edges for LBWs (which are not picked up by umpires) and a clear deflection of bat-pad catches which are given not out. If there is no conclusive direct camera evidence, then don't interfere with the umpire's decision.

Should seem pretty common sense to most people i guess.

 

[Kev]

Absolutely I think its out of the question to reverse an umpires decision, having the umpire calling for assistance is another matter, I'll refer you to Law 27

9. Umpire's decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.

 

[harishankar]

Well, nothing prevents the ICC from changing their laws. It has been done before and I think it's only sensible with all those TV replays to allow for mistakes and rectify at least the most obvious ones.

It might actually take a lot of pressure off the umpires if their mistakes can actually be rectified before it's too late and then allow them to concentrate on the next delivery instead of being worried about the past decisions.

If run outs can be judged by the third umpire so can inside edge decisions either for or against the batsmen. Inside edges are quite obvious on slow-motion cameras.

For other decisions which utilize snicko or hawkeye, I wouldn't support technology just yet.

I think it's common sense to help umpires get as many decisions right as possible and if technology has to help sometimes, so be it.

 

[Kev]

Actually it would require the MCC to change that, they are soley responsible for the code of law.

 

[harishankar]

Actually it would require the MCC to change that, they are soley responsible for the code of law.

The MCC is still functional? I rarely hear anything about them these days

 

[Sureshot]

That's because most of them don't speak any kind of comprehensible language...

 

[irottev]

Absolutely I think its out of the question to reverse an umpires decision, having the umpire calling for assistance is another matter, I'll refer you to Law 27

Explain to me why Pietersen wandered back out. The umpire had made his decision. It was final!

Don't get me wrong, i'm happy it was corrected. But why the inconsistency? Why let some people do it and not others.

 

[iloveireland]

Hey guys, what about we not have field umpires at all!! Have a mario on the screen do all the signals. Would that make you bloody happpy. Keep it as it is. I has been okay for hundreds of years lets leave it that way.

 

[harishankar]

Hey guys, what about we not have field umpires at all!! Have a mario on the screen do all the signals. Would that make you bloody happpy. Keep it as it is. I has been okay for hundreds of years lets leave it that way.

I think that's completely besides the point. We're talking about technology assisting on-field umpires, not replace them.

Why is it that every time we talk about technology assisting the umpires, you guys go overboard in opposing it? After all, run outs have become far more accurate after the third umpire was introduced... Why shouldn't other decisions also benefit from technology?

Certainly if you want to avoid progress, let things remain the same. But keep in mind that only an evolving game survives in the long run. Even tennis has referrals to Television replays now.

 

[Kev]

Explain to me why Pietersen wandered back out. The umpire had made his decision. It was final!

Don't get me wrong, i'm happy it was corrected. But why the inconsistency? Why let some people do it and not others.

I can't explain it, and I don't condone it either, he should have gone straight to the dressing room, no fuss. As should have Rob Key in the T20 finals, although he obviously didn't have the pulling power of Pietersen and was rightly fined and given a points penalty.

 

[harishankar]

I can't explain it, and I don't condone it either, he should have gone straight to the dressing room, no fuss. As should have Rob Key in the T20 finals, although he obviously didn't have the pulling power of Pietersen and was rightly fined and given a points penalty.

Is your argument that sticking to protocol more important than getting the right decisions in?