01 Jan 08
Originally posted by invigorateCatches = "No way"? For most catches, sure, I agree because they speak for themselves but sometimes the fielder can take a very low catch or a "catch" on the half-volley. In this case, the fielder may not know that the ball bounced first - the fielder believes that he did take it where a replay may prove otherwise.
No balls fine, but catches no way. Primarily because different TV angles show different results. The fielder knows whether he has caught it. The umpire can then judge not only whether he agrees with the catch, but also the fielders reaction to it.
From another angle, there may be some doubt whether the batsman actually hit the ball - the ball may have come off the pad. This shows that there is a good case for a video replay.
But overall, the umpires usually get it right and it's better to keep the human element in the game - as it's been discussed earlier.
01 Jan 08
Originally posted by InlandRevenueUKExactly! You can't whinge when a tough decision goes against you but happily claim the close decisions when they're in your favour. You've just gotta take the good with the bad.
As for Kallis there are times, I am sure, when he has been "out" but hasn't been given. I am also sure he has claimed LBWs when the batsmen has hit it, or caimed a caught behind when the ball has missed the bat.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by InlandRevenueUKBull! Why would the game become dull if we removed these stupid and unnecessary umpiring mistakes from the game?
The fact remains that upires do make mistakes (Just as players do) and whilst it is frustrating, it would become dull if we removed the human error from the game.
Why would anyone cling to an archaic system if we can move the game forward with the technology we have available?
The technology is being used now, but only by commentators and all it's doing now is highlighting more umpiring mistakes. Rather use it to help umpires make the right decision on the spot.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by invigorateI'm not saying every decision should be scrutinized. All I want is to give the batsman the option of appealing a decision when he KNOWS he is not out.
No balls fine, but catches no way. Primarily because different TV angles show different results. The fielder knows whether he has caught it. The umpire can then judge not only whether he agrees with the catch, but also the fielders reaction to it.
Surely everyone here can't believe that suddenly all batsmen will start abusing such a system? Jeez, there is usually only one or two controversial decisions per match - this is all I would like to stamp out...
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by AussieGWRONG!
Exactly! You can't whinge when a tough decision goes against you but happily claim the close decisions when they're in your favour. You've just gotta take the good with the bad.
We have the technology now - let's use to get the correct decision every time. No more 'good with the bad' crap.
Right decision, every time.
02 Jan 08
Originally posted by Crowleyi cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!
WRONG!
We have the technology now - let's use to get the correct decision every time. No more 'good with the bad' crap.
Right decision, every time.
03 Jan 08
Originally posted by spurs73Absolutely!
i cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!
Often decisions are inconclusive and even with technology, there will still be some doubt. Even some proven use of technology (ie. for run outs and stumpings) create some doubt - for example, the critical moment(when the stumps are broken) could be inbetween a frame - so the benefit goes with the batsman - even if it looks like he could be out.
And how long do we have to wait while everyone sits aorund waiting for the umpires to get the right decision? The over rates are slow already without having to sit around for 5 minutes for the umpires to make their decision!
03 Jan 08
You guys can't seem to grasp this, can you?
There may be one or two appeals by batsmen from the ENTIRE team per GAME. This might 'waste' 5 minutes time, but we will ultimately get bad decision out of the game.
If, when using all the technology including ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones, there is no conclusive proof, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt and the game continues.
*pats self on back*
03 Jan 08
Originally posted by spurs73I know there will be times when we won't be able to be 100% sure and these decisions should always (still) give batsmen the benefit of the doubt...
i cant beleive that you think by using tecnology you are allways going to get the 'RIGHT DECISION' that is just rubbish!
BUT
we will remove 100% of blatant bad decisions from the game.
Case closed.
03 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Crowleycrowley.. there is one major thing you have missed. When you say we should use all this technology of 'ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones..' do you want all this to be used in all cricket or just TEST MATCHES?
You guys can't seem to grasp this, can you?
There may be one or two appeals by batsmen from the ENTIRE team per GAME. This might 'waste' 5 minutes time, but we will ultimately get bad decision out of the game.
If, when using all the technology including ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones, there is no conclusive proof, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt and the game continues.
*pats self on back*
The problem is you cant have one RULE for test cricket and another for county cricket or even club cricket?
Can you see people waiting around for 10, 15 minutes while watching a county game waiting for the 'right' result.
Also does the sport have enough money to have all this equipment in all country grounds?
what about club cricket, they are not going to have this technology. You seems to be just concentrating on test and ODI cricket, but we need to bring this rule for all cricket not for certain matches or special matches, that wouldmake the whole rule of cricket a joke
04 Jan 08
Originally posted by spurs73Don't be stupid. Obviously most clubs and some county or provincial grounds won't have this type of technology.
crowley.. there is one major thing you have missed. When you say we should use all this technology of 'ultra slow motion high-resolution cameras and sensitive microphones..' do you want all this to be used in all cricket or just TEST MATCHES?
The problem is you cant have one RULE for test cricket and another for county cricket or even club cricket?
Can ...[text shortened]... not for certain matches or special matches, that wouldmake the whole rule of cricket a joke
I couldn't care less about what happens at club or county level.
I'm talking about the games that matter. ODIs and Tests.
All grounds where international matches are played has the technological infrastructure in place, so let's use it!
05 Jan 08
Originally posted by Crowleyno sorry you cant have that. the rules of cricket should be used in all matches not just test and ODI.. that is STUPID
Don't be stupid. Obviously most clubs and some county or provincial grounds won't have this type of technology.
I couldn't care less about what happens at club or county level.
I'm talking about the games that matter. ODIs and Tests.
All grounds where international matches are played has the technological infrastructure in place, so let's use it!
05 Jan 08
Originally posted by spurs73There aren't third umpire decisions at many club and school games - what do you make of that then, Mr. Smartypants?
no sorry you cant have that. the rules of cricket should be used in all matches not just test and ODI.. that is STUPID
Should we just scrap run-out decisions by the 3rd umpire because schools can't afford slow-motion cameras?
Don't be stupid.
At test and ODI level there is ALWAYS basically the same level of infrastructure, so let's use it.
These guys are professionals, why would we let bad decisions from umpires impact their jobs?