Should technology be used more in umpiring?
With all the howlers made by the umpires in the recent West Indies/Australia series (almost all going against the West Indies), Ricky Ponting has spoken against the use of more technology in umpiring. No surprises there. What is surprising is Shivnarine Chanderpaul agrees with him. Ponting's basic argument is this:
"I have never been a big fan of technology just for the simple fact that the technology that has been used and trialled (by the International Cricket Council) over last few years hasn't been accurate enough anyway to give you conclusive evidence on dismissal."I just don't get this logic. Noone is saying third umpires will give you 100% certainty. But what the 3rd umpire will give you is better decisions. The really shocking decisions like LBWs from a nick onto the pads, or bat pad decisions - decisions that can turn a match and even a player's career - many of those can now be set right. And the ones that you just can't tell - well, then the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Easy peasy! The only downside of increased 3rd umpire use is it will slow down the game. Frankly, I don't mind that either. One of the joys of cricket for me is listening to the ABC Grandstand radio commentary and I love listening to the commentators natter about the broader issues of the game during these stoppages. And maybe with all these breaks for 3rd umpire decisions, I might get more 5 day Tests again :-) But I welcome any other opinions - post your thoughts and comments...
| Posted by JC on Tue 29 Nov |  25 comments |
Goodaye John
From a fellow cricket tragic. Why not ask Damien Martyn whether technology should be introduced. A man whose career has been destroyed by dodgy decisions in England; he's sure to give an impartial comment!!!
Posted by Dan Darwin on 2005-11-29 04:27:01
From a fellow cricket tragic. Why not ask Damien Martyn whether technology should be introduced. A man whose career has been destroyed by dodgy decisions in England; he's sure to give an impartial comment!!!
Posted by Dan Darwin on 2005-11-29 04:27:01
Pakistan suffered similar (or may be reverse) fate at the hands of Aussie umpires. What do u say on that. Darell Hair gave Collingwood not out when he clearly edged it to keeper today.
All in all I m against technology beyond run-outs and stumpings.
Posted by Shanes on 2005-11-29 05:16:55
All in all I m against technology beyond run-outs and stumpings.
Posted by Shanes on 2005-11-29 05:16:55
How I miss the good ol' GrandStand on ABC here in India. I used to follow cricket in Australia with that and would really enjoy. The best of course was the 1-run win for Westindies.
Posted by Shanes on 2005-11-29 05:18:23
Posted by Shanes on 2005-11-29 05:18:23
Ahaaa...Grandstand on ABC. One of those things that makes you go all nostalgic. I don't know why ABC stopped beaming that to India :(
Anyway, I am all for technology for a long time now. It is always better to get your decision right rather than having a wrong decision.
Posted by Gana on 2005-11-29 05:53:41
Anyway, I am all for technology for a long time now. It is always better to get your decision right rather than having a wrong decision.
Posted by Gana on 2005-11-29 05:53:41
Why is there is no distinction being made between the facts of the incident and the decision to be made ? Technology could be provided for providing better and clearer facts, while leaving the decision-making to the umpire ?
Posted in detail here : http://theesra.blogspot.com/2005/11/technology-and-umpires.html
Posted by Theesra on 2005-11-29 07:13:00
Posted in detail here : http://theesra.blogspot.com/2005/11/technology-and-umpires.html
Posted by Theesra on 2005-11-29 07:13:00
John,
One biggest problem due to introduction of technology is,the two men in the middle have become less attentive to happenings on the field.I can give you one very good example in 99 World-cup when Renowned and revered Mr Sheperd was not a) in right position ,parallel to stumps to judge a run out b) was rather in middle and blocked Paul Reiffels throw from hitting the wicket in crucial AUS-SA match ( anyone recollects this incident) but Aussies won the match and this incident went unnoticed.
Same is true about being alert to close nicks ,bat pad decision , that alertness is missing ,its just submission to "yeah yeah there is always the third umpire" attitude. And many times the close catches and run-outs look all the more dodgy in Slo-mos :-((
Prior to the introduction of Techie Aids the Umpires were always alert and on their toes ,always went thru the rules books as there was sense of 'responsibilty' in them.agreed being human there can be a occasional lapse of judgement ,but as long as it is not intentional,both the teams should get their fair share of rights and wrongs. call me old fashioned , but Technological assistance has definitely harmed than helped the game
Rgds,
mm parab at gmail
Posted by Unsui on 2005-11-29 07:15:53
One biggest problem due to introduction of technology is,the two men in the middle have become less attentive to happenings on the field.I can give you one very good example in 99 World-cup when Renowned and revered Mr Sheperd was not a) in right position ,parallel to stumps to judge a run out b) was rather in middle and blocked Paul Reiffels throw from hitting the wicket in crucial AUS-SA match ( anyone recollects this incident) but Aussies won the match and this incident went unnoticed.
Same is true about being alert to close nicks ,bat pad decision , that alertness is missing ,its just submission to "yeah yeah there is always the third umpire" attitude. And many times the close catches and run-outs look all the more dodgy in Slo-mos :-((
Prior to the introduction of Techie Aids the Umpires were always alert and on their toes ,always went thru the rules books as there was sense of 'responsibilty' in them.agreed being human there can be a occasional lapse of judgement ,but as long as it is not intentional,both the teams should get their fair share of rights and wrongs. call me old fashioned , but Technological assistance has definitely harmed than helped the game
Rgds,
mm parab at gmail
Posted by Unsui on 2005-11-29 07:15:53
Peter Roebuck suggested that ICC can follow the American Football way, so that each captain can request 3 questionable calls to the Third Umpire. Not a big fan of that, however it would help for crucial decisions.
Posted by Ananth on 2005-11-29 07:49:46
Posted by Ananth on 2005-11-29 07:49:46
Re ABC radio, they actually have a live feed from their website so you can listen to it from anywhere in the world (that gets the web, of course). I've amended my blog post to include a link to their website (there doesn't seem to be a live feed link there right now but maybe that's just cause there's not a game on now). I'm not a big fan of Roebuck's 3 calls to the umpire idea - but just because it's so weird and contrary to the style of cricket (maybe I'm being too narrow minded but there it is).
Posted by JC on 2005-11-29 13:39:28
Posted by JC on 2005-11-29 13:39:28
Well JC, while the thought of nullifying all bad decisions is an appealing one, it rather detracts from the origins of the game for me and doesn't really address the overall problem of poor umpiring. Count me out of the 3-strike business too - you might as well revert to only classifying the traditional dismissals of clean bowled, run out or caught from the ankle up. Every modern batman would have an average of 99 then. I'd say that the ICC needs to put emphasis on employment and training of better umpires rather than buying more pc's. As Unsui points out, the current batch of tech-aided umps are considerably less intense than their predecessors. Here's my proposal: what we need is a new breed of Dickie Bird's who eat and sleep the game and who don't spend most of their time on 747's. I couldn't give a rats if all the umpires come from the home side country if they're good enough. In fact, their local knowledge could be advantageous in decisions involving bounce and carry. Let's not just try and catch ex-players, let's start a fair dinkum tradesman-like (just call me 'Mat') apprenticeship of 5 years in the art of umpiring in your own country. Remove the current technology from the arena, pay 'em well and penalise 'em for mistakes.
Posted by on 2005-11-29 15:02:16
Posted by on 2005-11-29 15:02:16
Another point to be noted that while in Modern day cricket the cricketer and the captain is aided with Battery of support staff, the captains themselves don't seem to be conversant with the Rules of the Game. Inzy incident is correct reflection. While on other hand when One 'Smart Aussie Captain' of bygone era knew his rules well enough to ask his bro to bowl underarm ;)
Posted by unsui on 2005-11-29 17:44:56
Posted by unsui on 2005-11-29 17:44:56
so do we think the umps analyse in detail the game after the event or a day's play??? If they do, it ain't working. (the above post "well, JC" etc. was mine but I forgot to fill my name box in!)
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-29 22:23:02
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-29 22:23:02
The umps do get analysed (as far as I know) which is how Simon Taufel got ranked #1 umpire - shame we never get him to do our games due to this neutral umpire thing. At least the neutral thing takes bias out of the equation - it\'s just a case of sheer incompetence. Also, thanx for forgetting to fill your name box - I\'ve tweaked the form validator so it won\'t let you do that again.
Posted by JC on 2005-11-30 00:15:06
Posted by JC on 2005-11-30 00:15:06
And so you have! Ahh, the easy life for me, cheers JC. So what became of Reiffel's foray into umpiring?
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-30 00:23:37
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-30 00:23:37
I was wondering about Reiffel. As soon as I find some latest news about it, I'll post about it. Last I heard, he was on the verge of umpiring at Test level. Bad news is Billy Bowden was his lecturer at Ump University for Signalling 101.
Posted by JC on 2005-11-30 02:02:42
Posted by JC on 2005-11-30 02:02:42
...and ET taught Billy, bet you didn't know that!
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-30 02:52:47
Posted by Virtualgaz on 2005-11-30 02:52:47
The technology should be used for edges. This current Test between Australia and India has been ruined by poor decisions.
It is ludicrous that a person watching on the other side of the world has a better idea of whether someone is out, than the person making the decision. It is truly insane.
All this talk about the 'human element'. Well, quite simply, the human eye is too unreliable to accurately see what happened in many cases. It is time to move forward and for the ICC to pull their heads out of the sand.
Posted by Ben on 2008-01-03 14:32:13
It is ludicrous that a person watching on the other side of the world has a better idea of whether someone is out, than the person making the decision. It is truly insane.
All this talk about the 'human element'. Well, quite simply, the human eye is too unreliable to accurately see what happened in many cases. It is time to move forward and for the ICC to pull their heads out of the sand.
Posted by Ben on 2008-01-03 14:32:13
Post New Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you're new, register here. Existing users, login via the right margin.
