Koertzen's century nothing to celebrate!

skully wrote:There's always plenty around after a loss.

It will force farkin Nielsen, Drunky and the NSP to have a good hard look at themselves.

Dolts.

And then you wake up from the dream to reality.

taipan wrote:Absolute and utter BS. If anything it should make them concentrate harder for fear of being shown up in the replays

The point being made was that umpires used to have to judge run outs and stumpings themselves. Now they go to the man in the sky even when the guy is clearly out of his ground. As for being shown up, decisions have been analysed forensically since the days of WSC.

taipan wrote:

Hawkeye?

Would you really ( as a cricket lover) want to see decisions made by computer graphics determining a ball clipping - by a few milimeters - the top of the off or leg bail, and then finger the batsman out??

I wouldn't.

BTW, in defence of hawkeye, they re-calibrate the computer/camera in between every session, whilst the wicket's being swept and the crease lines repainted.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:Absolute and utter BS. If anything it should make them concentrate harder for fear of being shown up in the replays

The point being made was that umpires used to have to judge run outs and stumpings themselves. Now they go to the man in the sky even when the guy is clearly out of his ground. As for being shown up, decisions have been analysed forensically since the days of WSC.

Ah yes, WSC. I clearly remember all the replays including ultra slomo, snicker, hawkeye and hot spot

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Hawkeye?

Would you really ( as a cricket lover) want to see decisions made by computer graphics determining a ball clipping - by a few milimeters - the top of the off or leg bail, and then finger the batsman out??

I wouldn't.

BTW, in defence of hawkeye, they re-calibrate the computer/camera in between every session, whilst the wicket's being swept and the crease lines repainted.

If hawkeye was to be used in umpiring decisions, I'm sure that a set "margin of error" would need to be established & incorporated in the computer modelling.

There is no way an LBW would ever be given to a ball just clipping the outer edge of a stump.

Merlin wrote:

Would you really ( as a cricket lover) want to see decisions made by computer graphics determining a ball clipping - by a few milimeters - the top of the off or leg bail, and then finger the batsman out??

I wouldn't.

BTW, in defence of hawkeye, they re-calibrate the computer/camera in between every session, whilst the wicket's being swept and the crease lines repainted.

If they were to use Hawkeye's predictive function to determine LBW appeals you would have to include a couple of inches grace for the batsman. While it's not in the rules we have a very strong convention (for good reason) that the batsman is given the benefit of the doubt. If Hawkeye shows that it is clipping leg stump then I can consider that doubtful.

I'd prefer we don't go down that route at the top level (using Hawkeye), but if we do then I hope the administrators implement it properly.

EDIT: I see Wally has already beaten me to it, and used much better language doing so. "Margin of error" would have to be included in any Hawkeye decision making process.

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Hawkeye?

Would you really ( as a cricket lover) want to see decisions made by computer graphics determining a ball clipping - by a few milimeters - the top of the off or leg bail, and then finger the batsman out??

I wouldn't.

BTW, in defence of hawkeye, they re-calibrate the computer/camera in between every session, whilst the wicket's being swept and the crease lines repainted.

The point that people often forget is that the lbw law specifically states that you can only be lbw if the ball "would have hit the wicket". Not probably, not maybe clipping leg, but would have hit the wicket. Which is why you can't use Hawkeye.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:Absolute and utter BS. If anything it should make them concentrate harder for fear of being shown up in the replays

The point being made was that umpires used to have to judge run outs and stumpings themselves. Now they go to the man in the sky even when the guy is clearly out of his ground. As for being shown up, decisions have been analysed forensically since the days of WSC.

Ah yes, WSC. I clearly remember all the replays including ultra slomo, snicker, hawkeye and hot spot

The technology obviously wasn't as advanced but it was the genesis of a more forensic examination of decisions. If you look at footage earlier than that, they didn't even have a camera at both ends and rarely replayed decisions. The umpires certainly started being placed under much greater scrutiny. Even without the latest equipment, errors could still be detected. There was one series which exposed a certain umpire who admitted his eyes had gone and he duly retired after a succession of errors which cast him in a poor light. Tom Brooks was his name.

It's interesting that when we discuss "using technology" we only discuss the pieces of technology the TV producers have already exposed us to.

We need to be smarter than the TV companies and use some technology that would help the decision making process.

My suggestion:



These babies retail for about a thousand dollars. When you wear them like this...



They produce an image which makes you feel as though you are watching a 70-inch screen 13 feet away.

They weigh about seven ounces or 200 grams. Light enough for an umpire to keep in his coat and not worry about it.

Why would they be useful?

Because the umpire could pull it out of his pocket to review the action himself. The umpire would then have the advantage of getting to see the play live and review it again on tape. He gets the benefit of seeing the action both ways.

At the moment, when something gets referred to the third umpire he only gets to see what is on tape. Meanwhile the on-field umpire doesn't get to see anything new. When something like the Bopara non-dismissal rolls round they have to talk to each other "What did you see? What did I see? It's not clear. How certain are you? etc." This cuts out the middle man.

American Football was the first major sport to start experimenting with using replays to make decisions. It gets things right by letting the main referee do the reviewing. In the NFL he looks at the replay himself on one of the TVs set up behind the goals or on the sideline. Obviously we can't have umpires walking off to the boundary in cricket, but we can give them one of these nifty headsets.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:Absolute and utter BS. If anything it should make them concentrate harder for fear of being shown up in the replays

The point being made was that umpires used to have to judge run outs and stumpings themselves. Now they go to the man in the sky even when the guy is clearly out of his ground. As for being shown up, decisions have been analysed forensically since the days of WSC.

Ah yes, WSC. I clearly remember all the replays including ultra slomo, snicker, hawkeye and hot spot

The technology obviously wasn't as advanced but it was the genesis of a more forensic examination of decisions. If you look at footage earlier than that, they didn't even have a camera at both ends and rarely replayed decisions. The umpires certainly started being placed under much greater scrutiny. Even without the latest equipment, errors could still be detected. There was one series which exposed a certain umpire who admitted his eyes had gone and he duly retired after a succession of errors which cast him in a poor light. Tom Brooks was his name.

I said that hours ago.

It was still lightyears away from today's technology.

West Indian batsman hit on the pads + Rudi Koetzen umpiring = Out if it was close or not.

I will never forgive him for his display during our 2005 tour of Australia, where he gave Chanderpaul and Lara out incorrectly 5 times in a 3 match test series. I have never seen such a one sided display as that. Even the WICB was moved to issue an official complaint.

Fugg Rudi and his 100 tests...........

WIFAN wrote:West Indian batsman hit on the pads + Rudi Koetzen umpiring = Out if it was close or not.

I will never forgive him for his display during our 2005 tour of Australia, where he gave Chanderpaul and Lara out incorrectly 5 times in a 3 match test series. I have never seen such a one sided display as that. Even the WICB was moved to issue an official complaint.

Fugg Rudi and his 100 tests...........

Well said !!!

The Koertzen bashing by Red and Chloe Saltau in the Age article shows a complete ignorance of umpiring procedures or a willingness to distort facts to suit their agenda or most likely , both.

Rudi referred two appeals and didn't refer another ...any apparent mistakes made weren't actually his ....

He referred the Ponting dismissal to see if the ball had carried to Strauss as both he and Doctrove were unsure if the ball had carried . Llong made the mistake of not rejecting the appeal on the grounds of Ponting not hitting the ball ...(Rudi may have fired him LBW with that ruling anyway) ...but Rudi used the technology call correctly

He referred the Bopara "catch" because both he and Doctrove were unsure if the ball had carried ...the tv replay was inconclusive and so the third umpire made the "correct" decision to rule "no catch" ...again Rudi used the technology call correctly

The Hughes catch wasn't referred because Doctrove said the ball had carried to Strauss ...on that evidence Rudi is obliged to give the batsman out rather than refer the decision ...so again he has used the technology as he should

Dar and Taufel are probably the two best umpires at the moment but even they aren't mistake free

Llong made the mistake of not rejecting the appeal on the grounds of Ponting not hitting the ball ...(Rudi may have fired him LBW with that ruling anyway)

This was discussed by the Sky "pundits" at great length and it appears that the 3rd umpire can only rule on what he has been asked by the on-field official.

Q : "Did the ball carry for a clean catch?" - A : "Yes it did" ... Verdict : Out.

It appears that Llong could not, under the rules, tell Rudi that the ball did not hit the bat, therefore no catch - nor that the ball hit the pad in front and so LBW. He merely has to answer the question put to him.

Clearly Rudi dismissed the lbw appeal by Anderson (note the bowlers dismay) though Hawkeye had it hitting middle and off halfway up - going instead for the catch to slip ... (at which point Jimmy rejoiced) !

Cant be arsed looking up what the 3rd ump can and cannot rule on ...point is that Rudi followed the correct procedure ...and he may have rejected the LBW on the grounds that he thought Ponting hit the ball not that it was missing the stumps

Which then leads on to how fascinating any review system would have made the whole thing. Presumably it would have been given out caught, at which point Ponting would have appealed on the grounds that he hadn't hit it.

So then would it have been given not out because he didn't, leading to an England referral for the lbw, or would the third umpire have looked at the lbw within Cap'n Ricky's appeal?

My God the Aussies can whinge with the best of them.

We've a bit to go before we get to your level , Trev ...but we are trying

Shoeshine wrote:Which then leads on to how fascinating any review system would have made the whole thing. Presumably it would have been given out caught, at which point Ponting would have appealed on the grounds that he hadn't hit it.

So then would it have been given not out because he didn't, leading to an England referral for the lbw, or would the third umpire have looked at the lbw within Cap'n Ricky's appeal?

The ICC are still working that out ...I'm sure they'll come up with the wrong answer shortly

embee wrote:Cant be arsed looking up what the 3rd ump can and cannot rule on ...point is that Rudi followed the correct procedure ...and he may have rejected the LBW on the grounds that he thought Ponting hit the ball not that it was missing the stumps

No disputing that.
And yes, it follows that as he believed it came off the bat, the lbw appeal was rejected.

The point is that the 3rd Umpire cannot "sow the seeds of doubt" in the on-field Umps mind by digressing on a direct question put to him.

Rudi lost his bottle 2 years ago. Only the ICC still think he's a top class umpire. Doctrove is pretty crap as well.

BTW MB - are the sleepless nights (if at all) now all in the past?
Or did they help out by keeping you awake through the 2nd test?

Still awake to midnight with Annaleigh ...

happily missed/ignored a lot of the 2nd Test because I refuse to watch Oz bowlers serve up crap or Oz batsmen gift their wickets to crap bowlers

embee wrote:Still awake to midnight with Annaleigh ...

happily missed/ignored a lot of the 2nd Test because I refuse to watch Oz bowlers serve up crap or Oz batsmen gift their wickets to crap bowlers

Bless her cotton pickin' socks - she already has you twisted round her little finger, mate!

So will you be repeating the dose when Bung and Gump serve up the same in Birmingham and a 'crap' Fred "Jesus slaps" the Aussie batsmens arses?!

embee wrote:Still awake to midnight with Annaleigh ...

happily missed/ignored a lot of the 2nd Test because I refuse to watch Oz bowlers serve up crap or Oz batsmen gift their wickets to crap bowlers

On that basis I'd have only seen England play about 5 tests in my whole life.