Of the referral system, etc.

Indeed.

Having watched most of the Durban test on Sky I must say that the referral system is, imo, good for the game. My only gripe is that hot spot wasn't used??

Actually I thought it was a balls up and I am a supporter of technology. If you want to use it, it must be used fully with the support of hot spot and snicko.

The thing is more about who can call the review. If you're a batsman under the pump you can waste a review trying to save your career. Whilst the fielding side it's up to the skipper, Isn't it?

[This is Rachel]

taips,

If more of your compatriots bothered to attend Test Matches, then the broadcaster would be able to afford such first world technologies.

Bradman,

I would think that a batsman trying to save his career could only waste a team's reviews once, before, well, the selectors decided that they would overturn the third umpire's decision for the foreseeable future!

Eric Air Emu wrote:[This is Rachel]

taips,

If more of your compatriots bothered to attend Test Matches, then the broadcaster would be able to afford such first world technologies.

Racie that is BS and you know it. Do you think that it should be used without hotspot and snicko or that the predicted path should be used?

[This is Rachel]

taips,

I know that the host broadcaster's pictures are deemed as very poor quality by Sky and the commentators have said as much. I gather that there was a period in one of the matches on this tour when the host broadcaster was unable to provide pictures due to a power failure. That doesn't exactly scream 'white heat of technology'.

As it happens, I'm not keen on the use of any technology at all, as what we are now hearing is that it is short-changing the spectators within the ground, whereas before we heard it was short-changing the armchair viewer. We all know that this system was only introduced to shut up whinging commentators. Has it stopped them whinging? No. They are now whinging about the system! As are you!

I am vehemently against use of the predicted path, and think that as long as HawkEye is provided by a third party contractor who benefits from its success, you will never see a true picture. It is not in their interests to point out the margin of error. Where is the 'window of doubt'?

Eric Air Emu wrote:[This is Rachel]

taips,

I know that the host broadcaster's pictures are deemed as very poor quality by Sky and the commentators have said as much. I gather that there was a period in one of the matches on this tour when the host broadcaster was unable to provide pictures due to a power failure. That doesn't exactly scream 'white heat of technology'.

As it happens, I'm not keen on the use of any technology at all, as what we are now hearing is that it is short-changing the spectators within the ground, whereas before we heard it was short-changing the armchair viewer. We all know that this system was only introduced to shut up whinging commentators. Has it stopped them whinging? No. They are now whinging about the system! As are you!

I am vehemently against use of the predicted path, and think that as long as HawkEye is provided by a third party contractor who benefits from its success, you will never see a true picture. It is not in their interests to point out the margin of error. Where is the 'window of doubt'?

Rachie, a few short years ago we had some of the best cameramen around, but unfortunately the state broadcaster SABC has got into the act and because of AA the quality has gone down.

I am not whinging about the systam. As I said I am a supporter but am annoyed it is not being used to it's full potential.

Agreed on the predicted path.

Predicted path via hawkeye is better than the umpires predicted path imo & the referral system does seeme to ease the pressure on the umpires.

I would go the whole hog & let anything hitting the stumps on hawkeye to be given out.

Also the number of failed referals shloud be increased, to say 5 to allow more correct decisions.

None of the players have argued against a reffered decision, bar Broad who was being a plonker.

[This is Rachel]

smo,

What about the ball's width margin of error on all HawkEye predicted paths? And its sometimes peculiar interpretation of bounce?

I would argue that both of the referrals in the South African innings were incorrectly used to try to preserve a batsman's time at the crease, rather than to correct an umpiring travesty.

Which two?

Eric Air Emu wrote:[This is Rachel]

smo,

What about the ball's width margin of error on all HawkEye predicted paths? And its sometimes peculiar interpretation of bounce?

I would argue that both of the referrals in the South African innings were incorrectly used to try to preserve a batsman's time at the crease, rather than to correct an umpiring travesty.

If a batsman or bowler wants to waste a referral then so be it.

Eric Air Emu wrote:[This is Rachel]

taips,

If more of your compatriots bothered to attend Test Matches, then the broadcaster would be able to afford such first world technologies.

Actually the attendance was better than I thought.

At least 50 000 spectators flocked to the second Castle Test match at Sahara Stadium Kingsmead over the five days, which England won by an innings and 98 runs on Wednesday morning. Day one attracted 17 430 spectators, a record number of fans for the first day of a Boxing Day Test match in Durban.

link

[This is Rachel]

taips,

How many were South African?

Most, the barmy army were pretty thin on the ground.

Pretty sure CT will get good crowds. Jhbg could be a bit dicey

smo wrote:Predicted path via hawkeye is better than the umpires predicted path imo & the referral system does seeme to ease the pressure on the umpires.

How do you know? It's a self-justifying system; Hawkeye says it's out because Hawkeye says so, and because Hawkeye says so, it's out. The cricket ball isn't perfectly round, it takes no account of potential deviation in the air and as stated by Rach, very often its predicted path seems downright weird. Nor can it realistically account for the question of doubt which is the essence of the lbw law. I thought Boucher's first innings lbw was a scandalous decision - there was no way any on field umpire could be confident that was out, so turning down the appeal was absolutely the right decision but Hawkeye said it was hitting the stumps, so out it was.

Equally, you ARE going to get players showing dissent, because dissent is what calling for a review is. They may as well admit what it really is, which is calling the umpire a blind qunt who's got it wrong.

From what i've seen in this test match, hawk eyes predictions have been bang on compared to tv replays.

And why should the batsman be given the benifet when he has stopped the ball from hitting or almost hitting the stumps whith his pads? I've always though this to be unfair on the bowler.

Hawk eye is unbiased, consistent, honest & more acurate than human umpires imo. I have yet to see a dodgy hawk eye decision.

Really? I've seen Hawkeye showing the ball going over the top of the stumps when the off-pole was lying on the ground. That was in the 2005 Ashes - Flintoff to Katich. In any case, you're missing the point about what I'm saying - you never see a poor Hawkeye decision because it's self-justifying. Hawkeye can never suggest it's anything but completely correct.

If you want to completely change the rules of the game and give the benefit to the bowler, fine, but some of us think the laws have worked fairly well in the past.

It seems to me that Hawkeye would need to have the ball travel a certain distance after it bounces to accurately determine its trajectory. My guess would be at least a foot, so I reckon that if the ball hits the batsman's pad at least halfway up it would have travelled far enough for the system to work.
Whatever, I'm with Athers in that it kills the dramatic immediacy of taking a wicket in a crucial situation and consequently dilutes some of the joy of the game.

smo wrote:From what i've seen in this test match, hawk eyes predictions have been bang on compared to tv replays.

Really???

Shoey do you really think asking for a referral in itself is 'dissent'? I defer to your knowledge, but it seems a bit far to go.

Referral is a legitimate form of question and can be done in a civilised manner within the spirit of the game. While it does directly question an umpire's decision, shirley that in itself can't be construed as dissent. Players question umpires' decisions every game, everywhere, eg. bowler walking back to mark asking ump, I thought that was plumb, why didn't you give it? 'Blind qunt ya got it wrong', under breath.
Dissent is that idea carried a step too far.

If the likes of Broad behave like muppets, shirley it's not the technology to blame, it's the player. It's the umpire's job to control the player then.


Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Yes, I do. It's not just muttering under the breath that the ump is an idiot, it's saying to the world that the umpire is wrong. How can that be anything other than dissent - officially encouraged?

I'm not excusing Broad, anything but, what I'm saying is that you're going to get more of it - especially when a player disagrees with the referral.

footwork wrote:Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Undoubtedly. My gripe is that if you use the referral system it must be used to its fullest extent. That's what annoyed me about the Strauss LB decision.

taipan wrote:

footwork wrote:Do you think in ten/fifteen years this debate over technology will be moot, as the technology itself becomes more refined?

Undoubtedly. My gripe is that if you use the referral system it must be used to its fullest extent. That's what annoyed me about the Strauss LB decision.

A question for you, do you not think even without the technology that there was doubt there? Just as with the Boucher lbw?

double post