Loneliness of the umpire

by Shoeshine Sun 24 Jan 2010, 03:37

Good article:

Linky

by Zat Sun 24 Jan 2010, 03:42

Hair claims that some members of the 12-strong ICC elite panel are too self-centred, offering little support for their colleagues. He will not name them but says both are from the southern hemisphere and one is Australian.

Interesting.

by Shoeshine Sun 24 Jan 2010, 03:43

Zat wrote:
Hair claims that some members of the 12-strong ICC elite panel are too self-centred, offering little support for their colleagues. He will not name them but says both are from the southern hemisphere and one is Australian.

Interesting.

Can only be Taufel or Harper?

by Zat Sun 24 Jan 2010, 03:45

And what does Peter Willey get up to at home?

Willey again: "I got out at the right time ... Having umpired for about 15 years, I know you can't do it every day with a television stuck up your backside."

So you can do it every second day with aTV up your arse? Or once a week? Peter, you're being a bit cryptic.

by Zat Sun 24 Jan 2010, 03:49

Shoeshine wrote:
Zat wrote:
Hair claims that some members of the 12-strong ICC elite panel are too self-centred, offering little support for their colleagues. He will not name them but says both are from the southern hemisphere and one is Australian.

Interesting.

Can only be Taufel or Harper?

My guess would be Harper. Taufel's a good ump, he'd want to have other good umps with him. Harper is shit.

by buckSH Sun 24 Jan 2010, 04:17

I think what the message they are trying to spin is that they need higher salaries for the tougher new conditions viz referrals via hawk eye, ultra slow-mo and hot spot up their backsides.

is more taxing for them and they are constantly in question over their credibility. Unionising is the solution Hair seems to suggest.

by tac Sun 24 Jan 2010, 04:44

Zat wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:
Zat wrote:
Hair claims that some members of the 12-strong ICC elite panel are too self-centred, offering little support for their colleagues. He will not name them but says both are from the southern hemisphere and one is Australian.

Interesting.

Can only be Taufel or Harper?
My guess would be Harper. Taufel's a good ump, he'd want to have other good umps with him. Harper is shit.

Nah, I'd say it's Taufel . . he seems a bit of a supercillious dick . . ..

by skully Sun 24 Jan 2010, 05:13

Indeed a good article.

Tough job. When you do it well, nobody notices you. When you do it badly, people want to linch you. And while you are away from family and friends for support.

I trust they are well rewarded for such trials.

by Zat Sun 24 Jan 2010, 06:18

65 000 quid according to the article. Which doesn't quite buy as many Aussie dollars as it used to.

by Bradman Sun 24 Jan 2010, 06:46

Zat wrote:65 000 quid according to the article. Which doesn't quite buy as many Aussie dollars as it used to.

That must be a base. Else where did Hair's demand for two years compensation at half amil US come from?

by skully Sun 24 Jan 2010, 07:04

Aye, 65K quid is rubbish pay for that the demands placed on them.

by Zat Sun 24 Jan 2010, 09:36

Bradman wrote:
Zat wrote:65 000 quid according to the article. Which doesn't quite buy as many Aussie dollars as it used to.

That must be a base. Else where did Hair's demand for two years compensation at half amil US come from?

Dunno. That's what it says in the article.

by skully Sun 24 Jan 2010, 09:39

Oh, so the point is to actually read the article and not simply glean the gist from the follow-up posts? Note to self - must open linky. Cool

by Merlin Sun 24 Jan 2010, 10:25

Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"It's impossible because life's changed but I'd just like to get back to how it was donkey's years ago: umpires make decisions, make mistakes, and it's accepted. Having umpired for about 15 years, I know you can't do it every day with a television stuck up your backside."

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

by skully Sun 24 Jan 2010, 10:47

Sage man, that Peter Willey.

by Gary 111 Sun 24 Jan 2010, 12:11

Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

by embee Sun 24 Jan 2010, 13:13

Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

Gaz

Facts are useless when arguing with Merlo

by Shoeshine Sun 24 Jan 2010, 13:22

Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

That's not how Hawkeye works. Even for the bit that has actually happened, Hawkeye does not show reality, it shows the statistically most likely thing that has happened.

by Gary 111 Sun 24 Jan 2010, 13:35

Shoeshine wrote:
Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

That's not how Hawkeye works. Even for the bit that has actually happened, Hawkeye does not show reality, it shows the statistically most likely thing that has happened.

The cameras track the path of the ball. That's enough reality for me.

If they just showed the statistically most likely thing to happen how can you explain the fact when Ashley Giles managed to turn a ball of the straight Hawkeye managed to pick it up?

by Shoeshine Sun 24 Jan 2010, 13:38

Gary 111 wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:
Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

That's not how Hawkeye works. Even for the bit that has actually happened, Hawkeye does not show reality, it shows the statistically most likely thing that has happened.

The cameras track the path of the ball. That's enough reality for me.

If they just showed the statistically most likely thing to happen how can you explain the fact when Ashley Giles managed to turn a ball of the straight Hawkeye managed to pick it up?

If you're just going to blindly believe that Hawkeye shows reality, then there's nothing more to say. It doesn't.

by doremi Sun 24 Jan 2010, 16:46

Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

Exactly. The state of the pitch is irrelevant.

I don't really get the 'statistically most probable thing'. For the bit that actually happens, I think cameras spread across the ground track the actual path of the ball.

by Shoeshine Sun 24 Jan 2010, 16:56

doremi wrote:
Gary 111 wrote:
Merlin wrote:Two very salient points from an excellent article.... both from Peter Willey.

"Why don't we just let the experts – the Bothams, Gowers and people – make the decision. We don't need an umpire.
Every decision is referred. Television wants it. For the man sitting in front of it, it's more exciting." Willey questions the value of Hawk-Eye, the system which is employed to determine the line of a delivery. "After 40-odd years in the game, and having talked to other people, I think the projected bounce is ridiculous. If you get a wicket with uneven bounce, one ball goes over the stumps, one goes two inches above the base of the stumps: how does Hawk-Eye know?"[/i][/b]

Always said that meself ... HTF does a machine know the texture and bounce of the wicket - specifically on the exact spot the ball hits the deck - to gauge whether the ball goes on to hit the stumps..... It's absolute bollocks depending on a machine's guesswork!

Because the cameras track the path of the ball after it has bounced. Once it has hit the pitch and you know the speed and direction it is travelling in I would have thought it is easy to predict.

The cameras don't just follow the ball to the point of release from the bowlers habd then hope for the best, they are tracking the ball all the way up to the point of impact against the batsman.

Only case this wouldn't be true is if it hits the batsman on the full - but then a yorker is hardly likely to bounce over the stumps. Even if it was a spinning delivery that struck on the full - the rule is that the umpire assumes that the ball won't spin so you don't need to calculate the spin.

Exactly. The state of the pitch is irrelevant.

I don't really get the 'statistically most probable thing'. For the bit that actually happens, I think cameras spread across the ground track the actual path of the ball.

No. That's not how it works.

by embee Mon 25 Jan 2010, 00:41

tac wrote:
Zat wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:
Zat wrote:
Hair claims that some members of the 12-strong ICC elite panel are too self-centred, offering little support for their colleagues. He will not name them but says both are from the southern hemisphere and one is Australian.

Interesting.

Can only be Taufel or Harper?
My guess would be Harper. Taufel's a good ump, he'd want to have other good umps with him. Harper is shit.

Nah, I'd say it's Taufel . . he seems a bit of a supercillious dick . . ..

I dont think it's Taufel ...the National Panel umpires are forever talking about him and what he says and does ...so did the guy from CA who is the umpires coach ...and whenever we get some training literature it usually has something "written by" Hair or Taufel ...cant remember seeing Harper's name on anything

by Shoeshine Mon 25 Jan 2010, 00:45

Yes, but none of us know him, do we? For all we know he might be a prima-donna who loves the value of his publicity in being known as (along with Aleem Dar) the best umpire in the world and doesn't give a stuff about his colleagues. He wouldn't be the first person outstanding at his job to be like that. Everything you read about Harper is that although he's a less than great umpire, he's meant to be a really lovely bloke.

by LeFromage Mon 25 Jan 2010, 00:46

The other's Rudi, surely?

by Sponsored content

Loneliness of the umpire

Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire

Re: Loneliness of the umpire