How can umpring standards be improved?

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:

embee wrote:Put Trev on the elite panel ...being so young and with a knowledge of everything he must be the best umpire in the world...

I reckon it'd have to be pretty difficult to umpire any sort of sport with your head up your own arse.

Can I vote for Laura?

taips, you could probably start a poll asking which forumer would be least suited to umpiring due to head-up-their-own-arseishness. There's plenty of them around.

So your vote goes to?

Would need to know the full field. Post the poll, I dare you.

Zat wrote:Would need to know the full field. Post the poll, I dare you.

Let me see if i can get it right.

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:Would need to know the full field. Post the poll, I dare you.

Let me see if i can get it right.

Well, I've given you the question. All you have to do is choose the possible options...

will try again in a bit

Henry wrote:Shoot the lot of 'em.

And Ban Australia. Problem solved.

Umpring standards do seem to be low.

lardbucket wrote:Umpring standards do seem to be low.

No, its the increasing use of technology

It is that the standards are low. The new technology is excellent - but still the analysis used to be good enough to incline a bad decision or otherwise. I do remember the old line at the end of a test 'The umpires have been impeccable all match' or something to similar extents.

Nowadays, there's a murky cloud after/during every Test. There used to be umpires you could rely on, but even seeing Taufel in this series I'm not sure. He's given ones no-one would've dreamt of and vice versa. Dread. He's the best as well.

lardbucket wrote:Umpring standards do seem to be low.

I dunno, I've seen some smashing umpring round these parts.

lardbucket wrote:Umpring standards do seem to be low.

Seem to be, because every single decision is under 5 different camera angles, 4 pieces of technology and some sooky batsman, who even though he nicked it the ball before and didn't walk, its horrified that someone could make a mistake.

Point is, just looking at Haddin's dismissal last night. To the naked eye, looked like it careering into leg pole for me on instinct, yet hawkeye showed it just missing.

There are some shockers, but I would say the majority of the time the umpires get them pretty right to the naked eye.

I think you'll also find that the umps are having to make more decisions these days due to over appealling. If you get 1 in 50 wrong for instance, then back when cricketers weren't such cheating feckers and an ump had to deal with 50 appeals in a test, then he might get one wrong. Nowadays, any team will appeal for the most obviosuly not out decision, which means an ump might have to give say 100-150 out, which means of course the number of bad ones increased.

Basically, if players weren't always trying to sneak a borderline decision that possibly wouldn't even have warrantd an appeal, they wouldn't get so many shockers.

Well said - if you ever watch some 80's cricket there are a ton of shockers that it seems the commentators barely even acknowledge.

Dickie Bird would probably be regarded as a poor upmire in todays 'under the microscope' game.

All very interesting, but what has it to do with the art of umpring and how it can be improved?

To be honest, there is not much that can be done.

Players are inherently in the main going to try it on, and umpires just have to give it how the see it!

The only way you can possibly change it, is with the use of technology - but with no interference from the players IMO; OR, stop the feckers from blatantly trying to have one.

All in all, as much as I loathe the idea, it'll be some sort of technological interference no doubt!

I just see an umpiring mistake as part of the game. Bearing in mind that during a completed test match, there could be up to 39 mistakes made in total by the players, and thats just batting wise!

If you have the technology, use it. Hawkeye can be used, so can the snicko.

Hawkeye is shit.

Someone using a replay could've decided that both batsmen were hit outside off stump without using hawkeye

doremi wrote:If you have the technology, use it. Hawkeye can be used, so can the snicko.

At the OT test the commentators were saying hawkeye wasn't working correctly because of the wind. I think the hot spot technology is better than snicko

Umpiring, after a few months learning the rudimentary stuff, ought to be based on instinct, a firm belief and the balls to justify that belief..

Umpire's do not consciously cheat (bar a couple in the game's history) but they are human.

So when they make a decision based on THEIR SOUND BELIEF that it was the correct one.
The last thing that should happen is a ten minute autopsy from past cricketers with all the
TV techno to hand who seek a bit of sensationalism at times by "highlighting" what a f**king camera's lens believed was out. And that, it seems, is accepted as the gospel truth.

Umpiring IS instinctive. An LBW is pretty obvious from 22 yards away. All the crap about the ball pitching 3 millimeters outside the line etc etc because hawkeye said so is just that - crap.

How can the standards be improved?
1. leave the umpires to make decisions as they see fit.
2. analyse captain's reports on the umpires performances annually.
3. take into consideration playing conditions, pressure decisions, play-acting, over zealous
appealing and the usual bullshit that professional players get upto to get a call their way.
4. stop taking into consideration what Naz, Gower, Botham, Slater, Holding or the myopic
Hawkeye have to say - it's a distraction not the Gospel.
5. If umpires fail to achieve a certain level, either sack them or send them back to learn
the basics.

6. Players could help by not acting like prats and accepting decisions on the basis that what goes round, comes round.
It's worked well for 150 years ...
Sh!t happens - and so does luck!

Snicko and hotspot are the most scientifically rational pieces of technology used in todays game. They are fully conclusive regarding the visual and aural aspects of a dismissal. Whilst I am also impressed with Hawkeye, there's a very small percentage defecit in terms of total accuracy.... the naysayers would be constantly whinging. Superslomo is also top drawer.

Snicko or hotspot, both would do a decent enough job. Hotspot is definitely better though. Don't think too many broadcasters around the world have it yet.

Hawkeye can be used to the extent it is completely accurate. If the ball hits a place where hawkeye isn't 100% accurate, the original decision of the on-field umpires can be upheld.

I don't agree that Hawkeye can be used without contention. As has been mentioned, different weather conditions makes the calibration falter - it's an exact science that can be affected by different variables. I'm sure there'd be more than one high profile complaint within the first year.

doremi wrote:Snicko or hotspot, both would do a decent enough job. Hotspot is definitely better though. Don't think too many broadcasters around the world have it yet.

Hawkeye can be used to the extent it is completely accurate. If the ball hits a place where hawkeye isn't 100% accurate, the original decision of the on-field umpires can be upheld.

So who decides the 100 % ?!!
Hawkeye or the TV technician or the commentator ... or .....

Hawkeye has been MADE to sound infallible and trustworthy by its manufacturers through Sky TV.

A TV lens placed either at 2 feet above the ground 22 yards away or, at worst 80 yards away on the boundary, calling an
LBW decision on Tombraider like graphics without concessions made for wind, pitch, drift etc etc etc is,
frankly, a farce. It's fun I agree ... but an absolute farce when it's deemed like I said, the Gospel on lbw shouts.

I do agree though, Snicko and Hotspot are far more accurate and proven.

Seems the most contentious dismissal is LB...well how about this for an idea: the umpire can use the third to check on where the ball pitched, and where it hit. All the third needs is a front on slow mo shot. The third can inform the main umpire if the LB meets the two criteria (pitched inside the line of off, hit inside the leg) and then the dismissal can be given. Should take no more than a minute.

I'm I the only one who'd want the vagaries kept in, fines for whinging etc?

It's just that whole 'continuity' thing. Yes, I know that some decisions are referred(unseen catches, run outs etc.) but still, to 'over-egg' it could be bad. It didn't work in the CC tester last year, not sure it would work elsewhere.