How can umpring standards be improved?

Invader Zim wrote: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.

Um it doesn't have to pitch inside the line of off.

Invader Zim wrote: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.

Accepted ... plus hotspot to determine if the bat got in the way.

My only reservation would arise if you had someone like Warne on a dustbowl ripping it a yard.

Example .... would Hawkeye have ever given either Gatting or Strauss out - both balls pitching way
outside the line ...?

Um it doesn't have to pitch inside the line of off.

You know what I mean...

Surely hawkeye is still more accurate than the human eye?

Imo talk about not using the predictive aspect of hawkeye is nonsense. Isn't the whole basis of the LBW law the prediction that the ball will hit the stumps if the pad isn't in the way?

Brass Monkey wrote: It didn't work in the CC tester last year, not sure it would work elsewhere.

yeah, that's because are umps were all in collusion with one another. They were never going to over rule the onfield umpires.

I still like the appeals system. It would work better in tests rather than FPT games imo - maybe limit it to 2 appeals.

Invader Zim wrote:

Um it doesn't have to pitch inside the line of off.

You know what I mean...

yep, actually don't think it was worst idea I have ever heard. It would have stopped yesterday's nonsense.

Henry wrote:Surely hawkeye is still more accurate than the human eye?

Bollocks it is.
It is a simulation - it works on the laws of possible probability - not fact.
Who builds the external factors into the programme ?
Who key's in the variances of the pitch?
Wind velocity, direction ...
The TV technician?

Sorry Trev ... I reckon Nintendo or Playstation could match Hawkeye for sensationalism.

I think Hawkeye follows the actual path of the ball till it hits the batsman, doesn't it? If so, unless there's a gale, the external factors shouldn't be too much problem.

It is a simulation - it works on the laws of possible probability - not fact.

Like I said- The whole LBW law is based on probability, and not fact. Hawkeye has been shown to be about 96% accurate. That's certainly better than Russel Tiffin, at least.

I'm very uncomfortable about the use of things such as Hawkeye for LBW decisions. You essentially are then taking away one of the vagaries of cricket that almost make it an unknown.

I'd have no issue with the slow mo of a front on image, as to where the ball pitched and where it hit, as that is what the ump sees and therefore slowing it down can only help.

Hawkeye is a little bit to far for me IMO.

Henry wrote:

It is a simulation - it works on the laws of possible probability - not fact.

Like I said- The whole LBW law is based on probability, and not fact. Hawkeye has been shown to be about 96% accurate. That's certainly better than Russel Tiffin, at least.

As I said earlier - fire the pr!ck if he's deemed incompetant by the captains in their reports.

Hawkeye is a very contentious issue however.
It lacks the intimate human presence at the scene and the distinction and interpretation
that can be calculated from that position and circumstance by someone with the experience to call it.
Can such a call be guaranteed from perriferals added to a computer that is fed by a camera lens?

Sack Tiffin. That's a major improvement to begin with.

Then stop the endless analysis and whinging. Learn to accept the umpire's decision, shit though it may be.

*sigh*
In the long run it comes down to recruitment, training and support. It's a hard job with heaps of pressure, no wonder there are few takers. So the ICC and the national bodies have to find ways of making it more attractive to younger people, train those people thoroughly, and reduce the stress and strain so that they stay in the job as long as they're competent.
More umpires per Test? Cycle the four at each Test through each different position (on-field, TV, reserve) during the game? Limited technological assistance (the where did it pitch/hit replay for LBWs)?

And stop whinging.

Electro-shocks for every wrong decision.

Nath wrote:Electro-shocks for every wrong decision.

Like that guy in Ghostbusters?

Invader Zim wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Umpring standards do seem to be low.

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

Glad someone's with me. Nothing lower than umpring.

freddled gruntbuggly wrote:Then stop the endless analysis and whinging. Learn to accept the umpire's decision, shit though it may be.

And stop whinging.

Even while fast forwarding through today's play, every time I played at normal speed, guess what the topic of discussion was - the day's poor umpiring. That farkin Tony Greig does it all summer. Are the Directors instructed to pile up as much controversy as they can? Jebus, it was tedious. And it just makes the poor Windian commentators look like sooks (and I don't think they are). Poor old Tony Cozier almost seemed in tears at one point!!

Tony Greig is a complete qunt. He knows fark all about the game, so he stirs the pot. He barely knows the batsman's name half the time. whn he's not making politically insensitive (ie racist) remarks about weddings in neighbouring parkland, he's picking holes in the player he deems most vulnerable, or in the umpires, or (failing that) the ever-available and amiable Bill Lawry. Did I mention that he's a complete qunt?

lardbucket wrote:Tony Greig is a complete qunt. He knows fark all about the game, so he stirs the pot. He barely knows the batsman's name half the time. whn he's not making politically insensitive (ie racist) remarks about weddings in neighbouring parkland, he's picking holes in the player he deems most vulnerable, or in the umpires, or (failing that) the ever-available and amiable Bill Lawry. Did I mention that he's a complete qunt?

Fark . . . sounds like Danny and Nigel . . .

Tony Greig is a complete qunt.

They happen to be very useful.
Grig isn't.

lardbucket wrote:Tony Greig is a complete qunt. He knows fark all about the game, so he stirs the pot. He barely knows the batsman's name half the time. whn he's not making politically insensitive (ie racist) remarks about weddings in neighbouring parkland, he's picking holes in the player he deems most vulnerable, or in the umpires, or (failing that) the ever-available and amiable Bill Lawry. Did I mention that he's a complete qunt?

Actually I feel that Lawry is the qunt. Totally biased, especially when SA is in Aussie. Has never recovered from 1969/70.

Merlin wrote:

Tony Greig is a complete qunt.

They happen to be very useful.

HTF would you know, merls, you old wrister . . . . .

Can't agree with that. Lawry can be a bit of a buffoon at times, but I've never heard Greig say anything remotely balanced or intelligent.

taipan wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Tony Greig is a complete qunt. He knows fark all about the game, so he stirs the pot. He barely knows the batsman's name half the time. whn he's not making politically insensitive (ie racist) remarks about weddings in neighbouring parkland, he's picking holes in the player he deems most vulnerable, or in the umpires, or (failing that) the ever-available and amiable Bill Lawry. Did I mention that he's a complete qunt?

Actually I feel that Lawry is the qunt. Totally biased, especially when SA is in Aussie. Has never recovered from 1969/70.

Lawry and Ian Chappell both hate South Africa.

Some of the best commentary in the last 10 years was Lawry and Procter going toe to toe, sledge for sledge in the 1999 world cup semi final.

Duplicate post