Cricket Question
Discussion
Just watching a bit of the England Test against West Indies.
The umpire gave a WI player out LBW, the WI team then challenged "referred" the decision to the third umpire - but it turns out the third umpire is not allowed to use any technology to decide where the ball went.
This seems a little strange, why bring in a rule like referrals but then not make the best use of technology - this seems very strange?
The umpire gave a WI player out LBW, the WI team then challenged "referred" the decision to the third umpire - but it turns out the third umpire is not allowed to use any technology to decide where the ball went.
This seems a little strange, why bring in a rule like referrals but then not make the best use of technology - this seems very strange?
x5x3 said:
but how does that add to the accuracy of the decision?
they allow the technology in tennis on a challenge - why not cricket?
The difference with tennis is that the ball either touched the line or it didn't. With cricket you're making an assumption as to what the ball would do, not what it has done. they allow the technology in tennis on a challenge - why not cricket?
It is a little odd in some respects. However, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
People will also argue against the technology too... must admit I prefer keeping it simple. Sometimes you'll get the benefit of the doubt, sometimes you'll get a harsh decision that as a batsman you *know* isn't out.
Then again, as a former fast-medium bowler - sometimes you can influence a decision.
HOWZAT?!?!
People will also argue against the technology too... must admit I prefer keeping it simple. Sometimes you'll get the benefit of the doubt, sometimes you'll get a harsh decision that as a batsman you *know* isn't out.
Then again, as a former fast-medium bowler - sometimes you can influence a decision.
HOWZAT?!?!
Edited by Podie on Thursday 5th February 19:56
Podie said:
It is a little odd in some respects.
However, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
I agree with you - unless it is 100% certain why change things, plus they are saying on sky that the decision was wrong there has to be definate evidence the decision is wrong for the 3rd umpire to overruleHowever, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
x5x3 said:
Podie said:
It is a little odd in some respects.
However, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
I agree with you - unless it is 100% certain why change things, plus they are saying on sky that the decision was wrong there has to be definate evidence the decision is wrong for the 3rd umpire to overruleHowever, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
except it is humiliating the poor umpire on the field.
My concern is that the umpires will be too scared to go on the field soon.
It is one thing being proven wrong after the match, but to be humiliated twice in an hour or so - that has to affect your decisions for the rest of the game?
My concern is that the umpires will be too scared to go on the field soon.
It is one thing being proven wrong after the match, but to be humiliated twice in an hour or so - that has to affect your decisions for the rest of the game?
I agree - it does undermine the umpires in the field, and for that reason alone I'm not a fan.
I've been on the end of some poor decisions (IMO) in the past, but you always give the man at the stumps the respect he deserves, and walk when told.
I no longer play at a competitive level unfortunately.
I've been on the end of some poor decisions (IMO) in the past, but you always give the man at the stumps the respect he deserves, and walk when told.
I no longer play at a competitive level unfortunately.
x5x3 said:
Podie said:
x5x3 said:
and while I am asking daft questions - why do they play on mud these days - what is wrong with grass?
Wickets vary, I think is the polite way of putting it.
perhaps they should stick to the beach cricket...
The game is changing, and I'm not convinced it's for the better TBH.
Podie said:
It is a little odd in some respects. However, the umpire's judgement has been good enough in the past - so why change it?
People will also argue against the technology too... must admit I prefer keeping it simple. Sometimes you'll get the benefit of the doubt, sometimes you'll get a harsh decision that as a batsman you *know* isn't out.
Then again, as a former fast-medium bowler - sometimes you can influence a decision.
HOWZAT?!?!
I don't like it either we are human beings play a game of feet and inches not thousandths of an inch, give it back completely to the men in the middle.People will also argue against the technology too... must admit I prefer keeping it simple. Sometimes you'll get the benefit of the doubt, sometimes you'll get a harsh decision that as a batsman you *know* isn't out.
Then again, as a former fast-medium bowler - sometimes you can influence a decision.
HOWZAT?!?!
Edited by Podie on Thursday 5th February 19:56
Having said that, Hayden might still be playing but for some absolute howlers he suffered at the hands of the men in the middle.
As a former fast bowler ( now merely farce ) I agree that there is nothing like a good shout to give the ump something to think about
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff