Cricket Umpiring

[pasty]

Been banging on about this for a while now, but I'm getting really fed up with seemingly every "close" cricket decision being reviewed by umpires nowadays. Just been watching the highlights from the Eng v NZ T20 match last night, and couldn't believe the umpire called for a tv replay on the Kane Williamson run out. Shocking if he can't give that without the replay.

Absolutely superb hit by Willey as well

 

[Gwylan]

I agree. The only reason I can think it happens is to, supposedly, add to tension. As the commentators always remind us, the players know. If the players know, so does the umpire. All it does is reduce the over-rate further

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You can see their point though. It takes 30 seconds, and if they DIDN'T do it, and got one wrong, when the technology was there, they would be hammered.

Sometimes 'obvious' decisions are not what they seem. To the eye a batsman might have run his bat in comfortably, but on slow motion replay he's given out because his bat bounced up at the crucial moment. Just last week in the one Sayers thee was what looked a clear England run out, overturned because on replay, the keeper had dislodged the bails before the ball arrived.

 

[Bladders]

Batsmen know it too so will be halfway back to the hutch as they have a look at the replay............which will be shown anyway for the benefit of the crowd and those at home.

Don't think over rate is going to affected by this in all honesty.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The point of referring is to get the right decision. Clearly if they knew for sure, they would give it. Really doesn't bother me.

 

[pasty]

You can see their point though. It takes 30 seconds, and if they DIDN'T do it, and got one wrong, when the technology was there, they would be hammered.

Sometimes 'obvious' decisions are not what they seem. To the eye a batsman might have run his bat in comfortably, but on slow motion replay he's given out because his bat bounced up at the crucial moment. Just last week in the one Sayers thee was what looked a clear England run out, overturned because on replay, the keeper had dislodged the bails before the ball arrived.

I understand what you say, and if the decision is a close one then yes, I'm all for it. But shirley, there was no real reason for a replay on the above? Williamson is at least a yard short.

 

[Titanic]

I understand what you say, and if the decision is a close one then yes, I'm all for it. But shirley, there was no real reason for a replay on the above? Williamson is at least a yard short.

indeed... and as it is a direct hit rather than the keeper or bowler gathering the ball and breaking the wicket... it is hard to see what else could have been in the umpires mind?? If he can't give that one without review you wonder about any other decisions he is making!

 

[Bold Seagull]

I understand what you say, and if the decision is a close one then yes, I'm all for it. But shirley, there was no real reason for a replay on the above? Williamson is at least a yard short.

I wonder if he'd have given it without the replay if it wasn't so crucial? At that moment, NZ had a chance with Williamson still batting, but that wicket did win the game in effect. Knowing that out in the middle, I wonder if it was a case of get it reviewed anyway because it was such a quick moment.

The other thing is that Williamson was a full tilt and Willey absolutely fired that ball at the stumps. Your freeze frame makes it look completely obvious but in real time that would have been very quick. Bowler's end too, so the umpire has had to move round even though he looks set in the shot, he might have only just got there.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I wonder if he'd have given it without the replay if it wasn't so crucial? At that moment, NZ had a chance with Williamson still batting, but that wicket did win the game in effect. Knowing that out in the middle, I wonder if it was a case of get it reviewed anyway because it was such a quick moment.

The other thing is that Williamson was a full tilt and Willey absolutely fired that ball at the stumps. Your freeze frame makes it look completely obvious but in real time that would have been very quick. Bowler's end too, so the umpire has had to move round even though he looks set in the shot, he might have only just got there.

Absolutely right. A still image will always make these decisions look easy (even the much closer ones). And anyways, as [MENTION=24838]Bladders[/MENTION] rightly points out above, if the decision is obvious, the batsman is already making his way off before the decision is confirmed, so in reality no time is lost from the game at all.

 

[Country Seagull]

The one that drives me nuts is low catches, everybody knows that TV replays are totally useless at showing whether or not the ball touched the ground. It's been known for at least 10 years now, yet umpires insist on referring them so they can be called inconclusive and given not out, every bloody time.

 

[Titanic]

The one that drives me nuts is low catches, everybody knows that TV replays are totally useless at showing whether or not the ball touched the ground. It's been known for at least 10 years now, yet umpires insist on referring them so they can be called inconclusive and given not out, every bloody time.

There has to be clear evidence to change the onfield decision. So if the umpires are unsure and refer it, inconclusive means not out - which seems right to me.

 

[pasty]

I wonder if he'd have given it without the replay if it wasn't so crucial? At that moment, NZ had a chance with Williamson still batting, but that wicket did win the game in effect. Knowing that out in the middle, I wonder if it was a case of get it reviewed anyway because it was such a quick moment.

The other thing is that Williamson was a full tilt and Willey absolutely fired that ball at the stumps. Your freeze frame makes it look completely obvious but in real time that would have been very quick. Bowler's end too, so the umpire has had to move round even though he looks set in the shot, he might have only just got there.

If no tv replay was available and the umpire had given that one not out, then he shouldn't be umpiring.

In some ways I can sort of understand umpires for asking for the replay because as others have said, they get slated when they do get it wrong. However, I just think it has got to the stage now where there is an over reliance on the replay and umpires are asking for it unnecessarily a lot of the time. I just find it annoying.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This debate only makes sense if you believe that cricket is a game that is always played in front of TV cameras. It isn't. Most umpires make most decisions without having the option of a referral. We trust them to get decisions right. Why isn't the same trust available for televised games?

 

[Martlet]

This debate only makes sense if you believe that cricket is a game that is always played in front of TV cameras. It isn't. Most umpires make most decisions without having the option of a referral. We trust them to get decisions right. Why isn't the same trust available for televised games?

Because when ultra high definition slow-motion replays consistently show errors and mistakes, that trust gets eroded, and umpires get the blame for results. If the technology is good enough to undermine an umpire or referee, it should be made available to help them.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

The HawkEye LBW decisions annoys me more. It's either hitting the wicket or not

 

[Simster]

The HawkEye LBW decisions annoys me more. It's either hitting the wicket or not

I tend to agree. And if there's any ambiguity, the decision ought to be NOT OUT. All this "umpire's call" nonsense doesn't make any sense.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The HawkEye LBW decisions annoys me more. It's either hitting the wicket or not

I like it. My annoyance is how captains use it as a tool to get them a wicket, not a tool just to protect them from the real shocking decision.

 

[Geestar]

Much like rugby and the TMO

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The HawkEye LBW decisions annoys me more. It's either hitting the wicket or not

I'm 100% with Botham on his crusade that they appealing side should NOT lose an appeal if the hawkeye comes up Umpire's Call..

You appeal for LBW. The umpire gives it not out. You review, because you think it was hitting. If Hawkeye says UC, the not out decision remains, and the fielding side lose that appeal even though they were RIGHT.

Completely unjust.

 

[pasty]

I'm 100% with Botham on his crusade that they appealing side should NOT lose an appeal if the hawkeye comes up Umpire's Call..

You appeal for LBW. The umpire gives it not out. You review, because you think it was hitting. If Hawkeye says UC, the not out decision remains, and the fielding side lose that appeal even though they were RIGHT.

Completely unjust.

Big fat this. I don't even agree with the whole "umpires call" thing. The technology is there to assist the umpire on close calls and prove if the call should have been out or not out. If the umpire calls an LBW appeal as not out, and it is referred by the fielding side, I cannot understand why, when hawkeye shows the ball was going to clip the stumps, the not out decisions stands. The technology has just proved it would have hit the stumps, so give it out.

By the same system, if the umpire had called it out and batsman had reviewed it, the "out" decision would still have stood. Get rid of "umpires call" all together, and either give it out or not out.