Umpiring and the 3rd umpire! what do YOU think?

[Donny]

Thanks, wombat. I'm enjoying the discussion.

1. How can you get wrong superimposing 3 lines from stump to stump ?

2. All Tests are now covered by TV. Thats all that's needed for the superimposed tramlines. No extra camera/s. No special camera. Just the behind the bowler one.

[commonwombat]

Donny,

Standards of coverage and the resources of broadcasters across the world ARE variable, although in most countries would not be a prob. Please realise that we are spoiled in Australia.

If this graphic can be made available for ALL televised intl match, then fine.

[Donny]

Because I don't get free to air TV, I don't see 9's coverage of Australian Tests and ODIs but I see almost all the overseas Tests and ODIs.

The coverage I get on pay TV is not dependent on local TV coverage - Fox or ESPN use all their own equipment - but either way, the aspect I'm talking about doesn't require any special technology, just the one 'behind the bowler' camera.

[Blanch]

My 2 cents worth:
We already use the 3rd umpire to make decisions on close run outs. Why? So they get it right and don't rob either team of an incorrect decision. If that's the reasoning why not use it where applicable and won't hold the game up too much?

1. Ball pitching outside leg stump for lbw's: would take 1, maybe 2 replays with the "stump to stump" cam. Use the technology.

2. Catching. Let the umpire call. If he's not sure, let the catcher call. One sure way to get a reputation as a mug is to cheat. Others won't want you in the team. If both ump and player are not sure then the batsmen is in.

3. Caught behind: the snickometer is good but not definitive enough. Two noises could be bat on pad, then bat on ground. Leave this one to the ump on the field.

[commonwombat]

Blanch,

Thanks for yr input, it breaks up the pleasant convo going on between Donny and myself.

Have no argument with what you say however will strike a big note of caution with relation to yr point 2.

Your moral argument is fine especially at the lower levels of the game. When we get to the top, it can be another matter. We are talking great sums of money as this is professional sport.

Whilst the overwhelming majority of top players are unquestionably honourable and will do the right thing (we can remember such examples), sadly there are those who will take the adage of playing it hard beyond reasonable bounds. I think we can name a few, sadly there are Australians prominent at that in the rogues gallery.

I believe that the video can have a role to play.

[Donny]

Wombat, I believe what Blanch is saying is what I said earlier.

Because of the video scrutiny, a player wouldn't last long if he claimed a catch the replay showed to be no catch.

The replay would be shown to everyone anyway, 3rd. umpy or not.

[commonwombat]

One M Slater is still playing first class cricket is he not. Ian Healy and S.waugh have survived the scrutiny of some questionable efforts on such matters.

Respect yr point, but player honesty under high stakes is NOT necessarily a given. Will grant some credence to yr point about media scrutiny, but let's face it there are always apologists and some media seem to serve more as cheerleaders.

Please guys, I am not knocking yr argument but some people will chose to go beyond bounds regardless of the consequences.

[Donny]

I'm not sure what your first sentence is referring to, Wombat. Depending on what you DO mean I might say, "One M Slater is no longer playing Test cricket"

Let's look at Rashid Latif's case. He claimed a catch against Bangladesh and off went the batsman.

The video replay was not called for, presumably because the batsman didn't dispute Rashid's word, but when it was examined by the match referee, the ball was clearly seen falling out of the gloves and bouncing off the ground back into the gloves.

Rashid, the Pakistan captain, claimed innocence but was banned for 5 ODIs and not only lost the captaincy but his place in the team !! Inzi was named as the new skipper and Moin Khan was recalled as 'keeper.

[commonwombat]

Donny,

Lets agree to differ a bit on this. You believe that that the video scrutiny will keep players honest. I go a long way along the road with you but fear that there still may be a few that will push the boundaries.

You hope that officialdom will do the right thing, but that is reliant on their courage and also the profile of the transgressor. People will always defend the indefensible and are we truly confident in the administration of the game??

I certainly see yr point and I hope you can see mine.

[Blanch]

There is merit in both sides to this point. Crickets reputation has been slaughtered through the betting scandals. Let's give the cricketers some sort of chance to redeem the game and present a positive image. Let them show that cricket is an honorable game.

I think placing penalties in for dishonest players is a great idea.

Wombat, I have played both low grade sport and sport at an international level. Let me tell you the integrity of the players in my sport is much better the higher grade you go.

[commonwombat]

Fair comment, Blanch and I do largely agree with you. Most top level sportspeople play it hard but fair and their integrity, with regards to the rules and/or etiquette of their sport is admirable. Sadly, there will always be those who will cross the line, be they park level, club level, rep or intl.

Agree with you regarding penalties, but consistency in sentencing is necessary and who is policing it. Remember there are many who continue to defend SK Warne, despite his numerous transgressions, and likewise with the late Hansie Cronje.

Please do not take offence as our views are probably quite similar, but I do tend to be a very hard cold realist with no illussions.

[Blanch]

No offense taken. I'm a big believer in the players making the game, not the judiciary. Cricket needs the Shane Warnes. It needs characters. Unfortunately most people fail to see that sport needs controversy to get people through the gate (unless it's afl). Let's face it, John Mcenroe made tennis a much better spectator sport....and Lleyton Hewitt, love him or hate him, is more exciting to watch because you never know what's going to happen.

Proof is in the pudding with all these reality tv shows rating so well. People watch them on the odd chance that someone might lose their mind or there might be the odd sex scene, but they are interested in the characters who have the possibility to provide this entertainment. It's the same with sports people.

A little controversy makes the human more interested.

[labrooy]

A couple of things, labrooy.

You wrote: "If you can't eliminate all umpiring mistakes then why eliminate just a few?" Lol, I hope you don't live your life with this in mind. What does this mean ? If we can't be perfect, we shouldn't try to change anything ?

What I mean is that the umpires have reached this level by making good decisions. Using technology often doesn't change anything. It certainly doesn't eliminate mistakes. Everyone is cricket is forgiven mistakes except the umpire, and if you look honestly over the years umpires don't make that many. My idea is why not leave the decision-making in the hands of those who have earned the right?

And: "The 3rd umpire does not always get it right. Even with video evidence he often gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, ... " I must stick up for umpires here. In those cases, he DOES get it right. If the replay shows any doubt, he MUST give the batsman not out.

So why not have the umpire in charge just give the benefit of the doubt in the first place and save time?

And last: "When I umpired I came to realise just how hard some decisions were to make." Although this is understandable, the 'doubt not out' rule really makes umpiring straightforward - as long as you know your Laws.

I know my laws. It doesn't make decision making any easier.

When you're adjudicating on a caught behind, a run out, a stumping, or an l.b.w., once you find yourself thinking, "Mmmm that was close" or, "I'm not sure", no need to think any further. Not out. Simple.

Gee, why didn't I think of that when I was umpiring? Once again the players expect you to make decisions. If your decision is "not out" too often because you aren't sure then I would suggest you shouldn't be umpiring in the first place.

[Donny]

Thanks for the detailed reply, labrooy.

Points - in order:

1. Sorry, mate. Technology HAS changed things. Many more stumpings and run outs are being given. Anything as close as a few inches used to be given not out and rightly so, because, to the naked eye, there was doubt. Now, with the replay and freeze frame technology, the batsman is gone if short of the line by any amount.

2. As I've stated before, I don't think batsmen should be able to dispute catches. Take the fieldsman's word or leave it up to the field umpy.

3. Knowing your Laws DOES make things easier. How can you give a decision if you're not sure of the pertinent Law ?

Case in point: Dean Jones was bowled in a Test by Courtney Walsh. He walked off towards the pavillion which was forward of his batting crease. The umpire had signalled a no ball. Deano hadn't heard (crowd noise) or seen the call.

Hooper grabbed the ball and took off the bails, appealing for a run out. The umpire wrongly gave him out. The Aussie skipper, Allan Border, was at the umpires end and said nothing.

He also wasn't aware of Law 27.7 which clearly states: "Batsman leaving his wicket under a misapprehension - An umpire shall intervene if satisfied that a batsman, not having been given out, has left his wicket under a misapprehension that he is out. The umpire intervening shall call and signal Dead ball to prevent any further action by the fielding side and shall recall the batsman."

Viv Richards, the Windies captain, later said he did know the Law. So much for his ideas of fair play.

4. Wrong. Saying, "Not out" IS a decision. If you're not sure, that's doubt. The Laws are quite clear about 'doubt, not out'.