Is the Golden Era of Oz Cricket Over?

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

While I'm all for some decisions being referred to a 3rd umpire (particularly run-outs and stumpings), but LBW isn't one of them.

Snicko has been shown to be somewhat unreliable at times, Hawkeye I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it but the main problem being that the technology takes far too long in those instances to reach a decision.

The current umpiring process is simple. If the umpire has some doubt then it's automatically not out. It's never a case of being.. 'well, that's close enough so I may as well give it'.

Cricket is a slow enough game as it is, and while it should be a goal to get decisions correct all the time, it's just not feasable.

Why not?? With all the latest technology, it is possible to put any decision beyond reasonable doubt.
Snicko, heatspot and all the new slo-mo replays are used by the commentary team to microscope every decision by the umpires.
If the umpires have sole control of the decisions, why are they the only ones who can't use this technology to help them??

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Rodp

But they didn't win the game.

Can only recall the odd occassion where one of the losing team's players got MOM... only because his individual effort far surpassed that of any player on the winning side. Haddin's innings won Australia the game has to trump Elliot's innings that gave NZ a chance at winning the game.

Yes I know but the only reason I would have given it to Elliot was because he took 2 wickets as well as making 115. So I would say that he was the man of the match.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

Why not?? With all the latest technology, it is possible to put any decision beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps you should re-read my post again. I clearly pointed out why not.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Yes I know but the only reason I would have given it to Elliot was because he took 2 wickets as well as making 115. So I would say that he was the man of the match.

So you wouldn't consider that the man of the match should be the individual that largely contributed to their teams win (except in extrodinary circumstances)?

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Perhaps you should re-read my post again. I clearly pointed out why not.

I did. Your wrong

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Rodp

So you wouldn't consider that the man of the match should be the individual that largely contributed to their teams win (except in extrodinary circumstances)?

To me man of the match is the best player (doesn't matter on what side) on the day. This is why I believe Elliot should have got the award. So no I would disagree with you on the way it should be judged.
Mind you I am not taking away from Haddins achievement as it was a good knock by him.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

I did. Your wrong

My wrong what?

Technology isn't used to judge LBW decisions and at the moment there are no plans to do so, but I'm wrong.

Noticed how long it takes to get a hotspot or snicko on the broadcast? Several minutes. Each.

Ever watched cricket played in other countries? Most of them do not currently employ this technology.

Have you noticed how many close run-out and stumping decisions are referred to the 3rd umpire? Virtually all of them.

Ever watched a match played in India? Noticed how many close LBW decisions that players appeal for?

Judging a run-out takes a couple of minutes and there are are fraction of those appeals compared to LBW appeals. Anything close would be referred to the 3rd umpire just as run-outs are due to the fact that the umpire would be crucified if he gave an appeal out that didn't satisfy the laws and visa versa.

If the speed of the resources are increased immesurably and they're constant over all test playing nations *then* you would have a case.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by vztrt

To me man of the match is the best player (doesn't matter on what side) on the day. This is why I believe Elliot should have got the award. So no I would disagree with you on the way it should be judged.
Mind you I am not taking away from Haddins achievement as it was a good knock by him.

I didn't really give my opinion as to how it should be chosen, I'm just suggesting from watching cricket for 35 years as to the criteria that MoM's are typically chosen.

Only a handful of MoM's have been given to the player of the losing side and only in cases where his performance was far and above that of any other player on the field.

In this instance, I don't believe Elliot should have gotten it over Haddin but had the Aussie team's scoresheet had the runmakers spread their runs more evenly and Elliot gave NZ a shot at a win then I would have sided with you in giving Elliot the MoM award.

[GT0132]

I think the NZ team are starting to show some real class in their fielding...the first one dayer against Australia was an example of that....Unseen since the days of Jeremy Coney/Jeff Crowe in the mid 80's.

With good batsmen like Elliott and McCullum and a great captain in Vettori I can see this NZ side being a contender for the No 1 position in 50 over cricket real soon especially as Australia are now in a position of having to rebuild since losing Warne, Hayden & McGrath.

So in answer to the thread question...The golden era is over although the fact NZ are on the improve probably overshadows it a bit

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

My wrong what?

Technology isn't used to judge LBW decisions and at the moment there are no plans to do so, but I'm wrong.

Noticed how long it takes to get a hotspot or snicko on the broadcast? Several minutes. Each.

Ever watched cricket played in other countries? Most of them do not currently employ this technology.

Have you noticed how many close run-out and stumping decisions are referred to the 3rd umpire? Virtually all of them.

Ever watched a match played in India? Noticed how many close LBW decisions that players appeal for?

Judging a run-out takes a couple of minutes and there are are fraction of those appeals compared to LBW appeals. Anything close would be referred to the 3rd umpire just as run-outs are due to the fact that the umpire would be crucified if he gave an appeal out that didn't satisfy the laws and visa versa.

If the speed of the resources are increased immesurably and they're constant over all test playing nations *then* you would have a case.

*I do have a case.* Technology was used to decide on LBWs
It was the end of last year when the referral system was used in a test match between the windies and NZ and currently in the test between the Windies and the poms. All forms of available technology were used for any decision that was referred.
Lots of LBWs were overturned thanks to hawkeye and while everyone may not agree with it, you can't argue with it.

*You* can try tho....

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

*I do have a case.* Technology was used to decide on LBWs
It was the end of last year when the referral system was used in a test match between the windies and NZ and currently in the test between the Windies and the poms. All forms of available technology were used for any decision that was referred.
Lots of LBWs were overturned thanks to hawkeye and while everyone may not agree with it, you can't argue with it.

*You* can try tho....

...and nothing coming from the ICC since the trial...

Even the executive producer of Nine (which develop most of this technology for broadcast use only) suggest that the only reasonally foolproof technology is hotspot... and even then I've seen situations where video replays couldn't pick up the right angle to confirm a hotspot.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Yes I know but the only reason I would have given it to Elliot was because he took 2 wickets as well as making 115. So I would say that he was the man of the match.

you could be right in your judgement - however if haddin did not make his runs, would australia have won. elliot did what he did and new zealand did not win
it can be looked at, that haddin's effort won the match while elliot's did not

[prydey]

wasn't m.clarke MoM in game 2, which australia lost.

regarding the lbw decisions being left up to the umpire, i would agree but... there does seem to be more and more incidences these days where the replay will show a bit of bat involved first. sometimes embarressingly so for the umpire. this fact alone says that somethng needs to be done in this area, whether the umps are wired up to a 3rd/4th ump or a challenge system but its happening far to regularly now.

mccullum in perth, fergusson and taylor in sydney etc.

maybe they aren't becoming more common. maybe the scrutiny is becoming more. either way, the fans want to see the right decisions so even though the purists and cricket officials don't want to slow the games down anymore than they have to, they will eventually be forced to look at these sort of issues. there is a lot of money/betting invloved these days too which is why these challenge systems are coming in.

speaking of the challenge system, england and west indies are using it at the moment. one of the challenges made by west indies was against an lbw on sarwan i think. umpire gave it out, challenged, and given not out. incidently hawkeye said it was going on to hit leg stump. go figure.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by prydey

wasn't m.clarke MoM in game 2, which australia lost.

In a match where NZ's figures were largely unremarkable. That's my point.

Originally Posted by prydey

regarding the lbw decisions being left up to the umpire, i would agree but... there does seem to be more and more incidences these days where the replay will show a bit of bat involved first. sometimes embarressingly so for the umpire. this fact alone says that somethng needs to be done in this area, whether the umps are wired up to a 3rd/4th ump or a challenge system but its happening far to regularly now.

IMO, the standard of the umpiring has fallen. Hair was one of the better umpires on the scene and was pushed out because of politics. Bucknor is well passed his use-by date and should be shown the door.

Originally Posted by prydey

speaking of the challenge system, england and west indies are using it at the moment. one of the challenges made by west indies was against an lbw on sarwan i think. umpire gave it out, challenged, and given not out. incidently hawkeye said it was going on to hit leg stump. go figure.

A challenge system is a reasonable comprimise... but as I said before, I wouldn't trust Hawkeye as far as I could throw it and should never be used to adjudicate LBW's in its current form.

[prydey]

hopefully its a decent game tomorrow. i'll be there. forecast is a nice 23 too. woot.

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

...and nothing coming from the ICC since the trial...

Even the executive producer of Nine (which develop most of this technology for broadcast use only) suggest that the only reasonally foolproof technology is hotspot... and even then I've seen situations where video replays couldn't pick up the right angle to confirm a hotspot.

Those are few and far between. Compared to the more common blantant mistakes that we see made by all umpires.
I'm still going with " if the technology is there, use it!'
Was good to see that no technology could save the poms tho!

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

Those are few and far between. Compared to the more common blantant mistakes that we see made by all umpires.
I'm still going with " if the technology is there, use it!'
Was good to see that no technology could save the poms tho!

As Prydey suggested, a limited amount of challenges allowed to each team would be a reasonable comprimise in my opinion. Referring the majority of LBW shouts to a 3rd umpire would bring an already slow paced game to a screeching halt - particularly in India.

As far as LBW decisions go, I don't trust snicko, I don't trust Hawkeye (and neither does the executive producer of 9). I would trust hotspot to judge as to whether the ball has hit the bat and I would trust the line drawn down the middle of the pitch to judge pitch outside leg and hit in line. That's about it. Given that, the best tool to judge whether the ball would have gone onto the stumps IMO is the umpire at the bowler's end.

The technology today has still proven to be unreliable and not the be all end all. I've lost count of how many catches have been given not out because it was unclear as to whether the ball had been grassed even though the fieldsman is absolutely adamant they've taken it fairly.

Hawkeye providing ridiculous estimations of ball prediction. IIRC, the daddy of Hawkeye suggested an error of margin of 10cm at one stage but I can't find it recorded anywhere (and that's without predicting the flight).

Snicko being sensetive enough to pick up creaks and stresses in the bat and handle, masking itself as a faint edge.

Run-outs effected can also go towards the batsmen as the critical moment just happens to be between two frames or the spigot leaving the groove isn't completely clear due to the bails being a blur or the batsmen has moved ~10cm between frames and it's unclear as to whether they've made their ground or not.

If the technology was fast and accurate, I'd be on your side. It's not so I'm not.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Hawkeye providing ridiculous estimations of ball prediction. IIRC, the daddy of Hawkeye suggested an error of margin of 10cm at one stage but I can't find it recorded anywhere (and that's without predicting the flight).

If you take a look at the tennis when they use hawkeye. The wide spread of the ball is taking the error margin into the reading. SO it isn't accurate enough, especially when it just touches the bails.

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

As Prydey suggested, a limited amount of challenges allowed to each team would be a reasonable comprimise in my opinion. Referring the majority of LBW shouts to a 3rd umpire would bring an already slow paced game to a screeching halt - particularly in India.

As far as LBW decisions go, I don't trust snicko, I don't trust Hawkeye (and neither does the executive producer of 9). I would trust hotspot to judge as to whether the ball has hit the bat and I would trust the line drawn down the middle of the pitch to judge pitch outside leg and hit in line. That's about it. Given that, the best tool to judge whether the ball would have gone onto the stumps IMO is the umpire at the bowler's end.

The technology today has still proven to be unreliable and not the be all end all. I've lost count of how many catches have been given not out because it was unclear as to whether the ball had been grassed even though the fieldsman is absolutely adamant they've taken it fairly.

Hawkeye providing ridiculous estimations of ball prediction. IIRC, the daddy of Hawkeye suggested an error of margin of 10cm at one stage but I can't find it recorded anywhere (and that's without predicting the flight).

Snicko being sensetive enough to pick up creaks and stresses in the bat and handle, masking itself as a faint edge.

Run-outs effected can also go towards the batsmen as the critical moment just happens to be between two frames or the spigot leaving the groove isn't completely clear due to the bails being a blur or the batsmen has moved ~10cm between frames and it's unclear as to whether they've made their ground or not.

If the technology was fast and accurate, I'd be on your side. It's not so I'm not.

What has the executive producer of channel 9 have to do with all this??? Thats the same egg who won't put rugby league on in Melbourne.
To use on of your favourite sayings: " I don't trust him as far as I can throw him!" That goes for both of your oponions on technology in cricket too!

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

What has the executive producer of channel 9 have to do with all this??? Thats the same egg who won't put rugby league on in Melbourne.
To use on of your favourite sayings: " I don't trust him as far as I can throw him!" That goes for both of your oponions on technology in cricket too!

Considering all the up to date advances in technology are used by the 9 commentary team I consider it relevant that the executive producer who, I would imagine, has direct communication with the developers, doesn't believe it's mature enough to provide fast and accurate results.

Unless you're part of the team that has anything to do with these tools, I'd take his opinion over yours.

So, are you in any way involved with any of the tools the 9 commentary team use?

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by vztrt

If you take a look at the tennis when they use hawkeye. The wide spread of the ball is taking the error margin into the reading. SO it isn't accurate enough, especially when it just touches the bails.

I'd suggest that the cameras are also significantly closer thus minimising the error. I'm not a tennis watcher so I wouldn't know the answer to this but do they employ predictive path software?

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Considering all the up to date advances in technology are used by the 9 commentary team I consider it relevant that the executive producer who, I would imagine, has direct communication with the developers, doesn't believe it's mature enough to provide fast and accurate results.

Unless you're part of the team that has anything to do with these tools, I'd take his opinion over yours.

So, are you in any way involved with any of the tools the 9 commentary team use?

Imagine what you like. He's got nothing to do with deciding what goes on in the decision making process of cricket.But you seem to want to keep clinging onto him like its all you've got.
Also, I don't know any of the tools on the commentary team. I do however now of another... : :

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

Imagine what you like. He's got nothing to do with deciding what goes on in the decision making process of cricket.But you seem to want to keep clinging onto him like its all you've got.
Also, I don't know any of the tools on the commentary team. I do however now of another... : :

You've yet to refute a single point I've made except to say 'your wrong' (sic) and suggesting I'm a tool.

Clinging as it's all I've got? Geez, I listed at least 6 points and explained why I don't feel they're feasable. Your comeback is to pick one sentence out of a post and run with it.

Not much point debating anything else with you.

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

You've yet to refute a single point I've made except to say 'your wrong' (sic) and suggesting I'm a tool.

Clinging as it's all I've got? Geez, I listed at least 6 points and explained why I don't feel they're feasable. Your comeback is to pick one sentence out of a post and run with it.

Not much point debating anything else with you.

Rod. You're the one who needs prove your points. Just because you say the technology isn't not good enough, doesn't make it so.
The ICC is allowing this technology to be used in matches. I don't think they care about what you and you buddy at channel 9 think.

Not too many years ago, Tv replays weren't used on tight run-outs. Now, as you point out, they are referred to all the time by umpires. Maybe too often you said. But why? Because its there to use now. Better be safe that look foolish is what most umpires probably think. I think its a good thing. Like I said before, why is the umpire the only one watching the game, still unsure if he just got a split-second decision wrong, when he can refer it, get the correct decision and avoid embarrassment and controversy.

I will admit that its going to be difficult to introduce the referral system. Might take a while to get used to and to get it right for that matter.
If they use it for cricket like they do in rugby league would be a good starting point in my oponion. Make it so the technology must 100% prove that the umpire got it wrong to change a decision or in the case of uncertainty, refer it back for a umpires call.

Have you watched any games where this new technology is used, or are you, once again I might add, just going off what you've read and heard??

[BZINGA]

Well the way i see it is we have the technology too make the right decision so lets use it, if we lose abit more time over a right decision so be it, LBW's just seem to be the one dismissal that is hurting the game.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

Rod. You're the one who needs prove your points. Just because you say the technology isn't not good enough, doesn't make it so.
The ICC is allowing this technology to be used in matches.

At least you're now putting up an argument instead of saying 'your wrong'

I've stated my opinion on why some of the technology is prone to error, of course I can't offer proof that will in any way sway your opinion because you seem to believe that technology is infallable in decision making even though there are multitudes of examples where it's failed.

Originally Posted by cuz

Not too many years ago, Tv replays weren't used on tight run-outs. Now, as you point out, they are referred to all the time by umpires. Maybe too often you said. But why? Because its there to use now. Better be safe that look foolish is what most umpires probably think.

I don't recall saying that it's referred too often? 9 have high speed cameras to get those pretty shots from a 45 degree angle but they can't train a couple of cameras on the crease at either end? I never understood why.

Given the framerate of broadcast cricket, a batsmen can move ~5cm between frames. That critical moment of when the bat enters the crease and the bail leaving the spigot can still be guesswork due to blurred motion or the critical moment happening between a frame. It can be improved remarkably but the use of technology for run-outs and stumpings is a good application.

Originally Posted by cuz

I think its a good thing. Like I said before, why is the umpire the only one watching the game, still unsure if he just got a split-second decision wrong, when he can refer it, get the correct decision and avoid embarrassment and controversy.

It doesn't guarantee the correct decision and it eats into valuable time. Do we fine the umpires if the over rate is too slow at the end of the day if the 3rd umpire is called upon too often?

Originally Posted by cuz

I will admit that its going to be difficult to introduce the referral system. Might take a while to get used to and to get it right for that matter. If they use it for cricket like they do in rugby league would be a good starting point in my oponion. Make it so the technology must 100% prove that the umpire got it wrong to change a decision or in the case of uncertainty, refer it back for a umpires call.

You mean, like this one?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100134680.html

Or concerns in slowing the game down...?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100131513.html

Or... oops?

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/389874.html

Originally Posted by cuz

Have you watched any games where this new technology is used, or are you, once again I might add, just going off what you've read and heard??

I watch plenty of games, just not pyjama cricket. I also like to read opinion of those that play the game at an international level.

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

At least you're now putting up an argument instead of saying 'your wrong'

I've stated my opinion on why some of the technology is prone to error, of course I can't offer proof that will in any way sway your opinion because you seem to believe that technology is infallable in decision making even though there are multitudes of examples where it's failed.

Rod, I never said that technology was infallable. I do however think that its a hell of alot better now than it was, and its getting better. Channel 9 seem to be the leaders in this and I think its great.

Originally Posted by Rodp

I don't recall saying that it's referred too often? 9 have high speed cameras to get those pretty shots from a 45 degree angle but they can't train a couple of cameras on the crease at either end? I never understood why.

What about this from a post up the page a bit...

Originally Posted by Rodp

Have you noticed how many close run-out and stumping decisions are referred to the 3rd umpire? Virtually all of them.

Originally Posted by Rodp

Given the framerate of broadcast cricket, a batsmen can move ~5cm between frames. That critical moment of when the bat enters the crease and the bail leaving the spigot can still be guesswork due to blurred motion or the critical moment happening between a frame. It can be improved remarkably but the use of technology for run-outs and stumpings is a good application.

It doesn't guarantee the correct decision and it eats into valuable time. Do we fine the umpires if the over rate is too slow at the end of the day if the 3rd umpire is called upon too often?

No...but neither do we fine Michael Clark for changing glove every 5 or so overs. Nor Ricky Ponting for slow over rates. Both these are detrimental to the game of test cricket and they go unpunished. Why should we punish technology for trying to improve the game?

Originally Posted by Rodp

You mean, like this one?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100134680.html

Or concerns in slowing the game down...?

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100131513.html

I watch plenty of games, just not pyjama cricket. I also like to read opinion of those that play the game at an international level.

The question was , Rod, Have you watched any games where this new technology is used, or are you, once again I might add, just going off what you've read and heard??

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by cuz

Rod, I never said that technology was infallable. I do however think that its a hell of alot better now than it was, and its getting better. Channel 9 seem to be the leaders in this and I think its great.

Channel 4, actually. In the UK. Though, IIRC, you can attribute hotspot to Channel 9.

Of course it's improving but nowhere near the standard that it has to be in order to sacrifice the time and its traditions to move to it IMO.

Originally Posted by cuz

What about this from a post up the page a bit...

Virtually all of them does not suggest too often, it suggests virtually all of them. A concern if the techology moves to LBW on marginal decisions based on the increased complexity and time to resolve compared to a run-out or stumping.

Originally Posted by cuz

No...but neither do we fine Michael Clark for changing glove every 5 or so overs. Nor Ricky Ponting for slow over rates. Both these are detrimental to the game of test cricket and they go unpunished. Why should we punish technology for trying to improve the game?

You mean this?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23212,00.html

So if the over rate target isn't reached because a dozen additional decisions were referred to the third umpire, who gets fined their match fee, the umpires?

How about in cases of referrals where light is failing on the final overs of a test with a couple of wickets to get. Great stalling tactic, would work marvels in Pakistan.

Originally Posted by cuz

The question was , Rod, Have you watched any games where this new technology is used

Yes I have, cuz. Many of them.

[XR8putts]

Lets keep it civil kiddies On that topic, I watched the test series with NZ and WI not long ago trialing the new 'appeal system', and although it took a few more minutes and had a few prolems, I thought it was great.

A batsman knows if he's nicked it, so if he is given LBW - he can appeal and hotspot clears it up in no time. Not out.

Keep in mind a bowling team only gets 3 appeals per innings, so they must, and do, ration it - they don't just appeal everything. Ditto with a batting side. From the few games I saw with this system, teams only appealed a decision when they thought it was out. It's not a case of lets appeal for the sake of it.

Back on topic, NZ have won the toss and will finally set a total for Aussie to chase. I hope that McCullum fires like the Kiwis know he can.

Good to see there is a sombre mood out there inlight of whats happend over there. Here's hopeing a massive ammount of money is raised for the victims.

[cuz]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Channel 4, actually. In the UK. Though, IIRC, you can attribute hotspot to Channel 9.

Of course it's improving but nowhere near the standard that it has to be in order to sacrifice the time and its traditions to move to it IMO.

Well times change Rod, you should realise that by now. If traditions have to change for the game to stay alive, so be it, I say.
I remember when hawkeye was introduced into tennis. Sometimes it would 'beep' when the players hadn't even served.
Critics like you said it was no good and would never take the place of human linesman. Times change, Rod, and now tennis has a referral system in place, accepted by all.

Originally Posted by Rodp

Virtually all of them does not suggest too often, it suggests virtually all of them.

Can you explain that one?? I can't see the difference. Just cause you have worded it different, doesn't change its meaning.

Originally Posted by Rodp

A concern if the techology moves to LBW on marginal decisions based on the increased complexity and time to resolve compared to a run-out or stumping.


So if the over rate target isn't reached because a dozen additional decisions were referred to the third umpire, who gets fined their match fee, the umpires?

A concern for who?? You? In the Windies/ Nz game ( that you watched) I didn't think it took to long for the decisions at all. Some of the referred run-outs we see can take ages as well, if they're close.
Not a dozen, Rod, 6. 3 from each side per innings. I thought you said you watched these games : :

Originally Posted by Rodp

How about in cases of referrals where light is failing on the final overs of a test with a couple of wickets to get. Great stalling tactic, would work marvels in Pakistan.

I listened to Bill Lawry, Warnie and Heals talking with Mark Nichols about over rate during a break in the test last year.
They all agreed that something had to be done by Ponting to 'up' his teams over rates.
From the games I watched that had the appeals system in use, there was barely anymore of a hold up than usual. If a small amount of time is all thats sacrificed to get the correct decision, surely you can see the value in that.

Originally Posted by Rodp

Yes I have, cuz. Many of them.

Many?? I think there has only been 2 or three!!!