Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
From: bnataraj@uceng.UC.EDU (Bhaskar  Natarajan)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:35:26 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati

In article <BszD41.2sv@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>bnataraj@uceng.UC.EDU (Bhaskar  Natarajan) writes:
>>I believe in something that can be called an umpiring decision by "instinct"
>>tho' i feel even that is not quite the word. It is something like you are 
>>watching the events leading to an appeal  ( lbw/run out/stumping/bat-pad) 
>>closely, and your 'instinctive' or  'intuitive' decision has been made, no
>>sooner the critical moment has passed. Like, i feel the umpire has formed a
>>decision before ANYONE can even think of appealing. I have done some 
>
>I disagree completely.  I completely hate it when I am given out lbw
>by one of these "instinctive" decisions.  For a caught behind, I agree
>that the type of decision you described is acceptable, but for an lbw
>there are a number of things for an umpire to consider, other than was
>the ball going to hit the stumps, and if his finger goes skyward
>instantly, I always suspect he never gave them much thought (to
>compound the problem, since the umpires are appointed from the batting
>team, many are unsure about the lbw law, and I have been given out at
>least twice to balls that pitched oputside leg, but thats another crib altogether).

Now i humbly disagree. I feel that among ALL close decisions that an 
umpire has occasion to decide ( leaving aside 'freak' decisions) the LBW
decision is the easiest to arrive at a firm YES or NO decision. You only
have to know whether the ball was going to hit the stumps...and usually
you know this (intuitively and DECISIVELY to improve my previous terminology)
the instant the ball has hit the leg. After this, it is just a matter of 
establishing whether the ball was pitched outside the leg stump or not,(Easy)
and whether the batsman got a snick or not ( more tricky in tennis-ball 
cricket, but i would guess not so difficult with cricket balls where the 
sound of a snick really carries) The BASIC decision of whether the ball was
hitting the stumps is made in say 1/25 th to 1/50 th of a sec. ( after some
rough mental calculations) The mind then has to ask only two more questions
-- whether the ball was pitched outside leg which is damn easy and whether 
there was a snick  ( which is a situation that rarely occurs, so in majority
of the cases, need not even be asked ) which you either KNOW or DONT KNOW
from what you saw. In the first case , the decision (yes or no) is made then
and there... in a total of not more than 1/5th or very possibly 1/10 th of 
a second. ( Just imagine that a sprinter can run 1 metre in 1/10 ths of a
sec. or that the outstretched bat of a batsman trying to reach the crease is
only 1/100 th of a sec away when it is 4 inches out of the crease ( !! )
and you realize that it is not so small a time interval at all ). Now the 
latter case.... you DON'T KNOW whether there was a snick or not... this 
could only be bacause  (1) You were not observing ( which makes the previous
two thought processes also suspect, and you won't be called to even think
of a snick ) or  (2) It was humanly impossible to KNOW.... in either of these
two events, the umpire has NO option but to resort to the benefit-of-doubt 
option which must naturally go in the batsman's favour.

What i'm trying to say here is that in ANY event, the decision of LBW is made
in a net time of less than 1/2 to 1/5 or even 1/10 th of a sec. To THINK or
REVALUATE the incident after this is actually quite redundant unless you KNOW
the decision from the first thought cycle... in which case the rethinking is 
only to reinforce your original decision ( I don't recall ever having 
overturned my original decision after the re-thinking; do you ?) In THIS stage
of re-thinking, NO amount of appeal-pressure will daunt you, which is what
you probably mean when you refer to an umpire not being fazed by the volume 
of the appeal. But then, the umpire is not always in such a position.........
( as follows ;-) )

Well, in case you have not been observing ( which happens often), it won't 
make ANY difference how much you re-think or re-construct the incident.... 
you will never be able to get to the truth.... AND THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE
APPEAL PRESSURE STARTS GETTING TO YOU. Now if you are a COOL umpire, you
won't try to do too many re-thinkings ..... you know you have goofed, and you
give a benefit-of-doubt decision promptly. And if you are not COOL and try too
hard to get to a TRUTHFUL decision by doing re-thinkings of things you KNOW
NOTHING ABOUT, you're gonna get in trouble because there is no way you can 
know ! ( for the n th time !) Now you start getting really flustered b'cos
you are not getting any closer to the truth and it might be too hot to even
give a safe benefit-of-doubt decision ( you may actually decide to give the 
batsman OUT ! )...... now, now , now,... just review the 2 scenarios above.
Ther is no way anyone can say that either of these 2 decisions is better than
the other... because both are blind decisions. But the first decision ( that 
of the COOL umpire) would have been made in at most 3-4 sec. ( like a firm 
shaking of the head ) while the second decision ( By the not so COOL umpire 
who foolishly tried playing back events, he knew he hadn't seen properly in 
the first place !) would take some 10-15 seconds .  No prizes for answering
which of these two decisions is likely to be more acceptable to the players.

What this ton of words mean is that a quick decision ( 3-4 sec) is 
much more easily accepted by players than late (10-15 sec) decisions AND 
THAT THE LATTER IS NOT NECESSARILY BETTER, QUALITATIVELY, THAN THE FORMER.
( if at all )

SO you see, a quick decision given in 2-3-4 sec is not  "impulsive" considering
that the decision was made in less than 1/2 a sec. It is about as far as i'd
like any umpire to wait before signalling his decision.

I'd hate to see an umpire waiting 10 sec to give a decision.... because all
that thinking is USELESS ! ( Except if he is trying to compose himself after
the torrid time he had in deciding, but even if this wait was not USELESS,
i won't like the wait because, i as a batsman/bowler/fielder  would then have
reason to doubt him )

In the end, it all boils down to HOW the umpire gives his decision... a 
confident (read quick, 2-3-4 sec at most) decision is less likely to be
questioned by anyone than a delayed decision.

I hope everyone realizes that what i am trying to say is that the mind is
much faster than is being given credit for. 1/10 th of a sec is a LONG 
time period for the Mind and Thought. 

If a slip fielder can take a blinder of a catch in 1/10 th of a sec. in
which time, he has to think AND act, why can't an umpire finish the 
thinking in like time and act in 2-3-4 seconds ??

I hope the length of this article hasn't diluted the point i was trying 
to make. You may review my previous article in this context.

WHEW !  ;-)

>Bharat

-Bhaskar-