From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: Replays for Umpiring
Keywords: Replays, Umpiring
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:06:12 GMT

In article <9221309.5793@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, rakesh@ecr.mu.oz.au (Rakesh DESAI) writes:
|> With most of the cricket playing nations  have the access to good TV
|> coverage of International Cricket matches, I wonder why none of the
|> countries are thinking of using TV replays to decide some of the close
|> decisions.
|> 
|> I mean especially some of the close run outs which are wee bit too fast
|> for human eye.  An umpire sitting in the pavilion can watch a replay and
|> pass on the verdict in terms of atleast run outs.  I am sure LBW
|> decisions are too complicated to be judged from camera.  Some of the
|> close bat and pad catches or catches taken inches above the ground or
|> bounced (inzamam-gower controversy) can have second opinion based on TV
|> replays.  Why Cricket authorities are adamant on using only human eye as
|> the judge for results?  When technology is available why not utilised?
|> 
|> Comments welcome.

Just a quick comment about runs outs that are too fast for the eye. I can recall many examples of run-outs that have been given/not given based on whether the bat was grounded or not. If an umpire can tell if a bat is grounded or not, surely he should be able to tell if the batsman was short or not?

As far as technology for determination of events, I am of the opinion that lbw decisons are far too complex (see also my earlier posting on trajectory tracking technology) for determination by technology. Perhaps I should be more precise here - i do not believe that technology can be effectively used for figuring out if a batsman is out lbw, but it may be possible to determine if, in a few cases only, the batsman is not out. In essence then all technology can do here is confirm that the ball which every ca


sual observer would declare to "have missed the stumps by a mile", would have in fact "missed the stumps by a mile". Not a lot of use to anyone.

So what about run-outs, close catches, stumpings? With run-outs, I can see that technology could potentially help in determining whether a batsman was safe or not by a substatial margin. Here again it seems that it is only confirming the more obvious case. I can think of too many cases where, in a really close situation, technology will not be able to provide the information which enable a third adjudicator to make an absolutely clear-cut decision. The third adjudicator will find himself in the position wh


ere he will be saying "based on the information that I have, it would appear that the batsman is out/not-out" In other words you have shifted the judgement from the umpire on the field to the umpire in the box. The same thing applies to catches and stumpings. (Although, curiously, stumpings seem rarely to cause a flare up - i can't remember one).

Recently r.s.c has been overloaded with postings about umpiring deficiencies and possible solutions. However, most solutions (nay, all) have proposed either "neutral umpires" or technology. No one has said anything about the *quality* of said "neutral umpires" and, as a corollary, no one has proposed anything substantial about getting umpiring skills improved across the board. If, as a number of r.s.c netters imply (or state), there is a deficiency in the quality of umpires, the correct procedure would be 


to address that deficiency directly by way of training and selection programmes rather than indirectly by way of neutral umpires or technology.

AC
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket