From: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Subject: Re: Replays for Umpiring
Keywords: Replays, Umpiring
Reply-To: pmc5@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul M Corballis)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.110612@is.morgan.com> andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
>In article <9221309.5793@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, rakesh@ecr.mu.oz.au (Rakesh DESAI) writes:
  [Rakesh comments deleted]
>
>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 c





a
>
>
>
>
>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 w





h
>
>
>
>
>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

Just to stoke the umpiring fires a bit more, I've noticed lots of posts
about the consistency of umpiring in the recent series, and indeed 
in all of cricket.  While I am no stranger to umpiring controversies :-),
I have seen none of those that have raised the ire of so many in this 
series, so this is just a general comment, not specifically related to
recent events.

Any student of perception (I am one) will confirm that the SAME OBSERVER
will be quite inconsistent when trying to make a difficult discrimination,
such as detecting a faint signal - or adjudicating a close run out appeal.
There are several possible reasons for this, including noise in the 
perceptual conditions, as well as a certain amount of biological noise.
This means that there is no such thing as an "absolute threshold" for, say,
adjudicating a run out, beyond which it will be definitely the case
that the batsman is given out.  The threshold for giving the man out 
will vary quite considerably, even with the same observer (i.e., umpire),
standing still in the perfect position.  As the old saying goes, to err
is human.  It may wind up that technology replaces the human observer in
time, at least in big matches, but I hope not.  The real issue is umpire 
bias, I think, not necessarily competance, although that is of course
important too.  The reason I say this is because even the best trained
and practiced umpires WILL make mistakes, and yes, sometimes those 
mistakes will be the winning or losing of the match.  The point is to 
avoid one side consistently benefiting from those mistakes.

I guess I've prattled on long enough.

Cheers, Paul

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket