For anybody in any doubt that India now runs world cricket, the fact that the “Decision Review System” is not being used in the current Test series against Australia is instructive. Alone amongst the cricketing nations, India objects to the use of “hot-spot” infra-red cameras, and the “Hawk-Eye” ball-tracking system. But India’s objection was enough – the International Cricket Council reversed its earlier decision to make the system mandatory for Test matches, and left it to the agreement of the participating teams.
However, there’s a more important question here – are the Indian cricketers correct? Does the technology actually work acceptably well?
Putting the case for the negative is Greg Baum in the Fairfax press today, citing a couple of cases where Hawk-eye’s predictions were inaccurate – the case of Phil Hughes in Sri Lanka. In this case, the developers of Hawk-Eye acknowledged a mistake was made, as the ball had not traveled the minimum distance (40cm) after pitching to allow Hawkeye to make a sufficiently accurate prediction of the ball’s trajectory.
For what it’s worth, it’s my strong suspicion that Hawk-eye gets it right far, far, more often than umpires do; furthermore, it has improved the game by correcting some of the more egregious umpiring errors. But my confidence in saying so has to be somewhat limited, because the detailed workings of Hawk-Eye remain proprietary, as do the testing protocols used by the ICC and the makers to demonstrate its accuracy.
The key unknown for me is how Hawkeye’s software calculates the flight of the ball after impact with the pads. Does it assume a “generic” cricket ball, and, if so, do the trajectories of a brand-new, old, or damp ball differ through the air enough to matter? How is “swing” modeled – do they assume a constant angular deviation? Does the system routinely perform any consistency checking, by making predictions based on the ball’s early trajectory and comparing them to the actual track of the ball?
My guess is that the Hawk-Eye system, over the ten years that it has been developed, has had most of the bugs ironed out of it and deals with the issues raised above in a reasonable manner. But we just don’t know. The most detailed public description of Hawk-Eye’s technology is this document from the company, which clarifies some issues – notably that Hawk-Eye’s LBW predictions are based only on what happens after the ball bounces – but doesn’t deal with the questions I’ve posed above.
Using the Decision Review System means that Hawk-Eye’s algorithms are, effectively, part of the laws by which international cricket is played. As such, they should be public, and the testing by which their accuracy has been established should also be public, so it can be subject to external review. If Hawk-Eye’s intellectual property needs protecting, they have recourse to patent law. Or, for that matter, the ICC could simply use a few million of the billions of dollars of Indian TV revenue to buy out the IP rights.
But it’s just not acceptable to have cricket matches decided by algorithms that approximate the motion of a cricket ball, when we don’t even know what those algorithms are.
When you write, Robert, that “we” don’t know what the algorithms are, what you mean is that the general public doesn’t know.
But for all you know, the cricket authorities might know all there is to know about them.
And when you write “it is not acceptable” , what you mean (or should mean) is that “it is not acceptable to Robert Merkel”.
Which is all very interesting, but only up to the point of your importance as a cricket fan.
Sam, you’re not trying very hard to keep your identity as Captain Obvious a secret, are you?
Sam, if you’re not interested in cricket, fine.
But surely one of the basic principles of sport is that the rules of the game should be public? Otherwise we may as well be watching pro wrestling.
Declaration: My view is that the technology as it stands is superior in its predictive accuracy to umpires. Those who prefer umpires to make all the calls usually declare that “mistakes are part of the charm of the game”, or an acceptable overhead. If so, would one prefer the mistakes of the technology (which at least ought to be consistent and infrequent) or the mistakes of humans using the technology. I prefer the latter.
All competent, honest, properly trained and experienced umpires use “an algorithm” to work out what is hitting the stumps for the purposes of LBW. It’s every bit as opaque as any used by the technology and even less practically available. I don’t think knowing the algorithm would be any more useful for most people than knowing the line-by-line code for MS-Office would be for most people using the app — and possibly less so, if anything.
Lets face it, all this diagnostic technology in cricket is for the commentators NOT the umpires or fairness or the public or the players.
The game of cricket is a test of skill AND character by everyone on the field.
The paid professional commentators tried to match them we all win.
I for one would be happy if I never saw ” hawk-eye ” or “hot spot” ever again. Give the Ump his balls back, not cut em off between overs because your to lazy to do the analysis unaided.
Obviously I’m with India on this one.
Robert, I am a huge cricket fan; less so of the dummy spits of techno-nerds who say that because the entrails of some technologies are unavailable to them, the integrity of the game is compromised.
If opaqueness bothers you, there are better targets. You could start with the completely unaccountable curators who play no part in the game but can determine its entire course by their choice of what kind of pitch to prepare.
tigtog, why are you so narky? Never mind, it’s NYE. I forgive you.
Sam, it’s not just that it’s unavailable to me, it’s unavailable to everyone except the developers of the technology and, possibly, the ICC.
How would we know, for instance, if the system gets “recalibrated” between innings?
As for curators, yes, it’s a bugbear. Where it gets most unfair is one team or another gets extra information about the likely pitch conditions and is able to select their team accordingly.
I agree that algorithms should be made public – the probability that people within the cricket associations have the technical capability to review them adequately would be quite low. There’s probably IP reasons for Hawk-eye not wanting to release the information, but they would certainly be well covered by patents so the risk would not be that large.
Fran @ 4 – its not that everyone in the general public would be able or care to review the algorithm, but there would be some who could, and would out of personal interest. I’d speculate that its certainly possible, if not probable that people outside the company would be able to improve the algorithms used.
I wonder if the cricketing associations actually pay Hawke-Eye at the moment or if they get the service for free in exchange for the PR.
The Silicon Valley cricket league is, by all reports, one of the strongest in the United States.
Heck, one of my colleagues at my present workplace used to play women’s cricket at a pretty high level.
Trust me, cricket has no shortage of nerdy fans.
Surely there are two seperate points here:
1) Is Hawkeye currently more accurate than umpires?
You bet – as anyone who watches the game closely must see. In every recent Test I’ve watched (yes, I’m a cricket tragic) there have been decisions where a simple slo-mo replay indicates the umpire probably was wrong – and in every single case Hawkeye sided with the replay, not the umpire.
In fact what the technology has done is shown that clearly wrong umpiring decisions are very common – too common to casually dismiss as “part of the charm of the game”. Also, given cricket’s history leaving it all to umpires may well lead to a serious corruption scandal one day (a possibility that might lead some to wonder about the motives behind the BCCI’s position ….).
2) Should those algorithms be public?
Ideally yes, that would prevent possible future claims about skullduggery. But so long as Hawkeye’s record means it is (rightly) regarded as accurate I don’t think it’s a killer point against its use.
Technology aside, let’s get back to the human element in all this and I am reminded of an umpire in my schooldays who felt obliged on one appeal from my team to state emphatically, ‘not out nor anywhere near out!’ . OK he was probably right.
I favour the technology for the way it re-introduces the appealing teams’ ‘psych-y’ back into proceedings. The appeal is turned down so bowler, keeper and skipper essentially confer and determine whether to counter appeal. They have a limit per innings of appeals. Team dynamics are on display here. Will Clarky prevail or is he beholden to other team pressures? What will the impact of a reverse decision be on the ump?
DRS adds a whole new dimension. By all means perfect the technology, but give the viewing public a chair in the proceedings.
“However, there’s a more important question here – are the Indian cricketers correct? Does the technology actually work acceptably well?”
No, sorry Robert, you are quite wrong there. I don’t disagree at all with what you say about the desirability of greater transparency about the workings of umpire-assisting technology – with preferably (open competition always produces the best outcomes, don’t you agree?) some alternative systems also trialled – but, in the greater context of ensuring hegemony and corruption do not destroy international cricket and reduce it to the credibility of wrestling, it is far more important to insist that the ICC is not run by and for Indian interests than to quibble about these technicalities.
The Indians oppose the DRS precisely because they believe that it produces, on the whole, more accurate decisions, and that less accurate decisions are more likely to favour India since umpires are uncomfortably aware that the ICC, who determines their future, is in thrall to the Indian revenue stream. After the disgraceful treatment of Darrell Hair – ranked the second-best umpire overall and number one in decision-making before the incident – after the ball-tampering affair, they haven’t been left in much doubt about which of good umpiring or politically correct decisions is more important. (And yes I do know that this incident did involve India; the point is how the ICC operates.)
India’s last tour of Australia is instructive too. They managed to turn the spotlight from their incompetent display in losing the first two tests into a witchhunt about alleged racism in the Australian team. OK, they were not entirely wrong, but a team with Harbajhan Singh in it was scarcely in a position to cast the first stone. This is not a culture which anyone with the interests of cricket at heart wants ruling the roost.
My personal view is that a real stoush over this – the soul of the game – between India and the rest of the cricketing world (possibly minus one or more of the other sub-continent nations), which will divide cricket as Packer did for a number of years, is inevitable if not desirable. If so, the sooner the better. I may be wrong of course – it has been known – but to ignore the possibility in favour of duelling over technical aids to umpiring is to miss the point by miles IMHO.
Wozza, yes, the way that the BCCI runs the Indian game is enough to give anyone pause.
However I would also out that Cricket Australia, its predecessor the ACB, and the powers that be in English cricket have a fairly nasty track record. Read Graham Halbish’s memoirs for an indication of how Australia and England used to treat the poorer cricketing nations – I can’t recall all the details, but I don’t think it was at all pretty.
@10
“”"But so long as Hawkeye’s record means it is (rightly) regarded as accurate I don’t think it’s a killer point against its use.”"”
Before Hawkeye was used by the media, the Umpire was (rightly) considered accurate.
@11
“”"DRS adds a whole new dimension.”"”
Yet it replaces the bedrock principle ” respect the Umpires decision ” and move on.
I have no problem with tech assisting the Umpire at his request, but not for undermining his on field authority and integrity.
Quite a streach for the ” WIN”team to demand accuracy when Healy appealed for everything hitting the pad and Tubby never “walked”.
This is the truth coupled with the Indians hysterically OTT appealing which is done purely to heap as much pressure on the umpires for the same reason above is also why they oppose the DRS.
Just get rid of LBW and snicks off the gloves (I mean, a bat’s a bat and a handle’s a handle, right?). That would solve 99% of the problems of crooked umpiring (or otherwise).
Batsmen would take advantage of the no-LBW rule by padding up a lot more. But bowlers would then introduce counter-measures to tempt outside the stumps.
Not offering a shot to a hittable (i.e. within arm’s length) ball more than three times in any one over would be out (like 3-strikes, but spread spread over 6 balls).
A shot on the full past the 5th row of seats is 8, with the 10th row of seats a 10. Out of the park is 12 (hey, they could’ve run 36, OK?). If a spectator is killed, the game is abandoned and the players and family of the deceased all go out for a curry.
A shot that crosses the boundary on the first bounce is 5.
Sledging by the bowling side is penalized by a no-ball for 2. Sledging by the batting side results in 2 runs deducted. Subsequent offences in the same over score 4. Maximum 3 sledging no-balls per over.
A bowling side that deliberately goes slow during the changeover is no-balled for 4 on the first offence, 6 on the second and subsequent offences until the time is reset by at least two successive quicker-than-required changeovers.
Anyone who hits the clothes line, the garbage bin, Aunty Glad’s pot plant, the dog, a seagull, or breaks a window is out, too.
Punch-ups, chest-ups, tummy-ups, deliberately throwing the ball at the opposition, using a tennis racquet instead of a bat, or starting to cry before taking bat and ball home shall forfeit the game.
Problem solved.
As both a Coach and Umpire I would not use the DRS at all.
The human element is a great ingredient to the game of cricket. Accepting you are out when you clearly believe it is otherwise is something every child should understand let alone adult.
DRS will never be able to discern LBWs and it is absurd to use it.
Sorry LTP I can’t agree. Cricket is a rule-based contest — they are actually called “laws”. Cricket matches are clearly supposed to confer advantages or penalties only as provided in “the laws”. Runs cannot be awarded, nor batters dismissed, nor ends changed nor players introduced to the grounds or allowed to participate except as provided under the laws.
For most of the history of cricket, the implementation of the laws fell entirely upon unassisted umpires. That was a fact of life and still is below the elite level. Technology was simply unavailable for most of that time and when it became available, it was/is too expensive for most to use. That problem is not a virtue, but a vice, and one should not fetishise it or apoligise for it. That’s an egregious exercise in cognitive dissonance, making a virtue of necessity.
The law of the land worked for a long time without adequate technology and the results were not good. Crimes went undiscovered far more frequently, and this very perception added to criminal conduct. Innocent folk suffered sanctions they ought never to have contemplated. When new technology became available, it was introduced to the pool of data for determining how the law should be implemented in practice. That added to the integrity of law.
So too it is with cricket. Mostly, for practical reasons, we will continue to rely purely on human umpires to determine the operation of the laws of cricket in actual matches, and it is right that those participating should accept the decisions with good grace regardless of one’s personal opinion. That was certainly how I coached my charges. Life is not always fair, I would remind them, and one just has to play the cards one is dealt as well as one can, until someone can come up with some new cards and persuade others they should be part of life. Technology in sport is one such card.
I was never really bothered by the umpiring mistakes, always being happy enough to accept that the umpire was calling it as he saw it and that any errors would get evened out over time (corruption and bias notwithstanding, but since neutral umpires I think that has been largely a non-issue). The technology is fine by me, but so is the system used by the under 12s where the coaches generally umpire.
On the subject of software openness, though, I think corruption is a bigger issue than ‘secret rules’. Like electronic voting, electronic umpiring is vulnerable by its nature to security breaches. I have no idea what security guards the implementation of Hawkeye at cricket matches, but whatever safeguards are there, you can guarantee that there are shifty buggers giving them a long hard look as we speak. Given that the technology developed as a novelty for television, rather than a critical part of the sport’s integrity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that security (as distinct from ip protection) might have been a bit of an afterthought, and the proprietary software barrier means we have no way of assessing whether or not they’ve implemented the Playstation Network model of data protection through crossed fingers.
Dan said:
Claims such as these are precisely what I had in mind when I said:
That problem is not a virtue, but a vice, and one should not fetishise it or
apoligise{ugh!! apologise} for it. That’s an egregious exercise in cognitive dissonance, making a virtue of necessity.It’s self-comforting handwaving. The claim is clearly qualitative and quantitiative. Wisely, IMO, nobody has ever set out even to devise a model for testing this claim — still less attempted to compile salient data under its aegis to refute or support it. Even if one could show that “it tends to even out in the end” is this what we really want? Don’t the Laws of Cricket have decisive importance? If, de facto, some other laws are in force, and several wrongs counter balance several other wrongs, doesn’t that make a mockery of the contest? Why not toss three coins to see if people were out whenever there was a close one? That would make more sense.
By that reasoning , wouldn’t you have to accept that the pre-Hawkeye history of cricket was a farce?
No, I wouldn’t Dan. As I said, one plays the cards one is dealt as best one can. If the price of an activity is inaccuracy and failure, but the activity is still beneficial in net terms, one lives with it until one can do better. One doesn’t console oneself with delusion. One sighs and wonders how we might make the activity better.
We call that progress.
Fran,
Go to the Laws of Cricket and then go to the preamble and examine what it says about the spirit of the game.
Technology can make mistakes as the designers agree.
Has the introduction of technology made the game of cricket better.
not in my opinion
Fran, like I said, I’m happy enough with the technology — I’m not really a nostalgic for the past. I just don’t see it as a huge issue. Yes, there were some errors, and they were regrettable in a sense, but I don’t think they had a big impact on the game overall. The umpire’s discretion was like the pitch — sometimes it would deliver an unfair result, but dealing with that gracefully was a part of being a cricketer or a cricket fan. The introduction of technology is a bit like the introduction of pitch covers, and then drop-in pitches, in that it’s diminished the frequency of such unfairness, and I think that’s fine. But uncertainty (and thus unfairness) is a part of cricket, and it always will be, and the batsman who has to tuck his bat under his arm and trudge uncomplainingly (in the idealised version) back to the pavilion has always been one of the distinguishing features of the sport. I can sympathise with those who feel the loss as the uncertainty is incrementally diminished. Pleading with the umpire for a close call is like scanning for clouds on the horizon to save a test — a part of the emotional landscape that makes cricket what it is, as offensive as it might be to the ideal of a fair contest. I don’t know whether the game endures despite its contradictions, or because of them, but I do know that some people are drawn to the very cruelness that cricket can sometimes deliver, and I think that’s okay.
Progress ay?
Speaking of coin toss, maybe a coin-cam to give the punters another angle, perhaps the loosing captain of said toss could have three appeals on the height,rotations and number of bounces the coin has, lord ganesha even knows that accuracy and perfection should be our goal and lets face it ,the “toss” should be done by a trained and certified “tosser” rather than the random celebrities or raffle winners whose integrity can’t be guaranteed.
Or do away with the “toss” all together and have the Captains arm wrestle(Clarks % would plummet ) for the right to bat or field. With arm wrestle-cam for sure. Best of three, with advertising in between.
Cricket MUST progress right?
And don’t get me start on the light rule…..
Dan, that’s a very good question.
According to Tawny Greig, who has zealously informed us 356 times this summer, Eagle Eye is shed loads of resolution better than Hawk Eye.
What do the Laws of the Land(s) say about intellectual property, patents, etc?
If Hawk eye made its algorithms available, Eagle Eye would pinch them. And if Eagle Eye has already pinched them, Condor Eye will pinch them (when Condor Eye is invented).
And Hussey is a prime example Dan, he has been marched incorrectly more than any player i’ve seen, does he whinge to the media? No. He brushes it aside as ” part of the game”. The selectors are aware of this, hence his ongoing selection. Folk calling for his sacking obviously don’t follow the game as closely as they ought.
And what about the daffy Duckworth-Lewis method for determining the required runs in a rain-shortened one day match? That algorithm is more tightly held than the launch codes for nuclear missiles.
Jumpy @ 25:
How about a 20/20 match instead of a coin-toss to determine who gets to bat first in the five-day cricket match?
As for 20/20 matches: the team that bats first is the team that wins the five-day test to decide who bats first in the 20/20 match.
Terangerree @ 30
You could be onto something,Why?
Test match – Masters Chess tournament.
ODI – Pub 8 ball game.
20/20- coin toss.
Or if readings your go;
Test match – J.R.R. Tolkiens LOtR
ODI – MAD Comic
20/20 – Xmas bon bon joke .
Hey, i got it, they could pop a bon bon to decide*
(*) With all the appropriate modern technological computer modelled scrutiny of course.
LtP said:
As others here can attest, I set no store by metaphysics, and by extension “spirits” of any kind. Much as it is settled in jurisprudence that one cannot delegate greater authority than one has, so too the declarations of the MCC cannot arrogate to the contest more than is measurable or specifiable. That will probably why the preamble sets out at some length conduct contrary in their view to the “spirit of the game” and the responsibility of captains and umpires for determining what it entails or precludes. I have no problem with granting scope for umpires to deal ad hoc with matters arising that may raise doubts about the fairness of the conduct of one or more players, bearing in mind the quite specific provisions of the preamble. Some things are hard to define at law, and just as judges represent the interface between the statute and common law on the one hand, and the claims of citizens and the state on the other, umpires are an apt vehicle for the interpretation of the mandates and preclusions in the Laws and the preamble.
While resort to technology may well mislead on occasion, it seems to me that those occasions will be far fewer than the occasions on which an honest and competent but unassisted umpire may be misled. That reality must lead, IMO, to greater conformity with the Laws and “spirit” (if such be recognised) to which the preamble alludes.
I suppose Dan, that this is one of those subjective things. I’m a great believer in fairness, which entails, inter alia non-arbitrary behaviour. Sometimes, arbitrariness creeps in, but to me that always appears, at best, to be untidy, if not downright offensive.
Now don’t get me wrong — I do like the noblesse oblige one sees when a player shows character in circumstances where one ought to be sorely tested. I recall Sangakkara (the SL WK and captain) being sawn off out here in a test match just shy of a double hundred when his team was clinging on for dear life. He’d played a marvellous innings, and yet when given out showed not a hint of displeasure at the outcome — so much so that the commentators assumed it was straightforward until they saw the replays. Queried the next day, KS simply observed that in the end, he was very happy and privilged to be playing the game, and thought that in the grand scheme of things, the injustice was trifling by comparison with the things that one sees in the wider world. One could scarcely avoid being impressed.
That said, the mistake subverted the contest, and for all we know, determined the match result. That’s not a good outcome.
Or was it? Didn’t the situation deliver a more poignant moment than it might have if the decision had gone to review and he’d gone on to make his double ton? Tough for Sangakkara, but not everyone would agree that it was bad for cricket.
Wozza, I do not accept your statement ‘since umpires are uncomfortably aware that the ICC, who determines their future, is in thrall to the Indian revenue stream’. I think international umpires ( there is not a single Indian amongst them now) are impartial and do not bow to any pressure. I certainly cannot imagine Simon Taufel being influenced by any such considerations. The people who most try to sway the umpires are the fielders with their appealing. Next time may be when you watch a match work out the ratio of yes decisions to the total number of vociferous appeals.
The one dimension technology adds is enjoyment for the TV viewer seeing endless replays trying to make out out or not out and the endless conjectures to as the how the match would have ended if only they had allowed the UDRS. As a couch potato I have to admit much enjoyment from the process. After all it is a game.
Rob, it can’t be true that only India objects to the DRS, as they are but one vote on the ICC Executive Board, and at least 7 voted in favour of the optional system. Other boards may have done so for reasons of cost, for reasons of real-politik, or for technical reasons. The opacity if board decisions mitigates against knowing if even Cricket Australia voted in favour of a mandatory system.
On the technical elements. Hawkeye has occasionally released data from controversial decisions and it is possible to reconstruct what they probably do from that. Umpires are explicitly barred from predicting what a ball “might” do, only what it has/is doing. Some standard ball recognition and simple curve fitting would suffice (and by and large be as accurate as any predictive method).
The limitations are therefore the accuracy of the ball recognition (camera resolution), and the errors n the curve fitting (frames per second). Apparently, EagleEye has a higher fps – is less likely to make gross errors (the Hughes dismissal) and has better accuracy on impact points which Hawkeye does manually – Hawkeye has higher resolution. In either case, the error could be calculated, and will generally be 1-10mm at the stumps.
That is a large enough error, that (as with the technical limitations of hotspot and replays) show the flaw in the current review model. The implication is that a “correct” decision can be arrived at through technology, when a relatively large number of close decisions are unknowable. The system would be better conceived if it worked to advise the central umpire quickly (immediately) prior to making their first and only decision, instead of trying to correct decisions that could have gone either way.
Dan said:
Without the technology, the only one who could have been certain KS was sawn off and took it with grace would have been KS himself. Others would have assumed, as they did pre-late 1970s, that the umpires were right on this one — so no “poignant moment”.
I guess what I’m saying is that you remember this incident for reasons that wouldn’t have existed if the review system had been in place, and your memory of it is (at least partly) positive. Something of value would have been lost had the technology stepped in.
To me the technology improves decision-making and avoids obvious egregious errors. There are two issues worth considering about its use.
Firstly, I think there is a case for all decisions to be subject to review by the third umpire before being decided by the field umpire.
Secondly, in the case of LBWs there could be some allowance for a margin of error. For example if the edge of the ball snicks the edge of either the left or right stump then the batter is given the benefit of the doubt. The margin of error could be half the width of the stump and half the width of the ball.
It was said on the ABC that India opposed the DRS because Tendulkar didn’t like it. Whether that’s true or not I have no idea and I wouldn’t question his integrity. Nevertheless I do think some umpires would give him the benefit of the doubt, especially in India. As they would have Lara in the West Indies.
Batsman.
Batter? Has the topic been changed to fish and chips?
Beer batter is rather nice.
The DRS most certainly makes decisions more accurate. I think we can all agree on that. The occasions when it is wrong are far fewer than the occasions when umpires get it wrong.
But umpires can take responsibility for their decisions. Who takes responsibility for the decisions of a computer? The 3rd umpire? He cannot be held responsible for a decision a computer told him to make. Umpires can be scrutinized on their mistakes and reviewed in public (and I presume in private within the ICC) and be punished and rewarded as such. As they should. Who owns the decision of Hawk-eye?
I think this is the real reason for India’s dislike of the system. During the 2007-2008 tour India went balls-to-wall for the removal of Steve Bucknor because they did not like his decisions (we can debate another time whether this was good or wise). But they succeeded. If an umpire screws up he can be removed. What happens when Hawk-eye screws up?
This is the only objection I have with DRS, though I don’t agree with the BCCI (and think it is not in India’s long term interests to continue with their policy) and it should be made mandatory by the ICC.
Dad used to despise Hawk-Eye technology. I had a conversation with him maybe 10-15 years ago, about the time cricket telecasts became really saturated with cgi and sponsor branding. My take was just that observer principle says if you change the way you observe the game*, you change the game.
High quality slow-motion replay meant that umpires were being found to be in error. For a while, that was almost ok…a side game the commenters could play with the tv viewer. A small bonus to make up for not being there, since you got see something the crowd and players couldn’t until later…
But the advent/increased use of tv screens situated inside the stadium, not just tv cameras – one of the *true* Americanisations of sport, decades beyond Riefenstahl (forget your blooming batter/batsman hang ups and weird reluctance to want to basically distinguish between gender neutral and gender specific as seen fit)…
Replaying those errors in slow-motion over and over again to everybody, accompanied by shots of the players and umpires on the field watching (praying to) those heavily sponsor branded tv screens to see if they were right…any authority the umpire had left, on the ground, in the moment, was really thrown out the window with that…
* Worth noting a lot of this came to the fore around the same time as basketball; a hyper-marketed (as sophisticated as it was tacky) television-imported team sport that cricket was seriously struggling to compete with, and losing a lot of kids/future membership to at a community level, for a few years there…
That’s how I remember it anyway
It’s been a long time since I bothered with televised sport.
We should ask ourselves who was the “driving force” behind this technology.
The players? No, every player at the highest level is indoctrinated with ” The umpire is always right ” don’t argue or show dissent , just walk off ( batsman ) or play on( fielding team). If they don’t have this quality , they are shown the door before state level or quit under the weight of the fines. Besides, they accept if you receive a bad one, the odds are you’ll get a good one next innings.
The Umpires? defiantly not.
The fans? no, it’s not as if they voted with their remote controls, WIN is the only option, they aren’t competing for the viewers with anyone. The TV rating aren’t driven by hawk-eye or hot spot.
WIN itself ? no for the same reasons as the fans.
Ritchy, Tony, Ian, Bill, Tubby and Heals. Yes, it’s like Bling for commentators to take the focus of their inability to fill the time between change of ends with skilful commentary . Rather than regale about the good deliveries or wonderful shots, we get ” Lets just have another look at that contentious LBW decision three overs ago.” It’s also laziness.
Get rid of it.
In the old days before Hawkeye, the Australian tradition for batsman (exemplified by Dougie Walters) was that that you just took the ump’s decision regardless. If you knew you weren’t out, but still got given out, you copped it sweet and walked. On the other hand, if you were given not out when you knew you were out, you kept quiet also and batted on.
When my old Dad had his first match in Victoria, on the very first ball there was a loud appeal for caught behind. The ump gave him not out. Dad said he knew he was out because he felt the vibration on his bat.
In the tradition of the time he went on batting, deciding after that decision that his luck was in. And it surely was, because he went on to make a century and get a big wrap in the local press.
In a way, I think it was part of the old Oz tradition – you win some and lose some.
Don @46 , a comment worthy of the other ” Don” may he RIP.
Seconded!
And speaking of Dons, I doff my hat to Paul Reiffel who now dons an Umpires hat.
Don
All your Dad’s observation amounts to is that two wrongs really do make a right.
JimmyC that may or may not be the case.
in the case of LBW it is absurd.
Even in the case of snicks we now know ‘snicko’ does not always get it right.
in the close call of run-outs or stumped I would rather it stays with the umpire. If the Umpire wishes to utilise the technology then ok.
But never the players otherwise you get the ridiculous situation of them always appealing against the last person out because they can.
If a person snicks and knows they have but doesn’t walk they are CHEATING
“”"Law 3: The umpires. There are two umpires, who apply the Laws, make all necessary decisions, and relay the decisions to the scorers. While not required under the laws of cricket, in higher level cricket a third umpire (located off the ground and available to assist the on-field umpires) may be used under the specific playing conditions of a particular match or tournament.”"”
Not to be used by commentators to mock the men that do a job they are unwilling (but certainly capable if you listen to them) to do.
I can find no law that states a batsman must walk, how can that be cheating?
@jumpy, gilly did it in good spirit and fairness of the game. Sadly lacking today.
Ok, one more Dad story.
He was a stickler for walking when you knew you were out. As a coach he wouldn’t try to force it on kids, but definitely encouraged it as being the right thing to do…
And it was. Any batsman who walked would get a round of applause from everyone there that day, if possibly a somewhat muted and grumbling, but still respectful, round of applause from his own teammates. It was something people liked to see.
He led by example too. On quite a few occasions I saw him earn the genuine ire of his adult teammates (a tougher bunch than us kids, least that’s what I thought at the time) by walking at some particularly critical point of the match…and he used to worry that I was too much of an idealist! Where on earth did I get that from?
Anyway, a lot of it I think was wanting to be seen as a fair club who played the game the right way – for its enjoyment, and to help build a genuine sense of community spirit (in what were relatively new and still developing communities). What else was important? He was very much against the buying and sellers of young players that other larger clubs indulged in, and the building of enormous ‘entertainment’ driven clubhouses to subsidise and fund that buying and selling…
“We’re not playing for sheep stations!” I heard him yell that a few times to the opposing captain from the boundary on a given Saturday afternoon.
It is cheating because he knew he snicked the ball and it was caught.
Well, of course it is in one sense.
But if you are prepared to walk without a fuss or even a gesture for the bad decisions when you were clearly not out, I don’t see much morally wrong with staying when you know you should be out.
That was the culture in those days. If you appoint umpires, let them make the call and live with it.
Maybe it had something to do with our convict heritage, where most of us learnt the legal concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Doesn’t mean we were necessarily innocent – just that they couldn’t prove we’d done it. Makes sense when you think about it. Many were probably pinged for things they hadn’t done, so why not the reverse?
That attitude reached its peak in the late 19th century when a Queensland jury returned a verdict on a cattle duffing charge as,
“Not guilty, provided he returns the cattle.”
As so often with regulation, the implementation details really matter. If, as russ@36 asserts, the margin of error at the stumps for Hawkeye is 1-10mm, then it can never incorrectly overrule an umpire’s LBW decision, as more than half the ball has to hit (or miss, in the case of a “not out”) to do so. A cricket ball is 71-73 mm wide.
I always thought walking silly – if you’re wrongly given out you have to go, but if you’re wrongly given not out you also have to go.
Whether the motives of the BCCI in rejecting the DRS are honourable or not I can’t say, but given past form you have to worry.
Just so DD.
Review is also useful for balls pitching outside leg or inside edges onto the pads (neither of which should be given out) or balls clearly missing the stumps. Even here though, it is the umpire who formally reverses him/herself.
It is against the Spirit of the Game ;
“To dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture.”
And always has been, DRS should have died at the concept stage on that basis alone.
A wonderful SCG Test so far IMHO.
2 questions;
1. Has the lack of DRS spoilt it or made it less of game?
2. What are the names of the Umpires ? ( from memory, no google)
(And CONGRATULATIONS M.J. Clarke, 251 no.!!! ,strike rate 73.39 !!!)
One final story on umpiring decisions before Hawkeye comes from Ashley Mallett. Appropriately it also involved India from an Australian tour there.
He told about wicket-keeper Ray “Slug” Jordan being given out caught behind. Mallett said there was never any doubt about it: you could have heard the snick in the grandstand.
But for some reason, Slug was convinced he hadn’t touched the ball and was furious about the decision. He couldn’t stop talking about it in the dressing-room, and at lunch decided to confront the umpire about it.
The umpire heard him out very politely and patiently and then replied,
“Well, Mr Jordan, even if you did not snick the ball, your pads were very adjacent to the stumps.”
Jumpy asked:
I don’t think it has made much difference to this match, so far, but that is not the point. The virtues of system design don’t have to be vindicated all the time, any more than insurance must always be used, or traffic cameras must deter every vehicle (including the many who wouldn’t even if there weren’t cameras) from speeding or running reds.
Erasmus and Gould from memory. I think Gould’s first name is Ian.
Fran
So the answer to Q1 is NO,
“”"or traffic cameras must deter every vehicle (including the many who wouldn’t even if there weren’t cameras) from speeding or running reds.”"”
And i’m sure if you or Labouring the Point ever realised you were inadvertently doing 55km/h in a 50 zone, you or he would immediately go(or “walk”) to be police station and demand to be fined. Yeh right.
“the” police station
Jumpy said:
Putting aside the silly scenario you paint, in my personal experience the vast majority of drivers observe the rules on speed and traffic control lights in particular most of the time even though very few are controlled by surveillance technology and few expect to be detected infringing.
Some of that reflects the realities of road usage — it’s very difficult to speed when the road is highly occupied, and most people regard running reds as dangerous. The basic point is that the surveillance technology is aimed at deterring that minority of drivers who may be tempted to engage in high-risk behaviour in some locations.
Congrats Michael Clarke — 317* at this stage …
Highest SCG score
So far only Hayden, Bradman, Barnes and Taylor ahead of him amongst Australian test players …
Pain in a test match occurs when a 288-run partnership is followed by one above 300 at over 4 runs per over
Currently the partnership is 303* @ 4.18 …
oops … senior moment … Barnes only got 234 not 334 …
Clarke declared at drinks on 329* with Hussey on 150* … the partnership was 334.
Hmmm … that number!
Well done Pup, Punter and Huss, positions concreted ( not cemented ) and doubters silenced (i hope).
Marsh? not so much ( 3 runs in 3 digs).
Batsmen backing up the brilliant performance of the bowlers as they should. No matter how many run a team accumulates, to win, 20 wickets must be taken. So it’s not in the bag yet.
Honourable mention to Umpires Erasmus and Gould, and the crowd.
Had I been in charge of Australia’s team, Jumpy, short of being knocked over, the Indians would have been in the field until mid-day 4. Unless dismissed, Clarke and Hussey might have had 500 and 300 respectively …
Revenge for Calcutta, 2001 …
Yeh Fran, mine would have been to bat till Haddin got out(no point exposing the bowlers)or end of first session day 4.
But I hear ya, make em recuperate till the 3rd test on the 13th rather the practice.( it’s a friday the 13th too)
“”or end of first session day 4.”"”
Or maybe 4 overs before the brake.
Or break, if ya like.
That’s right Fran I still have nightmares of that Indian tour in 2001, 2nd Test wasn’t it after we made them follow on?
Clarke declared way, way too early and on a road like this should’ve gone after Lara’s 400* but although a knocker of his in the past a big congratulations to Clarke on his 329*.
Unimpressed with Haddin’s miss at the end of the day. There is some rain predicted for tomorrow, Jacques, which may put the declaration in perspective.
Cripes, does everything go into moderation these days?
Correct Jacques … SRW’s call was arguably the biggest blunder in test history. I can’t think of a worse one.
Lefty E @75
Yep, literally absolutely everything, and has for months. At least if you’re me. Of course, there being no right-winger alert, moderate moderate moderate, system in operation here this I assume means it affects you too. Haven’t you noticed?
JDM @ 73, sort of agree, I’d have batted till tea personally, but there is rain in the forecast. Time to take wickets is probably of more concern than the marginal runs benefit of the extra time batting. Let’s face it, if you don’t win with a lead of 468 runs on the first innings and two and a half days to play, it is unlikely that the timing of the declaration will prove to have been the determining factor.
@Lefty E We just had a flurry of about 80 spam comments that came in all at once, your comment probably got caught up by an overstimulated automodbot.
Ahh, fair enough Tigtog!
Yeah, LE. It was a bad miss by Haddin. They’ll play him through this series, but I think they may dump him after that. Paine and Wade are knocking on the door.
Great effort by Clarke and Hussey today, and by Ponting and both of them yesterday.
Only likely selection change for Adelaide is if Watson’s fit. I’d put him back to opening, with Warner at No.4 and Ponting back at 3.
Should win this by an innings if they can get Sachin and VVS out cheaply.
Agree Don. Paine is a better bat in any case
After all of the records so far set in this 100th test the best addition would be for Sachin to get his hundredth hundred.
“”" SRW’s call was arguably the biggest blunder in test history. I can’t think of a worse one.”"”
How about Dilshan sending South Africa in after winning the toss in Cape Town?
Kallis scores 224,A.N.Peterson 109, A.B. de Villiers 160no.
South Africa declare 4/580.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-sri-lanka-2011/engine/current/match/514034.html
Coverage on Fox 3 at 9:10
Paine probably isn’t “knocking” — at least if he wants to recover from the pain in his hand …
My dark horse for the spot is Wade, who seems a very sharp keeper — did you see him last night in the Scorchers-Southern Stars game, for example? — and he can also bat.
As to the declaration — it’s not merely about winning the test but taxing the other side in the field. It’s in the field where most injuries occur. There are two tests after this one, and the chance of wearing them out physically and psychologically is not to be sniffed at, IMO.
Inviting them to chase 750 to force a fourth innings would be brutal.
It’s just too messy.
The problem there Jumpy is not with the technology which showed what was obvious to everyone — the ball was taking off stump having pitched on middle.
The problem was with saying “umpire’s call”. It had half the ball from the outside of the stump.
jumpy, that’s not messiness, that’s precision.
Is the rule that half the ball hast to hit half the stump, or should the middle of the ball be lined up with the outside of the stump?
If the former, as was applied in this case, then I’d suggest that the rule be changed to the latter. dd @ 56 says a cricket ball is 71-73 mm wide. Half of that is plenty to account for any inaccuracies if russ @ 36 is right in saying that Hawk-eye is accurate to 1-10 mm at the stumps.
Brian
There are a couple of issues here.
1. DD is quite right. If one allows 10mm in favour of the batter to allow for potential error, a further 25mm is ‘on the stumps’.
2. The error margin is plus/minus and there is no explicit law of cricket (Lawry and Chappell notwithstanding) that says ‘doubt’ ought to be in favour of the bat. Being dismissed is not comparable to a criminal offence. Potentially, the ball could have been taking some of middle as well.
It is true that dismissing a batter is a very serious penalty — arguablly greater than giving the batter a pass is a penalty to the bowling side. and the flow of the match. I’d be happy giving the batter 10mm and making this ‘umpire’s call’ or ‘original decision stands’.
Here, the umpire was clearly wrong and the decision should have been overturned. That’s what UDRS is for.
I don’t have a problem with the technology of hawkeye or hot spot, only the way it is used.
If it is used by the UMPIRES at the umpires request to assist him or her, thats fine and within the spirit of the game and breaks no law.
If you consider Law 42 ( fair and unfair play) No. 18.
18. Players’ conduct
If there is any breach of the Spirit of the Game
either in the case of an unfair action not covered by the Laws, under 2 above,
or by a player
either failing to comply with the instructions of an umpire
or criticising an umpire’s decisions by word or action
or showing dissent
or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute,
the umpire concerned shall immediately report the matter to the other umpire.
The umpires together shall
(i) inform the player’s captain of the occurrence, instructing the latter to take action.
(ii) warn him of the gravity of the offence, and tell him it will be reported to higher authority.
(iii) report the occurrence as soon as possible after the match to the Executive of the player’s team and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players and, if appropriate, team concerned.
Then, clearly the use of UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System ) when solicited by players is against the law, full stop.
Time to drop Marsh, 11 on his home track?( probably 4 too many) 14 runs in 4 digs? I don’t care if his dad was “The Don” himself, he’s gotta go.