Umpiring Innovations at the Stanford Competition

randomer

I am very interested to see the new umpiring innovations that are being used at the Stanford 20 20 games. They keep talking about the potential to reverse a decision where the umpire gives a player out, and the third umpire spots an error such as an inside edge for an LBW decision.

The bit that everyone seems to neglect is the close decision where the umpire gives a player not out, for example an LBW, and the technology shows that this was an error and the player should have been given out. In the Middlesex versus Trinidad and Tobago game today, Kartik was bowling to Darren Ganga. There was an appeal for LBW and the umpire gave it not out. The commentator (Nasser Hussain) suggested that it may have hit the pad before the bat. He then suggested that this is a decision that the third umpire should be consulted on.

The "hot spot" confirmed that the first impact was with the pad, and then hawk eye showed that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. The ball pitched in line, the first contact with the batsman was the pad and it was inline with the stumps, and hawkeye said that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. There was no reason why the player should have been given not out, therefore the third umpire should have been consulted.

Why do they only appear to consult on "out" decisions, but not scrutinise not out decisions?

Surely they are looking for the correct decisions to be made, rather than just fixing decisions where the umpire has wrongly given a player out.

Wrongly giving a player out has the same impact as wrongly giving a player not out.

Bobo148

randomer wrote: »

I am very interested to see the new umpiring innovations that are being used at the Stanford 20 20 games. They keep talking about the potential to reverse a decision where the umpire gives a player out, and the third umpire spots an error such as an inside edge for an LBW decision.

The bit that everyone seems to neglect is the close decision where the umpire gives a player not out, for example an LBW, and the technology shows that this was an error and the player should have been given out. In the Middlesex versus Trinidad and Tobago game today, Kartik was bowling to Darren Ganga. There was an appeal for LBW and the umpire gave it not out. The commentator (Nasser Hussain) suggested that it may have hit the pad before the bat. He then suggested that this is a decision that the third umpire should be consulted on.

The "hot spot" confirmed that the first impact was with the pad, and then hawk eye showed that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. The ball pitched in line, the first contact with the batsman was the pad and it was inline with the stumps, and hawkeye said that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps. There was no reason why the player should have been given not out, therefore the third umpire should have been consulted.

Why do they only appear to consult on "out" decisions, but not scrutinise not out decisions?

Surely they are looking for the correct decisions to be made, rather than just fixing decisions where the umpire has wrongly given a player out.

Wrongly giving a player out has the same impact as wrongly giving a player not out.

I have highlighted the last line of the original post above as it is the critical item in relation to the points that are made above it.

This statement is simply not true. The nature of a game of cricket, in this case a 20 over match, is that the fielding team has 120 opportunities to dismiss each individual batsman in the course of the innings. Some take a lot less than that, some batsman potentially can last a lot longer.

So in that context let's look at what happens when an appeal is made by the fielding team. This is on the basis of one single delivery, and the events that transpired from that delivery.

What happens if the batsman is given out:
The batsman finishes his innings, has no more chances to score runs for the team, and another batsman takes his place. It is his last involvement in that portion of the game, he gets no second chance.

What happens if the batsman is not given out:
He continues his innings, and his attempts to score more runs for the team. However while he gets the chance to score more runs, equally the fielding team has more attempts to take his wicket. Just because they were unsuccesful in taking his wicket with that particular delivery does not preclude them from taking his wicket with the next, or any subsequent delivery.

This is the critical difference between the plights of the batting and fielding teams. Once the batsmans innings is over then there are no second chances, but there is always another chance when you are fielding. This applies whether it is a missed run out, a dropped catch, a close LBW shout, or an umpires mistake. The fielding team always has another chance.

TrueDub

Have to agree with Bobo on this one. Also, if you're going to refer on all decisions, why have an on-field umpire at all? Just put a coatstand there...

I could be wrong on this, but isn't it up to the fielding captain or batsman to challenge a decision? They can challenge any decision that doesn't go their way, in or out.

randomer

I am afraid you are looking at the argument from the wrong point of view. You are looking at the issue from an individual batters point of view. I am looking at this issue with the intent of using technology to assist the umpires to make the correct decisions. Because there is so much at stake in the competition, measures were put in place to try to prevent an umpire making a mistake that could cost a team $20 million dollars.

“Wrongly giving a player out has the same impact as wrongly giving a player not out”. If a player is wrongly given out then the fielding side have been given an advantage based on a mistake by the umpire and the batting side have been disadvantaged.

Conversely, if a player is wrongly given not out, then the batting side are given an advantage and the fielding side are disadvantaged.

TrueDub wrote: »

Have to agree with Bobo on this one. Also, if you're going to refer on all decisions, why have an on-field umpire at all? Just put a coatstand there...

If there was a way to replace the on field umpire with a technological solution that guaranteed a near perfect standard with regard to decisions then I would be all in favour of this. I do not think there is a system at the moment available, and I would be surprised if any such system would be financially viable (although with Mr. Stanford financial viability could become a thing of the past!).

I also cannot see umpires becoming extinct any time soon.

The role of the on field umpire should be to act as a facilitator and their wrong decisions should not be allowed to have an impact on the result. However, like players, umpires will make mistakes BUT if technology can be used to reduce the number of errors, then use it.

TrueDub wrote: »

I could be wrong on this, but isn't it up to the fielding captain or batsman to challenge a decision? They can challenge any decision that doesn't go their way, in or out.

I believe you are wrong here. The referral system that was trialled in the past did allow the captain to seek a referral. In the Stanford Series there is no referral system. I think they are calling it the consultation system. This is not in place in normal cricket anywhere else in the world, and is being used to try to reduce the risk of an umpire being responsible for a $20 million mistake.

TrueDub

randomer wrote: »

I am afraid you are looking at the argument from the wrong point of view. You are looking at the issue from an individual batters point of view. I am looking at this issue with the intent of using technology to assist the umpires to make the correct decisions. Because there is so much at stake in the competition, measures were put in place to try to prevent an umpire making a mistake that could cost a team $20 million dollars.

This competition is no more or less important than any other, apart from the fact that a man with more money than sense has decided to shell out $20 million on it. The umpires will be endeavouring to eliminate all mistakes, just as they do at every level of cricket

Also, there's much more likelihood that a player will make the mistake that costs the team $20 million.

randomer wrote: »

If there was a way to replace the on field umpire with a technological solution that guaranteed a near perfect standard with regard to decisions then I would be all in favour of this. I do not think there is a system at the moment available, and I would be surprised if any such system would be financially viable (although with Mr. Stanford financial viability could become a thing of the past!).

Not available, not practical and probably utopian. If such a thing becomes viable, it'll appear in baseball long before it appears in cricket. I think it's pie in the sky though.

randomer wrote: »

The role of the on field umpire should be to act as a facilitator and their wrong decisions should not be allowed to have an impact on the result.

I don't agree - umpires are there to ensure the laws of cricket are followed and to act a decision-maker when asked to.

randomer wrote: »

However, like players, umpires will make mistakes BUT if technology can be used to reduce the number of errors, then use it.

This assumes that the technology can be used to reduce the number of errors - some of the technology is good & useful, some of it is at best speculative.

randomer wrote: »

The referral system that was trialled in the past did allow the captain to seek a referral. In the Stanford Series there is no referral system. I think they are calling it the consultation system. This is not in place in normal cricket anywhere else in the world, and is being used to try to reduce the risk of an umpire being responsible for a $20 million mistake.

You're correct that the system is not a challenge one, I was wrong there. I reckon the thinking behind it has very little to do with the money behind the tournament, and more to do with ensuring the quality of decision-making is consistent.

Finally, a question: how many game-turning mistakes do umpires make, on average? What I notice is the number they get right, not the odd ones they get wrong. There's no excuse for the howler mistake, but there's so few of these. If players were held to the same standards, there'd be no cricket played. In short, umpires don't lose games for teams, players do.

As an old gaelic football coach of mine once put it: "You should never be in a position where an official's decision can decide the game for you - if you are, you don't deserve the win".

Bobo148

Randomer,

Have you ever actually played the game at all? Umpired even a little bit?
You strike me as someone whose opinions are based upon what they see on the television. Nothing beats seeing the real thing. That is not meant as a slur, just a comment.

One other thing. Mistakes by umpires are part of the game, and the fewer the better. The objective decision making by the (human) umpire is also a huge part of the game. To remove this aspect removes a part of the heart of the game.

It would be interesting to "compare mistakes that cost the game" between players and umpries. In the other nights match Middlesex had T&T needing 45 off 30 but in the space of a very short time dropped a catch, dropped the ball over the boundary, threw two sets of overthrows and bowled a chest-high no ball that was hit for 6. Five mistakes in the course of 10 minutes, any one of which could arguably have cost them the match. Try searching the articles for the phrase "cost the match". I bet you'll only find it in the context of umpires.....

EDIT: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055407271Interestingly in this post here you lament mistakes by two Irish-born players but never mention the fact that it cost them the game? My point proven.....?

randomer

TrueDub wrote: »

You're correct that the system is not a challenge one, I was wrong there. I reckon the thinking behind it has very little to do with the money behind the tournament, and more to do with ensuring the quality of decision-making is consistent.

My opinion was based on a comment made by Simon Taufel where he stated that the referal system was in place to prevent an umpire making a $20 million dollar mistake.

randomer

Bobo148 wrote: »

Try searching the articles for the phrase "cost the match". I bet you'll only find it in the context of umpires.....

If you search for “man of the match” you will also not find any umpires being awarded this accolade. The reason for this is that the game is “played between two sides, each of eleven players” and the role of the umpire is to “control the game as required by the Laws”.

People go to watch players play. They do not go to watch the umpires, with the possible exception of Billy Bowden.

I do not think that we should remove umpires altogether, but if technology is available to assist the umpires, then why would we not use it? I am suggesting that we use technology to empower umpires rather than replace umpires.

The first steps have already been made with the introduction of the third umpire. Now, on field umpires rarely make decisions on close run outs or stumpings. They also refer decisions where they are not sure whether a catch has been taken cleanly. Why not go one step further?

Both Hot Spot and Hawk Eye could be used to assist umpires. Hot Spot was used in the first of the Stanford games to query a leg side catch behind. To the naked eye it looked like the ball had hit the bat, but after watching the Hot Spot replay it became obvious that the ball had hit the players thigh pad. Hot Spot could also be used to query LBW decisions, for example whether a batsman got an inside edge before the ball hit the pad.

While Hawk Eye has its detractors, admittedly mostly based on misconceptions, it uses advanced technology and is designed for extreme accuracy. Whenever there is an appeal for an LBW decision the pundits on TV go to Hawk Eye and rate the umpires decision against Hawk Eye. I don’t see any reason why Hawk Eye couldn’t be used. I firmly believe that however accurate a human can be, Hawk Eye can be more accurate.

Bobo148 wrote: »

Have you ever actually played the game at all? Umpired even a little bit?
You strike me as someone whose opinions are based upon what they see on the television. Nothing beats seeing the real thing. That is not meant as a slur, just a comment.

Yes I have and still played cricket at relatively high level.

With regard to umpiring, I have umpired games when I was younger and when I coached teams. Last year I decided to do the umpires course and I passed the GL6 Umpires exam. During the season I umpired about 8 games. I would have liked to umpire more, but my playing commitments prevented this.

randomer

Bobo148 wrote: »

It would be interesting to "compare mistakes that cost the game" between players and umpries. In the other nights match Middlesex had T&T needing 45 off 30 but in the space of a very short time dropped a catch, dropped the ball over the boundary, threw two sets of overthrows and bowled a chest-high no ball that was hit for 6. Five mistakes in the course of 10 minutes, any one of which could arguably have cost them the match. Try searching the articles for the phrase "cost the match". I bet you'll only find it in the context of umpires.....

EDIT: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055407271Interestingly in this post here you lament mistakes by two Irish-born players but never mention the fact that it cost them the game? My point proven.....?

After Ed and Eoin dropped their catches, was it possible to change the event? No.

After the umpire gave Ganga not out LBW, when technology showed that he should have been given out, was it possible to change the event? Yes.