Question about laws, 3rd umpires, etc after today's play...

y0ssar1an22

I'm hoping day 4/5 Clarke will beat his previous best of 329*. That should secure the Aussies the win.

Anyway I have 2 questions relating to today's play (Steve Smiths catch):

1: Bumble said the 3rd umpire could not give Root out because he could not be *absolutely certain* Smith took the catch. The umpires must be certain. If this is the case how can an umpire ever give an LBW decision, as it is essentially predicting the path of the ball (predicting the future), which by definition is uncertain?

2: Seeing as Root was give N/O means that Smith wrongly claimed a catch which was not a catch. This is the same thing as Ramdin in the CC, although Ramdin did not appeal for the catch. Surely now Smith must be given a ban as his actions were 'contrary to the spirit of the game'?

Thanks, and looking forward to hearing your opinions.

mike65

re LBW - the 3rd umpire has the luxury of "Hawkeye" which calculates the path. Once the ball is in the air after the bounce the path won't deviate.

y0ssar1an22

Thats fair enough. but I meant how can the on-field umpires ever give an LBW decision? They must also be absolutely certain, and they don't have the luxury of hawkeye.
It just seems (un)certainty applies in some situations and not in others.

mike65

Its very hard often enough esp if the batsman gets forward a long way. The judgement of the officials has been an integral part of sport and so much is being removed by technology. Still at least you only get two (failed) reviews per innings.

djimi

With LBW the ball doesn't have far to travel beyond the pads before hitting the stumps, so the chances of it deviating enough to change a decision are miniscule. Technically of the point of impact is more than 2.5m from the stumps it can't be given out, for this reason.

I didn't see the dropped catch, but there is a difference between not taking a catch cleanly, and what Ramdin did. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a ball carried or if it bounced first, and the fielder genuinely has no idea. Sometimes even with multiple replays it can be hard to tell. It's not cheating on the part of the fielder, and usually they will admit to not knowing if it carried, which is why the decision will be reviewed. Ramdin on the other hand simply picked the ball off the ground and proceeded to claim the catch. This was absolutely cheating.

For Paws

mike65 wrote: »

re LBW - the 3rd umpire has the luxury of "Hawkeye" which calculates the path. Once the ball is in the air after the bounce the path won't deviate.

'Hawkeye' is predictive only. It's calculations are based solely on the flight, angle of deviation from straight & speed of the ball up until the point of impact on the batsman.

It is the only technology currently in use which is solely predictive.
As such the 3rd Umpire can 'ignore' Hawkeye's 'opinion' if he feels he should;
ie; he does not rely solely on Hawkeye.

IMO, even after repeated slow motion replays of the Smith catch, there was doubt as to whether the ball had 'carried'. Benefit of doubt to the batsman.

HonalD

We're struggling with the human input into a computerised system. The problem with the catch is determined by the 3rd umpires opinion. LBW by Hawkeye has no human input apart from those occasions what decision is made on the field.

With regard to decisions on field made by umpires, there is the benefit of the doubt which falls in favour of the batter. If the umpire is unconvinced then it should be not out.