The technology available today can easily get rid of human umpiring and its errors. I suppose it might be a bit costly, hack-able (no more than the bias umpires themselves), and may need some time to be bug free but still in the long run it will be great!
So, why not just get rid of the umpires? It’s no good keeping anything only for the sake of tradition. I mean, look at the English Queen *yuck.
Re: unhuman umpiring
I don't think so. Errors made by umpires are part of the game and can equally be enjoyed. I love when umpires fk up and we get to talk about it over lunch, coffee and now in threads. This is why cricket is so kool.
What i don't like is when players cheat and damage the spirit of the game. That we can definitely do without.
Re: unhuman umpiring
Well by same token, when players cheat, we do "get to talk about it over lunch, coffee and now in threads".
The gauge is wrong. When the hopes and aspirations of a whole nation are riding on a player, and the umpire screws up, its only kool if you are rooting for the other team. For everyone else, its a black mark on the game. There should be no margin for error at top-level cricket. Neither for the players, nor for the umpires. EOS.
Re: unhuman umpiring
well good thing with machines is that margin of error is equal for both teams which is not the case in human umpires !!!!
Re: unhuman umpiring
Did Not Nadeem Ghauri take all the time and technology in the world, and still screwed up when he declared Inzi Out, Reason, he had the technology and the time, but did not know the applicable ruling for that particular situation?????????
So there goes your technology Theory!!!!!!
Re: unhuman umpiring
i think when umps are fined or reprimanded it shold b made public!
Re: unhuman umpiring
Not quite right Aejaza bhai, Nadeem was only supposed to comment on whether Inzi was in or out of his crease. The responsibility of applying the law was the umpires responsibility. The mistake was of the umpires on the ground not the third umpire.
Re: unhuman umpiring
With due respect, Inzi's out is not something that can be fixed by machines or whatever. Or may be it can, but not with available technology.
Re: unhuman umpiring
^ Yeah!
This is how it works. Field Umpires HAVE TO MAKE SURE that everything else is OK and the only question they can ask from 3rd umpire is if BATSMAN was in/or out of the crease.
A dumb law but still its THE law. Cricket need a basic law change...... REVERT OF DECISION AND RE-CALLING THE BATSMAN ....
Re: unhuman umpiring
What's technology gonna do when humans don't know the rules.
Inzi left the field cuz he didn't know the rule.. neither did the 'qualified' umpires nor the eleven British players. The only person who had the luxury to consult the rule book was Ghauri. He should have taken his time to investigate (like manjrekar who explained the law hardly after a few minutes of the dismisal)..that's where humans have the edge over machines. They are not preprogrammed and they should think out of the box. Ghauri should be spanked.
Re: unhuman umpiring
Read responses above, Ghori’s job was to tell them if Inzi was in crease or not when stumps were down, umpires on ground were responsible to judge the situation if Inzi got out of crease to avoid injury or before.
Re: unhuman umpiring
They have "invented" rule of "super-sub", similarly captains/team(s) should be allowed to challenge umpires decision 2-5 times a day/match.
Re: unhuman umpiring
The incident was treated as a runout situation not a question/confirmation. Does the red light have any other purpose than adjudicating Out?
Re: unhuman umpiring
Our folks just don't want to bash "our man" - Ghauri.
Hairr and Taufel are fair game! :-D
Re: unhuman umpiring
Itna Waqt laga yeh samajhne me sir jee. Our guys are always right.
Re: unhuman umpiring
in the next century or two, we wont see players playing cricket , but will see each country's robots team as a cricket team... each country will build its very own robots that are designed to play cricket. Just watch and see.
Re: unhuman umpiring
you guys make me laugh.....if the field umpire wants to confirm something or ask any specific question from the third umpire - he would do do over the walkie talkie - as in the case of a ruling of a six etc or judging whether the catch has been clean etc..
here the decision was REFERRED to third umpire...means he has to decide whether he was out or not...had the case been of just asking the question then the decision would have been given by the field umpire...
theek hain Ghouri saab pakistani hai..iska matlab yeh to nahi hai ki woh kuch galat kar hi nahi sakte
Re: unhuman umpiring
^ not true. Leg umpire wasnt sure if inzi grounded his foot in time so he refered to the third umpire. It was the job of the bowling umpire to determine if inzi was taking evasive action.
Re: unhuman umpiring
I say go for technology. Even it if makes mistakes atleast we will know they were genuine mistakes and not from bias. Otherwise, only one side is consistently on the receiving end.
Re: unhuman umpiring
that is what I was saying as well, that the ground umpires treated as “runout” without realizing that Inzi had given way to avoid injury while he was in crease before Harmi threw the ball.