This poll has been requested by Decent6Chora
Are you in favor of use of technology in decisions like LBW, Caught Behind, bat and pad etc? Which option is near to your thoughts?
1- There should be no use of technology in these decisions
2- If Umpires on the ground want, they can refer the decision to TV umpire (just like runout decisions)
3- TV umpires should have authority to initiate and override the decisions of field umpires if they think/see that the decision is wrong.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
ehsan bhai, baree jaldee meen poll create keya hai! OK you are faster than saby per poll kia aisa hota hai ? :)
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Re: option #3, I think even right now, the third umpire can tell the ground umpires on certain errors... for example where the fielder had touched the rope while stopping the ball from a four, I have seen third umpire called ground umpires for them to fix their earlier decision. I believe they should increase the spectrum to even more critical decisions.
Having said that, I see two problems. It will take too long for umpires to reach decisions if every thing they do is second-guessed and replay'd till cows come hom. And secondly, the whole Hawk-eye and Sniko-meter thingy is not fool proof either. Cricket ball can do weird things, especially where there is a skillful bowler involved (remember Qadir's googlies in English tour 1982, where umpires just can't believe which way the ball is gonna turn) so the whole Hawk-eye thingy is just a guess anyway.
Maybe we can consider having a limited "Challange" concept introduced. Where a team's coach can challange maximum 3 umpiring decisions on the spot (for an ODI). If the coach's challenge proves correct, it won't count against the limit of 3. Something like that. That will make coaches pay more attention as well.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
I like that idea - I like it a lot! :k:
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Both #3 in poll and your suggestions are invalid. Both are against the nature of the game of Cricket. I was watching the ICC World of Cricket, a weekly program on CBC last night that gives previous week’s summary and highlights of the game and ICC’s developments, projects and hot issues in hands.
They interviewd Simon Taufel and also covered the Hawk-eye and Sniko-meter and other technologies and how they work. In short the umpire’s are in favour of using technology as the run out decisions in last 2-3 years have been very satifactory and helped reduce controversies etc. But the option of getting third umpire involved must be made by ground umpires. The overriding decisions or challenging umpire’s decision by coach will ruin the sophistacated nature of this gentleman’s game. Umpire decision has always been accepted in cricket’s history and it shows the decipline this game creates in its players. Cricket is unique in this sense from the rest of the games (most of the world’s thrilling sports). Playing cricket back in 1920s/30s was like sending your kid to a boarding school, as it was meant to grow decipline in player’s life.
Just my thoughts.
#2 goes with the soul of this beautiful game. :k:
Re: Use of technology in decisions
good idea@challange
Wasiey I have seen many errors of umpires on caught behinds and i am pretty sure that this will take care of around 90% of the errors. Thing is that we are using technology in less important situations (like either its a 6 or 4) than a situation when 1 wicket can make all the difference.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
smooth guy,
The game has to grow with time. Otherwise it stagnates and stinks. Plus there is just too much emotion and too much money involved to get it all ruined due to bad umpires. All games go through such transformation. Its uncomfortable at first, but at the end of the day, you have to get to the fairest playing field, where players play to the best of their abilities and bad umpiring is not a factor in deciding the games. With cricket, this is long overdue. We have given umpires their fair shake.
Gladly, its moving in the right decision. When neutral umpires were introduced, there were a lot of people who had raised similar hue and cry. Then third umpires helping with run outs, again some traditionalists were upset. But they all get used it. Its all aimed to make the game fair. But to get to a better place, more changes need to happen. Sooner or later.
Cricket is no longer the game that was played in 1876. And its all good. We are getting to where we should be. :k:
Re: Use of technology in decisions
By the way, look at this… the appeal was denied.
[thumb=H]t_rana_turneddown1_1_1_192112052_6531316.JPG[/thumb]
[thumb=H]t_rana_turneddown1_1_131112052_6531316.JPG[/thumb]
And read thisPakistan call for two neutral umpires](http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/FEB/177720_AUS_07FEB2005.html)
Cricinfo staff
February 7, 2005
The Pakistan board has asked the ICC to stand two neutral umpires in one-day internationals and review all the decisions from the VB Series in Australia, Reuters has reported.
Pakistan had a handful of lbw decisions go against them during the two finals losses against Australia, where one neutral umpire was employed alongside a home official in line with ICC regulations. Rudi Koertzen gave Adam Gilchrist a reprieve in the first over yesterday while Andrew Symonds survived a couple of close shouts at Melbourne. Michael Clarke was trapped in front by Rana Naved-ul-Hasan at the MCG and three Pakistan batsmen were given out lbw in the two matches.
The news agency reported a source close to the board saying a letter had been sent to Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, asking for a review of all decisions because of “inconsistent” umpiring. Abbas Zaidi, the PCB director of media, said it was a “confidential document”.
Inzamam-ul-Haq said he did not have a problem with the one-day umpiring. “But I think it’s good for the game to have neutral umpires,” he said. “There is a lot of pressure and umpires are human too.”
Re: Use of technology in decisions
I think TV umpires should have authority to reverse a decision of a field umpire and if ground umpire feels necessary he should call for third umpire for close LBWs. Let the game be fair for all. Its not a gentleman's game anway (now) with all that swearing and all that.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Faisal, I am with the growing of the game concept and am a big advocate of the technology that have been introduced so far or the one that ICC is currently reviewing for future as well. Cricket is and will become a high-tech game as other games. But overriding decisions from TV umpire or challenging umpire's decision will not make the atmosphere any better. The bitterness will increase on the field. All I am saying is, if its a close situation and the ball is not miles away from the bat, the Umpire should/must consult with TV umpire.
We see the same in case of run outs. Not all the time umpire or fielders feel to have TV umpire involved. Same will go for the caught behind decisions and LBWs as well.
What am I saying different here?
Re: Use of technology in decisions
I think its better if the errors by ground umpires are corrected on-time and on-the-spot. Much better than spoiling the whole match, probably changing the result and then the victimized team is indulging in snide remarks in the media to bad-mouth the umpires or sending confidential reports back to ICC telling them that their umpires are/were crappy. And it should be done in a way where the whole process is regulated, rather than the coach running into the ground and arguing with the umpire. Thats not what we want.
The ground umpire can consult any time. Thats not a problem. The problem is when the ground umpire doesn’t consult and give blantantly incorrect or biased decisions. We don’t want the game being held up again and again. The best way is to let both the ground umpires and the third umpire freely exchange information without any restriction. The aim should be to get the fairest results in the shortest possible time. EOS.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
bhai its not possible. Who will initiate the talk? Gumpire or the TVampire? :D
Seriously, think of a situation if the bowler and keeper appeal to the Gumpire and he refuses and the bowler goes towards its runup, in the mean time TVampire got to see the sniko-meter graph and paged Gumpire on his Walike-Talkie to let him know that it was an out. THIS will KILL the momentum of the game and the Gumpire's position will be very awkward as well.
I tell you again, it should be like the run out. If its miles away, and the appeal itself has no strength then don't need to consult TV umpire. But if there is even a slightly change (let say 5% chance) of being out, then TV umpire should consult TV umpire. This way we can reduce the exessive appealing too. Since bowler/keeper would know that they have to appeal only atleast when they are 50% sure. Same is for LBW and bat-n-pad situations.
It will grow into cricketers' habbit on when and how to appeal, as they know if they are not sure, they will be exposed of exessive and false appeals on TV. I think it will increase the descipline in the game. Also to add that Gumpire should not hassitate to contact TVampire, even if he has to in every over. TVampire should also have a monitor dedicated just for the sniko-meter and hawk-eye graphics only, PLUS the regular TV screen that the whole world is watching. This will help them taking quick decissions to keep the game's momentum up.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Everything is fine, but I have not heard a good argument on why TV umpire should be STOPPED from telling the ground umpire that he goofed up. Is momentum more important than getting a fair play? I think all players deserve correct decisions. Simple.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
above all even if Hawk Eye is not 100% correct it will make same errors with everyone so that will nutralize the effect unlike the umpire on field who sometime are not consistant in making errors ! :)
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Thats true. Also, in sports that heavily use replay technology to settle close calls, they still sometimes end up making wrong decisions (ask any NFL fan and they will tell you), but atleast they have made their full effort to use all technology to get to the right decision. Right now, cricket relies too much on human umpires being error-free, which is all the more baffling cz the technology is all here, and the third umpire is already there who knows the ground umpires have made a mistake, but he can't tell them. Its just so silly.
Plus, to still have one local umpire for ODI's is so stupid. Both umpires should be neutral in ODI's too. There is no excuse for creating a perception of bias when it can easily be avoided.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Sorry! dupe post 
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Option # 2 is the only viable and non controversial sequence of actions resting with the 3rd umpire for the final verdict to render a player OUT or IN.
The available technology is already in place to facilitate a non controversial judging of ALL RULES upon an appeal during the live game.
However I wonder if 3 Match referees would be more appropriate instead of only one. 2 Match referees could be on venue site, and the 3rd one could be off shore hooked up via live video streaming. A unanimous decision of 3 MR's can eliminate controversial decisions and also fulfilling the neutral umpire requirements.
Option # 3 can create controvercies/embarassment and no reliability of certain umpires in the long run and may be un ethical to imply. Because this option requires to 'over rule' a decision and reversing of the verdict, it would not be reliable, problem free or without ill wills.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
Why off-shore??? Lines Area mein match horaha hai kiya??? Match Refree ke kidnapp hone ka khatra hai? 
Re: Use of technology in decisions
When u use the word "match refree", I assume you mean the "TV Umpire". Having three match refrees will make no sense. Not to say that having five umpires will make much sense either.
Re: Use of technology in decisions
I would favor 3rd umpire's involvement when plumb LBW/caught behind/bat-n-pad are either denied or a batsman is wrongly given out. Just take the case of Gilchrist's LBW appeal that was denied in the first over of 2nd final. Who had any doubt about it. This was not the case of a ball erratically swinging, pitching way outside the leg stump, thought of being too high. It would have clearly hit the middle of the middle stump..... yet the umpire thought otherwise. What does it take for the 3rd umpire to call the ground umpire..... 5 seconds?? I'd agree with Faisal that it is more important to be fair than to worry about the momentum.
However this brings up another question. What to do when the TV umpire is biased. Never thought that it could be the case but in the finals, even the TV umpires awarded doubtful decisions in favor of the home team. Take the case of Gilchrist's runout appeal in the first over of first final. It was doubtful though from one particular camera (probably from the 3rd man) it appeared that Gilchrist was short. Anyway, he was declared not out in a matter of seconds by just having a look from a particular angle. Afridi's runout in the second final was exactly the same case where it was not sure if he had made his ground or not except for the same one camera view which suggested that he might have been short and he was declared out! So the "technology" favored home team on both occasions. What to do about this?