Print

[ProCricketer1982]

Again... The whole poi t of DRS and umpires call has been missed..

You CANNOT remove umpires call.. that is the tolerance in the tracking software... It's obvious that this key point is being missed and it's actually quite alarming how many on the game don't get this

Oh no.. people get it... I'm just on the side of removing the issue altogether and having it as either 'out' or 'not out'.. Sure, the tracking isn't perfect but neither is the umpire so the 'random' factor is there anyway either way. Might as well just go with technology which in theory SHOULD improve over time...

It's not rocket science so don't assume people are stupid. It's more a case of what are we losing by removing 'umpires call'.. nothing

[edge]

Yeah, of course you can remove umpire's call if you want. It's nothing to do with the tracking, it's just there to back the umpires up. At the very least it should be binned up to and including impact.

[ProCricketer1982]

Yeah, of course you can remove umpire's call if you want. It's nothing to do with the tracking, it's just there to back the umpires up. At the very least it should be binned up to and including impact.

oh there is a margin of error int he tracking which means it's not 100%. Meaning that an 'umpires call' when it's 'just clipping' has defaulted to .. well.. whatever the umpire says.

However.. if you simply remove the umpire and just accept the system then you have the same margin of error as you get with an umpire anyway so meh.. better to go with technology as it should in theory anyway.. keep improving. Plus, removes the arguments caused by poor umpiring and removes home umpire bias too and leaves them free to deal with no balls, running on the wicket, slow over rates and the rest of the 'gamesmanship' crap that now hampers cricket.

[Chompy9760]

You CANNOT remove umpires call.. that is the tolerance in the tracking software... It's obvious that this key point is being missed and it's actually quite alarming how many on the game don't get this

I have heard that before, but have never seen any published info on how far out the tracking can be.  If it's exactly half a ball width, that sounds like a strange co-incidence!

Interesting that in tennis they use what I would guess to be a very similar system, but have no trouble over-ruling an umpires call even if tracking shows the ball missing the line by a millimetre. 
Tennis players and fans accept the system as being 100% accurate, while cricketers assume it's not accurate by half a ball width.

[edge]

If it was about accuracy then there wouldn't be umpire's call for where the ball pitched or hit the pad - the margin of error for the umpires there is huge. The prediction of where it hits the stumps is a little different, but if that's not trusted as accurate enough then why use it at all?

I have heard that before, but have never seen any published info on how far out the tracking can be.  If it's exactly half a ball width, that sounds like a strange co-incidence!

Interesting that in tennis they use what I would guess to be a very similar system, but have no trouble over-ruling an umpires call even if tracking shows the ball missing the line by a millimetre. 
Tennis players and fans accept the system as being 100% accurate, while cricketers assume it's not accurate by half a ball width.

Hawkeye advertise tracking as accurate to within 3.6mm, which as you say is good enough for tennis and should be for cricket really!

[ProCricketer1982]

I have heard that before, but have never seen any published info on how far out the tracking can be.  If it's exactly half a ball width, that sounds like a strange co-incidence!

Interesting that in tennis they use what I would guess to be a very similar system, but have no trouble over-ruling an umpires call even if tracking shows the ball missing the line by a millimetre. 
Tennis players and fans accept the system as being 100% accurate, while cricketers assume it's not accurate by half a ball width.

I'd suggest that Tennis isn't tracking.. it's repeating a known ball point. Cricket is literally 'guessing' (albeit, educated guessing) the PREDICTED trajectory .. hence the margin for error

[ProCricketer1982]

If it was about accuracy then there wouldn't be umpire's call for where the ball pitched or hit the pad - the margin of error for the umpires there is huge. The prediction of where it hits the stumps is a little different, but if that's not trusted as accurate enough then why use it at all?
Hawkeye advertise tracking as accurate to within 3.6mm, which as you say is good enough for tennis and should be for cricket really!

Oh I'd just use it full stop and do away with Umpires call totally.. Hell, I'd have Hawk Eye reviewing every single ball (if they could speed it up to almost live).. then anything hitting the pads etc is automatically reviewed.. that way, you're always getting the right result to every ball which is way better than relying on appealing or umpires decisions

[SouthpawMark]

Umpires call is to also help maintain the respect of the standing umpires, and the decisions they have made. If you do away with umpires call you may as well put a robot at each end.

[ProCricketer1982]

Umpires call is to also help maintain the respect of the standing umpires, and the decisions they have made. If you do away with umpires call you may as well put a robot at each end.

To play devils advocate.. Why would replacing an umpire with a 'robot' be a bad thing? What does an umpire bring to the party that technology or off field official (with access to tv/stump mic's etc) couldn't do.. also, removing all the 'talking points' would mean laws are applied equally and consistently which is surely the aim for all sport!

Let's be honest.. there is no 'respect' to umpires in the pro or amateur game.. Just look at the time wasting antics, slow over rates, over appealing etc etc. Long gone are the days at all levels of 'respect'.

[Whispering Death]

Umpires call is to also help maintain the respect of the standing umpires, and the decisions they have made. If you do away with umpires call you may as well put a robot at each end.

I'd personally be sad as I enjoy a good chat when fielding at square leg

[bat_flipper]

I'd personally be sad as I enjoy a good chat when fielding at square leg

Do you often umpire international cricket?

[AJ2014]

No DRS should be an option as well.

[SouthpawMark]

No DRS should be an option as well.

You want to go back to this sort of thing? https://youtu.be/tV07Or1Sark
 

[AJ2014]

You want to go back to this sort of thing? https://youtu.be/tV07Or1Sark
 

I feel that the controversy is very part of sport, everyone is prone to make blunders.
You know all well.
I would have rather have controversial decision made by an umpire than a DRS.

[SouthpawMark]

I feel that the controversy is very part of sport, everyone is prone to make blunders.
You know all well.
I would have rather have controversial decision made by an umpire than a DRS.

Respectfully disagree. Would rather have technology questioned than the integrity and ability of an actual human being.