« THE REAL THIN | Main | NEITHER REGIONS »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Carol Beer

Computer say "no."

Hewy

The 'ellipse of uncertainty' is basically represented in the referral rules for using Hawkeye when they state that the centre of the ball must at least be hitting the centre of the outside stump or bail, and if impact is > 2.5 metres, decision goes back to the umpire (who can change subsequently change his decision).
It probably wouldn't hurt to clearly show this stump centre line and 2.5m line in Hawkeye (inside section of the stumps could be darker or something) as then you wouldn't need to show an elipse, but perhaps that would confuse Chappelli and co. even more.


Lou

You could take out the 'scientifically' in 1), it would leave less of an uncertainty ellipse.

Tony

I'm fvck'n losing it.

I just realised I wrote pretty much everything I wrote today back on June 30.

Get a grip, me.

The Don has Risen

Hawkeye can never tell you whether a ball that hits the pads will hit the stumps.

Get rid of all technology in decisions.

I like it when humans make decisions even when they are wrong. It is part of enjoying the game.

I am sure I make wrong decisions in the past and in the upcoming season when umpiring.

Behaving appropriately when a bad decisions is made is part of the spirit of the game and which I teach my boys in the teams I coach.

Tony

Donnie,

While many will agree with you in principle vis-a-vis the spirit of cricket... sorry, The Spirit Of Cricket, you will get just as many who will disagree vis-a-vis cricket being a big money sport with every effort needing be made to eradicate errors which may ruin careers.

Come to think of it, that's the kind of argument which kept a certain wicket thief in cricket for 18 years. On one side: umpires called him a chucker so he has to quit the game. On the other side: you can't rely on an umpire's judgement if you are going to stop a player's career.

The Don has Risen

I have called chuckers and found myself under a lot of pressure to justify such an easy decision.

it is very hard for an Umpire to do so. Moreso now when officials want both Umpires to agree.

Tony

Agree.

Out of curiosity. Have you ever been told not to call chuckers?

The Don has Risen

in a round about way.

If you see a bowler who is chucking, you must talk with your colleague and then inform the captain ( if you both agree) that he will be called if he continues to bowl him.

I have yet to reach a situation where a person chucks but my colleague disagrees.

In my very first match I called the opening bowler in his first over.
(He 'bowled ' Like Aaron Bird)however that is the only time this has occurred.

I called a few bowlers when I played though.That caused controversy!

Professor Rosseforp

I'm not a qualified umpire -- what, you already knew? -- but have occasionally stood in local competition matches, as is the tradition when there's no umpire around. For that reason I would have been reluctant to call a thrower, but happy to call an overstepper. However, on one occasion, I did see a young tearaway who was rocket fast (probably an exaggeration), and from square leg he appeared to throw every delivery. When I was waiting to bat I had a look from square on and had the same impression. After the match I politely asked his captain if anyone had queried the young guy's action. He said "no, why" and I said it would be good to get a proper umpire and a coach to have a look. I hope they did, as the young guy obviously had no idea he was throwing (that's funny because 99.5% of bowlers also didn't realise they were throwing according to scientific research].
"waiting to bat" is a euphemism for "waiting to be dismissed first ball".

Tony

Prof,

Sweetly and succinctly combining your two themes: we used to call it "waiting to blame the umpire".

The comments to this entry are closed.