HI, TECH

For a moment I thought the bit below read "allowing each team to lodge up to three challenges per innings". Fat lot of good that would have done in Sydney. Naturally, I read it again. Three "unsuccessful" challenges works for me. (Who will be the first team to call for more?)

Australia wary of ICC proposal 

ALREADY under unprecedented pressure, Test umpires may have their decisions challenged by players under an International Cricket Council proposal for expanded use of technology, which has drawn scepticism from Australian coach Tim Nielsen. 

Cricket Australia is reserving its judgement until director Mark Taylor, a member of the ICC's cricket committee, presents the detailed recommendations upon his return from Dubai. 

But Nielsen warned that such a system, allowing each team to lodge up to three unsuccessful challenges per innings, could slow down the game and create more intense conjecture about decisions.

Similarly, I'm not philosophically opposed to a predictless Hawkeye.

It is expected umpires would have at their disposal "Hawk-Eye" to judge whether a batsman has been struck in line with the stumps in leg-before-wicket decisions, stump microphones to determine whether there is an edge in caught behind appeals, and "Super Slow-Mo" for close bat-pad decisions. 

They could not, however, use Hawk-Eye to predict the trajectory of the ball in lbw calls. Nor could they use "Snicko" or the infra-red "Hot Spot" technology used in television broadcasts.

As we are all aware around these parts, the problem with Hawk, apart from it being a sly excuse for Nine to plug ACA, CSI and other upcoming programs, is its inability to accurately predict trajectory after the ball has bounced; especially when the spinners are on. But using it, for instance, to see if the ball has pitched outside leg is definitely a valid application. Not that you couldn't do that with super slow-mo or freeze-frame. I generally try to avoid getting between Nine and a good gadget.

I wonder why the umpires will be allowed to use stump microphones and won't be allowed to use Hot Spot. I'm not wild about Snicko.

Anyhoo, what's Tim Nielsen been smoking?

Nielsen warned that such a system... could create more intense conjecture about decisions.

A crack research team comprised of Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James Cook, Hercule Poirot, Phileas Fogg and every single winner of The Price Is Right would struggle to unearth any more "intense conjecture about decisions" than existed last summer.

Comments

[Bruce]

I'll admit to being a fan of the hot spot and so I'm disappointed that it won't be used.

After the season of howlers with Clownden, Morgan, Durr, etc I am increasingly waiting for the replacement of umpires by camera toting coat racks.

[Tony T]

Pity it's come to coat racks.

But given the number of howlers committed by the umps last summer that would have been corrected by technical assistance, officialdom's hand has been forced.

Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Also interesting to note that hardly anyone refers back to the 2005 Super Test, which I thought went OK despite this headline:

Lukewarm reception for increased technology

Rudi Koertzen refers another one upstairs © Getty Images A number of those involved in the Super Test at Sydney have voiced their opinions about the increased use of referrals to the third umpire - and while a few welcomed the innovation, the overall view seemed to be that either it needed more work or things should be left alone.

Rudi Koertzen, the South African umpire, was one who made it clear he was against the extended use of referrals to the third umpire for catches and leg-before decisions.

"We all make mistakes and I think the players actually make more mistakes than the umpires do," Koertzen said. "So they should leave it up to us to make the mistakes. We've got to live with that. That [Super Series] is only a trial. Who knows how far they're going to take it? Hopefully not too far."

Yes, we all make mistakes. Rudy might care to revise his assessments in light of what happened to Kumar at No.3 in Hobart.

Wonder who will be the first commentator to shit-can a technical decision even though it's right.

[nick]

In my line of work, technology used to be used to confirm what the professionals believed to be true. As technology got more advanced, and 'sexier' (just like Hot Spot), the technology is now an end unto itself. I await the first cries of 'Whitey fixed it so Sachin was given out' or something similar.

With technology, Australia would have won the Ashes in 2005 (Martyn's LeeBees, Pietersen's LeeBee to a full toss) and probably lost when Kumar was flogging us to all corners recently.

Anything to get away from this IPL dross.

[David Barry]

I don't understand the logic in only using Hawkeye up until the point of impact with the pad. If you trust the trajectory that far, surely it's not that great an article of faith to extrapolate a couple of metres.

[nick]

In Pietersen's case, the ball never pitched, and so Hawkeye would just have tracked through the air, although a simple side on view would have seen him walking as well. Similarly, with Martyn, a replay would have shown the ball pitching outside leg and/or hitting the bat first. The issue with Hawkeye is that it is conjecture dressed as technology once the ball hits the ground. The electronic pitch overlay showing the stumps projected onto the wicket + stump microphones + side view + replay will do the job very well. Of course, you need an umpire young enough to use it and with a paucity of arrogance, ruling out most of the current panel.

[RT]

I reckon India for their 1st innings will reach the 3 referrals limit by lunch day 1.

It had to happen given the incredible incompetance of Morg and Klutzen.

I like how The Australian article on it focused on the Ashes Kaspa decision. That would have made great viewing if referred.

Caught behinds will be interesting if not using Snicko or Hotspot. Faint nicks just don't show up well on simple slow mo.

[joshn]

I'm all for technologically assisted decisions on all forms of dismissal except LBW, but I'm even happy for umps to check if its pitched in line etc. but I don't want hawkeye telling them its going to hit the wicket and CSI has another new timeslot.

But it really would help with the clangers that happen maybe once, twice a test and 10 or 11 times if it's in Sydney.

[I am not the Don]

Get rid of technology all together and make do with human error.

Umpires make mistakes. Take the bad decisions with the god ones and live with it.

This is becoming silly.

Let us remember the Sydney test against India was the exception not the rule

[Tony T]

Not Don: It might be silly, but we're past those days. Too many decisions are shown up as too wrong on the telly.

That's a good article by Lalor - as usual. (He's close to the best Aussie cricket writer at the moment.)

Radical plan for video umpires

RICKY PONTING could have made a century on debut, Australia should have won the 2005 Ashes and India may have won the recent Sydney Test under new rules proposed by the International Cricket Council's influential cricket committee.

One point... if tech assistance had been in place in 2005, would Kasper have appealed within 8 seconds? I mean, would he have known he was not out because his hand was off the bat?

[Adsy]

I'm all for Auto Wicky now Gilly is gone. That way a Victorian might get a game as a desi bat, although I'm not counting chooks of any variety in the middle of their incubation period.

By the way, were the Aussies taking the piss in the rugby tonight after the 20 minute mark?

[Tony T]

Move the sight-screen up behind the stumps.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Can the batsmen lodge 3 appeals per innings about the bowlers' delivery actions?

[Tony T]

Y'know. I caught a batch of highlights from India yesterday and I'll swear one of the 'bowlers' featured in the grab was tossing down a rank one. Dunno who it was, but it looked awful.

[Adsy]

Was it the one tossing down wide half volleys to Gilly for about three overs straight?

[David Barry]

I've only seen a couple of hours of one game of the IPL (Rajasthan v Punjab), but there was one bowler whose action looked questionable. Ian Bishop was commentating at the time. He said something like, "His arm is very... flexed. That's what it's all about these days, degrees of flex." Can't remember his name or which team it was, of course. I only remember Warney and Sangakkara.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Was Symonds "bowling" his offspinners?

[Tony T]

Don't think it was Roy, but whoever it was was tossing offies.