Monday, 25 January 2010

The Court Of Cricket

Now that things don't matter and the time has passed, the ICC have decided to formally investigate volume knob gate.

Bit late now, but perhaps Daryl Harper can be shamed in to becoming a better umpire (chances are very slim).

The referral system is supposed to prevent bad decisions. Actually all it does is make everyone question the umpires. When a bad judgement was made before referrals were brought in, you just dealt with it. These things happen. Quite often. They're only human.

But now they have super powers of replay, hot spot, snicko and hawkeye.

Some clever man once said: "With great power, comes great responsibility."

This has become more relevant than just to spiderman. Series ride on this.

NWG can't help but feel, either do it properly with all the modern technology (including volume control) or don't do it at all.

It's really that simple.

Perhaps there needs to be a fifth umpire to oversee the fourth and the third, just to be on the safe side.


Stani Army said...

But who's gonna oversee the 5th umpire Mare? I think the best thing to do is to put the 3rd umpire out on a stage in the open behind the boundary like they do with the DJs at the t20 games :) Yes, I know, what a great idea. Then we can see exactly what they get up to. We shouldn't put any half naked prancing Sheilas in front of them though, they may get distracted.

To be fair, Harpers argument was that the footage in which the sound could be heard was not the one provided to him. It was an enhanced one which the broadcasters did not make available to him at the time.

As regards to the volume; the danger of turning it up too high is that other noises (grunting, sand in pockets, jelly beans falling to the ground) may be picked up and it may seem like a nick.

You really are being unfair on Daryl. This is most unlike you. My guess is that someone has put you up to it. Either consciously or sub-consciously, you haver been influenced by whoever you have been listening to. Come clean Nightmare, who was it?

The Nightwatchgirl said...

Yes, it's true Stani - I've been paid by the ECB to write that post. Was I that obvious?

Stani Army said...

No, I'm just very, very good at solving these mysteries. What you think of my DJ umpire idea?

Unknown said...

According to one of the commentators the host broadcaster provided the 3rd official with very poor equipment, he has a tiny tv to watch the replays. The fault should be with the host broadcaster. The referral system will completely undermining the umpires if they get to the stage where they rely on the technology.

Unknown said...

i dont see how hawkeye can accurately predict what path the ball will travel when there are so many variables at work. how does it take into account the pitch and weather conditions as well as guessing what kind of delivery the bowler is using. how can they rely on it to overrule the umpire on lbws

Stani Army said...

Ben, Hawkeye is pretty accurate. It's prediction does not need to take into account all the variables you mentioned and those that it does, it only needs to take into account over a short distance therefore minimizing error and influence of the variables.

Let's take the example of a LBW appeal from a ball bowled by a spinner.

The ball is released from the hand, it bounces then spins off the pitch and then strikes the pad. Up to this point, Hawkeye has not predicted anything at all. It has merely followed or mapped the path of the ball, and so is, up to this point, highly accurate.

What Hawkeye has to now predict is would the ball have hit the stumps if it carries on in its current direction whilst decelerating at its current rate. This is usually only over a short distance of 2-3 meters (pad to stumps).

The path from the bounce of the ball up to the striking of the pad is then traced beyond the pad and up to the stumps.

Therefore, 99.9% of the time, the pitch and type of ball does not come into it as the ball has already bounced and Hawkeye is using the actual path after the bounce.

Weather conditions, e.g wind, cannot be accounted for after the striking of the pad but for a predicted path of only 2-3 metres of a ball weighing 5lbs and travelling above 50mph, the change in direction would be minimal. That is why when the ball is just nicking the stumps, they generally give it not out.

In case of a spinner bowling an accidental full toss straight on to the pads, and which would have bounced before the stumps, then Hawkeye will not take the spin into account so cannot be used in this case. But in it's defence, an umpire shouldn't give an LBW in that case either because he cannot predict how the ball would have spun after the bounce either. This rarely happens of course.

batting in ned kelly's helmet said...

Law 36 1e "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket". + 2b "In assessing point (e) in 1 above, it is to be assumed that the path of the ball before interception would have continued after interception, irrespective of whether the ball might have pitched subsequently or not."

Even a human umpire doesn't try to account for wind speed etc. The umpire's job is to determine: if the ball kept going as it was before hitting the pad, would it have hit the stumps? Exactly the same as hawk-eye does.

The umpire makes the same evaluation on full-tosses - in other words if you are hit on the full the ball is deemed to be going straight on even if it would probably bounce first and even if it is spinning like a top.

Having said that, Stani, hawkeye is not that accurate because it is only mapped across two planes (ie the front-on camera and the side-on camera) - to accurately map the path of the ball more cameras would be required including one directly above the batsman. Because they don't have this what actually happens is a little technician-type fella instructs the computer how to interpret the data, which means of course, it is still a matter of opinion. If you look at hawk-eye as raw data the 'predictictive path' is actually a cone shape - a human decides which line to report inside that predictive cone.

Paddy said...

"knob gate", like it. NWG, I think you've unwittingly coined a perfect phrase to describe Daryl Harper.

Why can't they put the third umpire in a pub with a big screen and the sound turned up?

Unknown said...

How would hawkeye account for pitch conditions. The pitch can be dead flat or very bouncy or the ball could be skidding after some rain, which would make a difference on the height of lbw. I just dont buy it that all the commentators look at the hawkeye analysis like its the final word and its better than the umpire. In my opinion, the umpire has the best view and is best placed to assess things, except Rudi who is legally blind.

Stani Army said...

batting in ned kelly's helmet,

Up to four cameras are used and data from at least (minimum) two cameras is prcoessed for the mapping of the ball's path. A camera from above or below will make an insignificant difference. The front-on camera would take care of the change in direction (up, down, left, right) and the side-on camera, change in speed. Hence, all three dimensions are accounted for and a three dimensonal image can be produced.


Hawkeye doesn't need to account for the pitch conditions. It merely uses the actual recorded path of the ball and then extrapolates the remaining 2-3 metres. The pitch conditions have already been accounted for by the bounce/spin of the ball. Hawkeye has followed this bounce/spin.

The Nightwatchgirl said...

NWG loves it when everyone gets all serious.

Stani Army said...

Is it all too clever for you Mare? Is that why you never say anything? Ah, bless. Sometimes I wish I didn't have an opinion either. Life would be so much less tortuous.