Umpiring - Are the ICC's heads buried deep in the sand!!

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:25 am

"
The ICC's overall assessment of umpiring in England's dramatic 14-run victory at Trent Bridge also revealed officials made a total of 72 decisions, well above the average (49) for a Test match featuring DRS.
The percentage of correct decisions before reviews was 90.3% but climbed to 95.8% as a result of the use of DRS. That represented an increase of 5.5% in correct decisions, also the average increase from DRS Test matches in 2012-13.
Richardson added: "This reflects the calibre of umpires Aleem Dar, Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus, who have consistently performed at a high level."

by Mike Selig Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:34 am

Not really...

It is a timely reminder of how hard an umpire's job is, just how many decisions they get right, and how some of the recent criticism of them for a few poor decisions is completely unwarranted.

90% is on the low side for the ICC elite panel, which reflects that by their standards the umpires had poor games. They did however each make fewer mistakes than any of the players involved in the game... Just a thought.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:43 am

How accurate are those figures?

they have included 3 incorrect decisions in those stats- broads lbw, broads catch(neither could be reviewed due to aus using up there reviews) and they included trotts out(the most worrying decision made in cricketing history i feel!- and the only real problem being brought up by DRS)

What about Roots out?- He wasnt out- but we didnt review

What about agar's stumping?

thats 5 incorrect decisions from my pov

and the cardinal trotts decsion(out on review when the on field got it right!!)

makes for a pretty poor test in my eyes..

by KP_fan Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:47 am

ICC is feeling the heat.....pressure from traditional allies of DRS is mounting.....first it was SA then NZ and now Aus...media, current players, ex-players are all turning the pressure.
that's why they come out to explain...but instead of being honest...they appear like papering over the cracks.

The onfield umps are delegating to the DRS and the chinks in DRS technology and implementation are being more and more exposed.

The more they paper over the cracks...the more the cricketing community that was erstwhile supporting them....will turn against

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:50 am

Kp fan- drs can be improved but there has only every been 1 bad drs call in the history of cricket(trotts in the last game)

drs will allways help the game even the way it is.. Unless we keep getting more and more incorrect overturns(which i seriously doubt!!)

This thread is more about the umpiring not DRS!

by KP_fan Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:52 am

mystiroakey wrote:Kp fan- drs can be improved but there has only every been 1 bad drs call in the history of cricket(trotts in the last game)

drs will allways help the game even the way it is.. Unless we keep getting more and more incorrect overturns(which i seriously doubt!!)

This thread is more about the umpiring not DRS!

there are more fundamental issues that I have listed ont he other thread...such as inherently DRS may be making worng projections
and that there are no controls on the technology accuracy applied by ICC

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 9:54 am

Ok look- Hawkeye has been very very well checked out and will keep improving- they have very good accuracy stats and much better than the human eye. Hotspot has clear flaws mind..

So yes hawkeye can get it wrong- but it gets it wrong less than the umpires- that is why we need to stop using umpires call on lbws and bring the percentage of ball hitting to 5% not 50%

by KP_fan Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:04 am

^ more and more players and ex players are grumbling and complaining.

regardless of what hawk-eye or ICC says......if the players and board do not want it...it will die.

and what's making it bad is lack of quality controls by qualified people in ICC...and inconsistency in interpretation.

if Aus is at the recieving end of bad DRS / umpiring decisions in T2...even if perceived....it might a decisiive nail in the coffin of DRS.

when India percieved inconsistencs / prejudice in DRS implementation on the last tour of Eng.....they killed it.

and I smell it's going down the same path with Aus.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:07 am

Well england clearly got the worst of it. Infact england got the only bad DRS call! so i dont really understand the aus argument

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:10 am

And as this thread is about bad umpiring - clearly shown up in this test- DRS helped that!! and is the only thing currently to help it! Its the only reason we have DRS because umpiring is inconsistant(not blaming the umpires its a tough to impossible job)

I am also very sure 90% of players like DRS. and still do

by KP_fan Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:22 am

if there were no issues with DRS...no body would be talking about it.

But ICC comes out .........to defend it and every one is talking about. About 15 Aussie cricketer have come out and complained about DRS as it stands now

all is not well.

by Mike Selig Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:24 am

mystiroakey wrote:
What about Roots out?- He wasnt out- but we didnt review

Probably out. I thought so certainly.

mystiroakey wrote:
What about agar's stumping?

I have yet to see conclusive evidence that it was out. Probably out on the balance of probabilities, but I can see where the benefit of the doubt came in.

mystiroakey wrote:
thats 5 incorrect decisions from my pov
makes for a pretty poor test in my eyes..

5 mistakes over the course of 5 days cannot possibly be called "poor" IMO.
Name one player who made fewer...

Anyway I'm off to dinner now (strange time zone) so won't answer for another hour or so.

by Duty281 Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:31 am

5.5% increase in correct decisions tells you all you need to know - DRS works, and improves the game. I have had no issue with DRS in the 1st Test. Trott's LBW was due to a seemingly visually impaired umpire, not a fault with the technology.

by KP_fan Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:32 am

Gilchrist quoted from CI

For the first time, I'm starting to understand India's reluctance to go with the system. It's not a remedy that seems to have cured the problem. In fact, it may even have become more of a problem.

The DRS is not the solution, it's part of the problemNot only does the review system rob the game of spontaneity and drama, it does not get rid of the mistakes it was created to eradicate

by Duty281 Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:34 am

Well without DRS, Australia would have probably won the Test, so I see where he's coming from.

Not sure how you can call anything that improves correct decisions by over 5% "part of the problem".

by liverbnz Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:37 am

I think the standard of umpiring is very, very good. People are far too quick to jump on any incorrect decisions without the consideration for how many decisions umpires get right. 90% of decisions correct is excellent IMO and with DRS increasing that further I think that shows that while the system is not perfect - it is working.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 11:37 am

KP_fan wrote:if there were no issues with DRS...no body would be talking about it.

But ICC comes out .........to defend it and every one is talking about. About 15 Aussie cricketer have come out and complained about DRS as it stands now

all is not well.

DRS helps and increases the rate of good/fair calls. However it could clearly be made better.

by guildfordbat Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:01 pm

Mike Selig wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:
What about agar's stumping?

I have yet to see conclusive evidence that it was out. Probably out on the balance of probabilities, but I can see where the benefit of the doubt came in.

Mike - I am so pleased to see that. Had begun to feel it was only me who didn't believe a wrong decision had been given on the Agar ''stumping''.

I saw it at the time on SKY and the various frames they showed whilst it was being deliberated. The decision was undoubtedly mighty close but on what was shown - and it wasn't particularly rushed - I couldn't conclusively see Agar being stumped out of his ground. Although not in the laws but in the clear traditions of the game, I felt - and still do - that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman and thus I had no issues with the decision. For me, it was the correct one in the circumstances that applied and could be seen.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:10 pm

The problem was there was no conclusive proof with the agar stumping- theerfore he as the batter got the benefit of the doubt- so no problem. Not out- I agree with both your sentiments

However the problem arose when trott got out. The TV umpire gave the bolwer the benefit of the doubt= That clearly is the concern!!

by Mike Selig Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:20 pm

Trott was a poor decision. On one angle you could fairly clearly see the inside edge, and the other angles were inconclusive. I felt that even had it been the other way (i.e. Trott had been given out and reviewed) the decision should have been not out, because the only conclusive angle showed a (faint but clear) edge. I think "obsession with hotspot" syndrome took over (much like it did at Sydney where Bell was incorrectly ruled not out caught behind on review based purely on lack of hotspot evidence) rather than Erasmus trusting his eyes. It was in fact an excellent original decision by Aleem Dar.

None of this has any effect on the Agar stumping, where there were numerous replays from endless angles, and personally I didn't see a conclusive frame in any of them. I saw a lot of frames which suggested that he was out, and if you put a gun to my head and said "is he out or not?" I would favour the "out" hypothesis; however if you asked me whether I wished to bet my piano (I don't as yet own a house) on him being out, or whether I wished to keep my piano but lose the chance of getting anything in return, I'd stick to what I've got. Which is probably a reasonable "benefit of the doubt" test in my view.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:22 pm

It has everything to do with it- Benefit of the doubt.

Trott was 100% in but the benefit of the doubt was given to the bowler because Hot spot broke down.

Agar was probally without a doubt out- but the lack of a floor camera made it impossible to verify his foot was not touching.. However the batter got the benefit of the doubt.

In both cases if we had the tech (which we do theoritically) to see what had happened we could have 100% conclusively known what had happened

by **hampo17** Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:42 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Ok look- Hawkeye has been very very well checked out and will keep improving- they have very good accuracy stats and much better than the human eye. Hotspot has clear flaws mind..

So yes hawkeye can get it wrong- but it gets it wrong less than the umpires- that is why we need to stop using umpires call on lbws and bring the percentage of ball hitting to 5% not 50%

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 1:56 pm

Ta for the quote mate. Got anything to say Smile

by alfie Wed 17 Jul 2013, 2:02 pm

If you cut out "umpire's call" on lbw shouts you will encourage fielding captains to punt on marginal decisions more often than even now. I do not think that is a good idea.

I don't think the system is particularly bad ...it isn't perfect of course , but perfection is frankly impossible. This one keeps delays to a reasonable level , and usually saves the howlers...just that in this match there were a few significant moments involving drs , and one wrong application of the law by a third umpire. So a lot of heat and air has been generated.
It will settle down. The game will go on , and the better team will probably win...as it generally does , whether drs , part drs or no drs is operating.

by **Mat** Wed 17 Jul 2013, 2:07 pm

My main issue with the Agar stumping lies not with the fact he wasn't given out but with the consistency of the umpiring amongst ICC officials.

Bell's stumping in the Champions Trophy final was very similar to the Agar "stumping" in the first test, in that it wasn't whollly conclusive that the player was out. Yet Agar got the benefit of the doubt where as Bell was dismissed? Surely there needs to be some sort of policy as to whether the batman or bowler gets given the benefit of the doubt, rather than it being at the discretion of an individual umpire?

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 2:08 pm

alfie- give 1 review.

I would not be happy with 1 review as it stands. But if we took away umpires decision on LBW's and rediced the % of the ball that has to hit- then 1 review for me is plenty!! then we wont get loads of reviews that slow play down as much..

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 2:09 pm

"My main issue with the Agar stumping lies not with the fact he wasn't given out but with the consistency of the umpiring amongst ICC officials"

the biggest problem clearly

by alfie Wed 17 Jul 2013, 2:31 pm

mystiroakey wrote:alfie- give 1 review.

I would not be happy with 1 review as it stands. But if we took away umpires decision on LBW's and rediced the % of the ball that has to hit- then 1 review for me is plenty!! then we wont get loads of reviews that slow play down as much..

Sure , roakey ...that might even it up a bit. But I honestly don't see any need to fiddle with the lbw situation...whatever they come up with , fans of teams that end up on the wrong side of a tight call will grumble...they used to grumble before drs was invented , and they still do now...
Some Australian fans complained that Rogers was unlucky in the first innings , given his lbw was only just hitting according to Hawkeye . Before Hawkeye I am sure many people might have been of that opinion , though with no way of proving it : but now the decision has been shown to be (just) correct I cannot see how it can be called unlucky. Rather say if he had not been given out he would have been a bit lucky...Broad was a lot lucky with his - the catch I mean . His lbw probably wouldn't have sparked a review even if they had one in the bank...
See I don't want to see the onfield umpires turned into glorified hat racks...leave them the decision wherever possible , else why bother getting the best umpires to stand at the elite level ?

Anyway I won't go on , I have made my views clear enough I think. And no system will make everybody happy.

On to Lord's I say.

by DouglasJardinesbox Wed 17 Jul 2013, 6:07 pm

A knee jerk over nothing. DRS improves the game. It does, in the vast majority of the time, eliminate the howlers. It is the umpiring (on the field or in the booth) that make mistakes. It's also hilarious to see the now fallen giants of test cricket (Ind & Aus) start to whine about it. They are scared of is as it gives the better teams the benefit, as they offer up less chances (with better batters) and more opportunities (with better bowlers).

The ICC should grow a pair, and kick India out of Test Match cricket if they don''t adopt it. Let them play rounders with Bangladesh if they like.

by mystiroakey Wed 17 Jul 2013, 6:16 pm

Alfie. Not long to wait until lords Very Happy

I think we should be constantly evolving the way to umpire and judge cricket tbh.. but it is more about the game it self I suppose.

by kingraf Wed 17 Jul 2013, 10:31 pm

umping a u14 game tomorrow, hopefully I have no "howlers", luckily parents can't call me on a DRS

by **LondonTiger** Thu 18 Jul 2013, 8:26 am

mystiroakey wrote:What about Roots out?- He wasnt out- but we didnt review

That hotspot showed nothing does not mean there was no tickle. The technology is not 100% accurate on 100% of occasions (more accurate than humans though). Far more telling for me was that Root chose not to review - suggesting he thought he hit it and he is in the best position to know.

You have to think that Michael Clarke had seen the footage when he decided to take a chance on reviewing his wicket, hoping that the technology would fail to discern the faint contact. If he did call for a review in such circumstances - that surely is worse than not walking till the umpire gives you out?

by mystiroakey Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:03 am

it was cook that told root not to review. we shouold have reviwed clearly- I know about Hotspots flaws and have mentioned them plenty. Time for Hawkeye to step up and use its tech to deal with knics and stuff!

Point being if you think root is out- You dear boy is guessing!! big time- Because we have no proof!

by **LondonTiger** Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:16 am

Joe Root is an honest lad, if he felt he did not nick it he would have reviewed. Cartainly it cannot count as a bad (or even wrong) decision.

There were two bad decisions for me - one for each team. Aleem Dar missing Broad's nick was a bad one (though I can see how, like players he mat have switched off slightly at the end of a long hot day and only seen the second half of the event - ball hitting Haddin's gloves and deflecting to slip). As already discussed Erasmus overturning the Trott decision was an absolute shocker with no excuses available.

Australia could have corrected the first if they had not wasted reviews - but throughout the match they showed poor judgement as to what was out. Anyone remember when they were livid with Dharmasena for not giving one - when he had to warn Pattinson for excessive appealing. Technology showed that the umpire was 100% correct.

There were some bad calls - but I suggest that everyone have a go at umpiring. Try standing out there for 6 1/2 hours in the heat and concentrate fully for every single ball. try it when the bowlers, fielders and batsmen are all trying to con you. It is not easy.

by Hibbz Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:22 am

LondonTiger wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:What about Roots out?- He wasnt out- but we didnt review

That hotspot showed nothing does not mean there was no tickle. The technology is not 100% accurate on 100% of occasions (more accurate than humans though). Far more telling for me was that Root chose not to review - suggesting he thought he hit it and he is in the best position to know.

You have to think that Michael Clarke had seen the footage when he decided to take a chance on reviewing his wicket, hoping that the technology would fail to discern the faint contact. If he did call for a review in such circumstances - that surely is worse than not walking till the umpire gives you out?

I thought exactly this but it really didn't seem particularly likely. The thing that really made me wonder was how did the bowler, fielders and umpire hear a nick and the man closest neither hear nor feel it?

Still only Clarke will know for sure and I'm not overly bothered either way. I love the DRS if for nothing else than the drama it brings though that would easily be lost were every decision be reviewed. I'm not even particularly concerned if 100% of decisions are correct as the result isn't what makes me love cricket though again I could see the players getting pretty naffed off if there wasn't a decent degree of accuracy.

by mystiroakey Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:26 am

I suppose a major point to all of this is - How good was that first test? It was special, a great test. If we had no dodgy decisions would it have been as good?

Jeas don;t worry I am not Sepp Blatter. I would rather fairness over rules everything. But the point remains - the inconsitancies can help make a game of cricket!

by Mike Selig Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:29 am

I think Clarke genuinely thought he'd missed the ball, and the noise was something else (e.g. a loose bat handle which can often make exactly the same clicking noise as a faint edge) - with the faintest edges you don't always hear them. Similarly they don't always appear on hotspot (cf Bell at Sydney, Bell also didn't think he'd nicked it mind). For what it's worth I thought Root was out, he seemed unsure (rather than review it immediately he wandered down for a chat), but there's nothing to suggest it would have been overturned.

I echo Londontiger's thoughts on the difficulty of umpiring - the statistics produced by the ICC are a timely reminder that even in a perceived poor performance, the umpires get a huge majority of decisions very right. I've umpired a fair few times (mainly a coach, but this sometimes requires me to umpire also) and can confirm that concentrating on everything you're meant to be concentrating on is very very difficult (counting to 6 is harder than you would think...).

by CaledonianCraig Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:34 am

Boy oh boy - many knee-jerk reactions on this thread.

Australia's gripe with DRS? Do they have one? Their complaint was with the Broad decision which was down to the umpire and nothing to do with technology.

England's chief gripe with it? The Trott decision but that was merely down to the third match official getting above his station and overturning it when all evidence wasn't available to him.

We saw how useful the DRS was here with Clarke's second innings dismissal and the final wicket to fall as well that decided the match. Lets not forget the wicket in the second innings that Swann got. He spun the ball from a position where it looked like it had pitched outside off-stump and for that reason the umpire gave it not out. Even the Sky pundits felt it had pitched outside line of stumps but England reviewed and guess what? DRS proved many people wrong.

DRS definitely improves umpiring standards a great deal and nothing in this test match has changed my opinion.

by mystiroakey Thu 18 Jul 2013, 9:34 am

I think clarke didnt know if he hit it or not. Your mind plays tricks on you anyway at that speed.. Its simple as that really. Same goes for root.

But root either didnt hit it or had even less of an edge than clarke!! so thats the point.. Your mind can play tricks on you at that speed

by alfie Thu 18 Jul 2013, 11:18 am

Not sure about that. Clarke's head swivelled around pretty quickly after it passed him...

He may have convinced himself he didn't get a nick , but I think you practically always feel it , even a faint touch. Sometimes you just aren't quite sure...and then you really want to believe you missed it Smile

by mystiroakey Thu 18 Jul 2013, 11:23 am

Yea i think you do feel it- but then you start questioning your own mind very quickly

by KP_fan Fri 19 Jul 2013, 7:50 am

ICC is doing press confernces, announcing apologies, and umpiring assesments, and DRS assesment and plans of using DRS instantly by 3rd umpire ( offcourse not to be implemented until 3 years)

they are under pressure

by Sponsored content