PostsArticles tagged as: third-umpire
Pietersen c Sangakkara b Vaas 1
By Will last year, mid-December, 6 Comments »
Oh how simple it sounds.
Pietersen c Sangakkara b Vaas 1
Alas, it is anything but - and the media (yes, I know I’m part of it, but I can still comment) might be making a meal of it in the coming 24 hours. For those of you who didn’t see it, this is what happened:
| 60.3 | Vaas to Pietersen, OUT, and the plan has worked, it’s a brilliant piece of work at slip, but wait, there’s controversy. Pietersen went for a drive at a wide ball, nicked to the third slip, Silva, who dived to his left and grabbed the catch low to the turf, it bobbles up and Sangakkara comes from first slip to take the rebound. Pietersen waits as the umpires consult, Harper raises his finger, but TV replays show the ball appears to have brushed the ground before the initial take by Silva. Pietersen waits inside the boundary, as he did at Lord’s earlier this year against India, but there’s no overturning this decision and he’s off |
Clarification from Andrew Miller:
The difference between the two incidents is that at Lord’s there wasn’t an original agreement between the umpires on Dhoni’s catch, it was given immediately by Simon Taufel. However, in Colombo the umpires conferred before deciding Pietersen was out and the laws state that the third official can only be used if the view of the on-field umpires is obstructed.
This is clearly bullshit and the law needs amending immediately. Like many, I still hanker after the good old days when video replays were rare and pretty inconclusive, but cricket must move with the times and we can’t have this middle-ground where technology is used sparingly. It’s making the sport look pretty damn stupid.
Your thoughts? Vote on the right-hand-side of the site, too.
Loading ...Line and Lens
By Emma 2 years ago, mid-September, 6 Comments »
The role of the camera on the cricket pitch is frequently scrutinised. The Oval ball-tampering saga, and the lack of video evidence, is just one of the more recent examples.
To what level should cameras be used as proof? What happened in the fourth over of England’s reply yesterday raised this question in the more usual fashion. With both fielder and batsman adamant, and neither umpire certain, inconclusive camera shots gave Strauss the benefit of the doubt. Such scenarios come often enough. Whilst ‘Hi-Motion’ technology exists, it isn’t used on regular coverage, and the frame-by-frame replays the third umpires get can be described as ‘bitty’ at best. Cameras are imperfect recorders. The long-angled lenses used in sailing make the boats look as if they’re all about to crash, and whilst those tend to cover huge distances, cricket footage is hardly close study work. You can never find the ideal replay in a 2D, single angled image. Circles have infinite angles and Sky do not have infinite cameras.
In general terms, I do think technology is a good thing. Especially in the outfield, where so much relies on the word of the fielding side in games that are not televised. A recent county game I went to saw a batsman run out off a ball the crowd believed went for four. Sometimes, a fielder can honestly have no idea if he let go of the ball before or after he touched the rope. Equally, who can blame the umpire who prefers to trust the pause button on a camera that is in position in judging a run out? But when judging the cleanness of catches, I feel there is an overuse of replay footage. The laws, amended by the ICC to include TV umpires, state:
“Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, a not out decision shall be given by the bowler’s end umpire. Only if the line of vision of both umpires is obscured shall the bowler’s end umpire be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpireâ€
Can anyone remember an instance where a questionable catch wasn’t referred?
During India’s tour of the West Indies, Billy Doctrove refused to judge on a fairly referred catch. Chaos ensued. Yesterday, replay upon replay upon replay still left those commentating split. Whilst television can often do no better than the real time appreciation of the field umpires, surely this law should only be used in times of complete uncertainty.
6 Comments »