Umpiring and the 3rd umpire! what do YOU think?

couragous cloke · Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 6:34 pm

for a while now, and esspecially the last 4 tests in the windies, people have been asking for the third umpire to help in making the decisions for LBW's and caught behinds. The reason is, slow motion replays keep on proving that a batsmen is not out, or out, when the opposite has occured.

What do you guys think about it? do you think they should bring in a third umpire for those types of decisions?

Me personally, i think that they should leave it the way it is, the umpires decision is IT! thats the way sport is and should be forever, its part of the game aswell, to accept the umpires desicion.

Also, doesnt bad decisions and controversy make sport what it is, we do want something to chat and argue about dont we??

Donny · Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 8:03 pm

Lol. OK, Clokey. You'll get an argument from me.

1. The 3rd. umpy shouldn't be called upon for disputed catches. The fieldsman concerned should be able to claim a catch and be believed. As these close calls will be heavily scrutinised anyway, the fieldsman would be howled down if found to be cheating.

2. The 3rd. umpy could be called upon for lbws but only for the tramlines (did it pitch outside leg?) or when ball hits bat. This would take less time than the above. If the law states 'a batsman cannot be given out if the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump' (as it does) then why not use the available technology? This series - Windies v. Aussies - has clearly shown how hard it is for umpires to adjudicate on this one. It wasn't just de Silva who got this badly wrong.

3. Until the technology improves regarding nicks to the keeper, I'd leave this one up to the bowler's end umpy.

zoia · Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 8:09 pm

i think if they have to use video replays for a catch it will stuff our game up, either u cought it or u didnt none of this bullshit cheating

MrsTarrant · Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 10:12 pm

This is a tough one because on the one hand I don't like the idea of bringing the third umpire into it and then on the other like Donny said with the lbw decisions why not use the available technology when it's there?

However, I definately agree that the third umpire shouldn't be used for disputed catches because you can't tell half the time on the television and the batsman is given the benefit of the doubt. Ask the fieldsman see what he says and then the umpire has to make the decision, I wouldn't just rely on what the fieldsman has said.

Umpires have to do their job, no one is expecting them to be perfect but that's what they are paid to do. I'm kinda on the fence with this one I think over umpiring can be a problem if that makes sense! Smile

Nova Kaine · Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 4:15 am

Is there a limit for a team to ask for the 3rd umpire?

The 3rd umpire has been a very good idea, but sometimes slows the game down. Atleast with the 3rd umpire, the umpires on the field become unsure they can call for it, instead of just saying "Not Out" when they cannot cleary make the decision themselves.

The Prototype · Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 4:04 am

The Third umpire was a very good idea, it limites the whining about a cricket being called out.

Donny · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:05 pm

This will probably come up again this season.

Opinions please.

commonwombat · commonwombat Joined: 12 Jul 2003 Location: sydney/s.africa

May an umpire add his 2 cents worth??

I don't agree with catch decisions going to the 3rd umpire except when ascertaining whether the ball has carried. Where some umpires, even at intl level , have problems is concentrating on the bowlers front foot (no ball) and sometimes missing a possible catch behind off a v thin edge.
We also have the other cases of umpires concentrating on the delivery and end up with batsmen out on clear no-balls.

Re LBW, not in favour of this going to 3rd ump. One thought worth considering is having the line of the stumps marked down the pitch, say with a thin broken line. This could be done by the groundsman every morning as he re marks creases and sets the stumps. This would at least cut the margin of error in determing whether the ball pitched in line with the stumps or outside leg.

Joe · Joined: 01 Jun 2003

Leave it the way it is.It aint perfect but at least the game is free flowing.If you add this element then the third umpire could end up being used after a higher proportion of the balls bowled.Just after run outs is not many.
Lets watch and see what happens in the future.

Donny · Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:36 pm

labrooy · Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Location: Toowoomba, Qld

What goes around, comes around. If you can't eliminate all umpiring mistakes then why eliminate just a few?

I know this sounds strange but as a player the one thing that helped me accept bad decisions against me were the bad decisions that went for me. The 3rd umpire does not always get it right. Even with video evidence he often gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, so why use him?

When I umpired I came to realise just how hard some decisions were to make. If I made mistakes, which I certainly did, I would hope that it all evened out in the long run.

Donny · Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:59 pm

A couple of things, labrooy.

You wrote: "If you can't eliminate all umpiring mistakes then why eliminate just a few?" Lol, I hope you don't live your life with this in mind. What does this mean ? If we can't be perfect, we shouldn't try to change anything ?

And: "The 3rd umpire does not always get it right. Even with video evidence he often gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, ... " I must stick up for umpires here. In those cases, he DOES get it right. If the replay shows any doubt, he MUST give the batsman not out.

And last: "When I umpired I came to realise just how hard some decisions were to make." Although this is understandable, the 'doubt not out' rule really makes umpiring straightforward - as long as you know your Laws.

When you're adjudicating on a caught behind, a run out, a stumping, or an l.b.w., once you find yourself thinking, "Mmmm that was close" or, "I'm not sure", no need to think any further. Not out. Simple.

commonwombat · commonwombat Joined: 12 Jul 2003 Location: sydney/s.africa

Donny,

One of Labrooy's points IS rather valid with regards to the 3rd umpire. In some circumstances he is in little better position to judge due to the evidence in front of him. It is fine to have camera footage, but in some parts of the world the number of cameras available and camera angles may be variable and sometimes less than ideal.

I am certainly a proponent of the tramlines being marked on the pitch but viz height of contact, the umpire in the centre is in as good a position as any. The graphics shown on tv are very nice but what are they based on. How are they basing their projection of the balls progress. Pitches do not invariably play totally true with regards to bounce.

At the top level, I am in favour of using technolgy to aid in the decision making. Run outs, stumpings, boundary calls and whether a ball has carried, certainly. There is a caveat as stated above with regards to the quality of the technology available. With regards to catches, it is inconclusive on many replays with regards to thin edges so is it any real improvement on the umpires eyes. Snickometer evidences a noise but what noise??

Will wait to be convinced further on these last 2 matters.

Donny · Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:48 pm

In my previous posts in this thread, I've clearly stated I don't think disputed catches should go to the third umpy (and given my reasons) but while they still do, he can only give his decision on available evidence.

Although the computerised 'where the ball would have gone' thingy is interesting, it's not conclusive. I'm quite happy to leave that up to the field umpy re. height.

I wasn't advocating tramlines permanently on the pitch as the umpy could still get it wrong. I was clearly suggesting 3rd. umpy tramline replays. That bit of technology is conclusive.

I repeat, in the hope someone may address this specific point: "Almost everyone I've suggested this to is against it but, as yet, I haven't heard one valid reason."

commonwombat · commonwombat Joined: 12 Jul 2003 Location: sydney/s.africa

I would go along with yr point most happily but have 2 reservations.

1. How accurate is their graphic??

2. More importantly, that this sort of technology is available in all intl centres rather than just richer ones like Aus, Saf and Eng.

If these questions can be answered positively, then OK. In the meantime, the tramlines marked may at least cut well into the error rate on such decisions.