What is the next innovation/change you would like to see in Cricket?
RSX
So, it is not just changes to the laws of the game. It could be
anything related to cricket as long as it is applicable to all the
countries. . Here is my list:
- Roof/Dome to keep the ground dry when rain comes down. As soon as
the rain stops, the roof can open to continue the game. Granted this
has to be done gradually and all countries may not have the funds to
do it. Still this would reduce the rain affected games quite a bit.
- Change the over restriction per bowler in ODI from 10 to 13. This
would allow a team to use only four bowlers. I believe it was
discussed in the ICC technical committee sometime ago. Not sure what
happened.
Dave -Turner
Shakes
Not so much an innovation, but I would love to change the pitches in
most countries so that bowlers have as good a say as batsmen. It
explains why the batsmen (Tendulkar, Ponting, Sehwag etc.), as
talented as they might be, are able to score so many centuries so
easily. The bowlers are just cannon fodder these days.
Crapats (TM)
Real time analysis of arm bending.
jzfredricks
more public testing of DRS technology
unlimited referrals, with additional incorrect referrals costing runs
anti-patent laws to stop a team from having exclusive access to
patented technologies, ie extremely high performing GM woods
more bowler friendly pitches
seats that don't feel like spiked concrete
enhanced player safety, ie soft fences, not steel ones
ANY no-ball results in a free-hit, not just front-foots ones (ODO
only)
official definitions of statistics (etc), rather than commonly
accepted ones
Mike Holmans
<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>official definitions of statistics (etc), rather than commonly
>accepted ones
What do you mean by that? And who do you think has the power to define
whatever it is you mean?
Cheers,
Mike
--
jzfredricks
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:35:31 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
>
> >official definitions of statistics (etc), rather than commonly
> >accepted ones
>
> What do you mean by that? And who do you think has the power to define
> whatever it is you mean?
I'd be happy for the MCC to do this.
Any body has the "power" to define these, but eventually one body's
definitions will survive/float to the top. I can only see the MCC's or
the ICC's doing that.
At the moment stats are just a convention. I want published, accepted
definitions.
When I ask "what effect does a scored off no-ball have on Strike Rate,
compared to a non-scored off no-ball?" I want Andrew to say "go read
page 115 of The Official Stats Guide", rather than a 40 post topic
ending in someone mentioning how good SRT is.
CDK
Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
whether a bowler chucks or not.
CDK
jzfredricks
> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
> whether a bowler chucks or not.
Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
- so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
Mike Holmans
<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
What you are in effect asking for is wider distribution of the ACS
definitions.
the trouble with your request is that the statistics which people use
are largely a matter of convention. I frequently point out that the
career batting average is pretty meaningless but people still go on
using it because that's their convention. Which leads to the
unfortunate possible consequence of an Official List of Statistics
which is that anyone trying to do a different analysis gets yelled at
by the morons who say that the statistic being used isn't in the
Official List so ther's no point in discussing it.
Cheers,
Mike
--
linus
Nine innings per side per game, with three outs in an innings. Once
that is accepted, change the shape of the bat from a flat surface to a
round one, then make the region behind the batting wicket foul
territory,.... you get the idea!
jzfredricks
> What you are in effect asking for is wider distribution of the ACS
> definitions.
Not just wider, but formal. I want the ICC to say "if you broadcast
our product you must use our stat definitions".
> the trouble with your request is that the statistics which people use
> are largely a matter of convention. I frequently point out that the
> career batting average is pretty meaningless but people still go on
> using it because that's their convention. Which leads to the
> unfortunate possible consequence of an Official List of Statistics
> which is that anyone trying to do a different analysis gets yelled at
> by the morons who say that the statistic being used isn't in the
> Official List so ther's no point in discussing it.
Hopefully those morons get ignored. It's always nice to discuss new
stats. Just the other day we were discussing a new ODO stat - % of
deliveries which resulted in the RRR decreasing, or something like
that.
However some people won't agree with the official stat definitions.
Some might have good arguments, others crap ones. Not much we can do
about that other than debate it.
Mike Holmans
<jzfre...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 22, 10:27 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What you are in effect asking for is wider distribution of the ACS
>> definitions.
>
>Not just wider, but formal. I want the ICC to say "if you broadcast
>our product you must use our stat definitions".
Have you any evidence that any broadcasters or, for that matter, any
of the written media don't use the same definitions as the ACS?
I can't see why ICC or MCC would want to get involved with things
which have nothing to do with the way the game is played.
And the last thing we want is for ICC to get involved, actually, since
they have gone around corrupting Test statistics by declaring that
exhibition games not betweeen teams representing Full Members count as
Tests too.
A statistic is what its compiler says it is, nothing more, nothing
less.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Howzzat
> Name one or two changes that you would like to see related to cricket.
> So, it is not just changes to the laws of the game. It could be
> anything related to cricket as long as it is applicable to all the
> countries. . Here is my list:
A smack on the head of any player/captain/coach who says in a press
conference "The pressure is on the other team".
CDK
> On Mar 22, 8:39 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
>> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>
> Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
Now we have crappier umpires making poor decisions and interminable
waits and still the technology doesn't get it right all the time.
> Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
> umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
> - so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
They managed it fine for several centuries.
Maybe batting is so hard that no human can do it properly!
Maybe bowling is so hard no human can do it properly!
So let's just have computer simulations.
CDK
CDK
Well your boys certainly moved us one step in that direction with the
two Murali changes.
CDK
subi...@hotmail.com
lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
linus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anything to further the cause...
Ravi
For ODI's
- Allow the new ball to be taken at any time by the bowling side -
allow starting off with an old ball
- Allow upto two bouncers in an over
- Allow bowlers to get an extra over for each wicket they take
- For the free hit make it possible for a batsman to be given out
bowled (in addition to run out)
- Make the first 10 overs powerplay a floating one (to be decided by
the batting team after new ball chosen or not)
Ravi
jzfredricks
> For the free hit make it possible for a batsman to be given out
> bowled (in addition to run out)
I think this would take a lot of fun out of the shot. Every free hit
would be a yorker, and no one would play freely against it.
Luke Curtis
I picked up the 2009 Ashes DVD set recently, that series was just
before tURDS and the number of outright bad decisions for both teams
in the series was ridiculous, the number of absolutly plumb LBW's not
given was crazy...
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>On 22/03/2011 9:52 AM, jzfredricks wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 8:39 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
>>> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>>
>> Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
>
>Now we have crappier umpires making poor decisions and interminable
>waits and still the technology doesn't get it right all the time.
If Umpires got it right all the time we wouldn't need tURDS - which
would you prefer, 95% of correct descisions without tURDS or 99.5%
with it?
>
>
>> Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
>> umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
>> - so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
>
>They managed it fine for several centuries.
No they didn't, they just had the security of not having 25 cameras on
them at all times and numerous endlessly repeated slo-mos, Hawkeye
predictions, Hot Spots and Snickos for every questionable call.
CDK
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:00:12 +1100, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2011 9:52 AM, jzfredricks wrote:
>>> On Mar 22, 8:39 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
>>>> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>>>
>>> Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
>>
>> Now we have crappier umpires making poor decisions and interminable
>> waits and still the technology doesn't get it right all the time.
>
> If Umpires got it right all the time we wouldn't need tURDS - which
> would you prefer, 95% of correct descisions without tURDS or 99.5%
> with it?
95% without.
But then I don't think that the umpires get 1 in 20 wrong, ecxept maybe
Ashocka.
>>> Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
>>> umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
>>> - so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
>>
>> They managed it fine for several centuries.
>
> No they didn't, they just had the security of not having 25 cameras on
> them at all times and numerous endlessly repeated slo-mos, Hawkeye
> predictions, Hot Spots and Snickos for every questionable call.
Yep, they managed it fine.
Most of that technology has significant limitations. Hawkeye is crap
(even you agree with that), slow mo doesn't always catch the moment in
question, Hot Spot seems to be the most accurate of the lot, but there
has even been controvesy about its results, Snicko is questionable
because all it shows is sounds, which could be caused by any number of
sources. The view provided by TV cameras is distorted and for things
like whether a ball has carried or not is largely useless.
CDK
jzfredricks
> Most of that technology has significant limitations. Hawkeye is crap
> (even you agree with that), slow mo doesn't always catch the moment in
> question, Hot Spot seems to be the most accurate of the lot, but there
> has even been controvesy about its results, Snicko is questionable
> because all it shows is sounds, which could be caused by any number of
> sources. The view provided by TV cameras is distorted and for things
> like whether a ball has carried or not is largely useless.
Whilst I agree the current technology has some issues and that umpires
can get better... only a first class idiot can sit there and pretend
that the technology isn't correcting plenty of umpiring mistakes,
plenty of them shocking.
Human umpires have a shit load more limitations than technology.
max.it
What's wrong with a game of cricket played in the spirit and under the
laws of the game?
max.it
wrote:
>On 23/03/2011 8:15 AM, Luke Curtis wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:00:12 +1100, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2011 9:52 AM, jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> On Mar 22, 8:39 am, CDK<"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>>>> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
>>>>> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
>>>
>>> Now we have crappier umpires making poor decisions and interminable
>>> waits and still the technology doesn't get it right all the time.
>>
>> If Umpires got it right all the time we wouldn't need tURDS - which
>> would you prefer, 95% of correct descisions without tURDS or 99.5%
>> with it?
>
>95% without.
>
Think the figure was more like 97 point something, but I've never been
able to find out if that included all decisions, include sub fielders,
runners, ground weather and light and ins and outs.
Everyone wants to use technology, but the moment the umpires produce a
light meter everyone starts to moan. How many times have we watched a
game interupted for light when the light was fine but the meter was
not happy? If the decisions are to be made by technology, and the
consensus is that technology is good. Why is the most simple and
accurate device scorned in favour of the umpires eyes (which are
apparently shit piss poor)??
Andrew Dunford
"subi...@hotmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b2bdcb9-1ed5-435a...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket. If you want to
change the lbw law, let batsmen be hit outside off when playing a shot.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"RSX" <rgop...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:eff77e74-7669-4369...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> Name one or two changes that you would like to see related to cricket.
> So, it is not just changes to the laws of the game. It could be
> anything related to cricket as long as it is applicable to all the
> countries. . Here is my list:
> - Roof/Dome to keep the ground dry when rain comes down. As soon as
> the rain stops, the roof can open to continue the game. Granted this
> has to be done gradually and all countries may not have the funds to
> do it. Still this would reduce the rain affected games quite a bit.
> - Change the over restriction per bowler in ODI from 10 to 13. This
> would allow a team to use only four bowlers. I believe it was
> discussed in the ICC technical committee sometime ago. Not sure what
> happened.
I would abolish Damien Fleming, so we no longer have to listen to his
campaign to ban leg byes.
Andrew
jzfredricks
> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket. If you want to
> change the lbw law, let batsmen be hit outside off when playing a shot.
Anything to make things easier for Craps is a good idea!
Calvin
wrote:
Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that I'd
advocate the change).
--
cheers,
calvin
Calvin
> Most of that technology has significant limitations. Hawkeye is crap
> (even you agree with that), slow mo doesn't always catch the moment in
> question, Hot Spot seems to be the most accurate of the lot, but there
> has even been controvesy about its results, Snicko is questionable
> because all it shows is sounds, which could be caused by any number of
> sources. The view provided by TV cameras is distorted and for things
> like whether a ball has carried or not is largely useless.
While the technology is not perfect, it is clearly the case that most of
its issues surround the protocols for its use and human error rather than
the technology itself.
--
cheers,
calvin
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:38:20 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net>
Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
would disagree that it would not be a big problem. Adding the risk of
lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
completely.
Encouraging leg theory bowling is a very, very bad idea. It's no
surprise that it was suggested by one of rsc's most thorough-going
idiots.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Calvin
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>>> lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
>>>
>>> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket.
>>
>> Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that
>> I'd
>> advocate the change).
>
> Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
> years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
> would disagree that it would not be a big problem.Adding the risk of
> lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
> completely.
I don't see how that follows. It would be almost impossible for a SLA to
get a right hander out LBW under such circs (I assume he was bowling
around the wicket).
> Encouraging leg theory bowling is a very, very bad idea. It's no
> surprise that it was suggested by one of rsc's most thorough-going
> idiots.
Sure, but there's a big difference between his suggestion and mine.
--
cheers,
calvin
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:29:32 +1000, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
>> the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>>>> lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
>>>>
>>>> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket.
>>>
>>> Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that
>>> I'd
>>> advocate the change).
>>
>> Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
>> years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
>> would disagree that it would not be a big problem.Adding the risk of
>> lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
>> completely.
>
>I don't see how that follows. It would be almost impossible for a SLA to
>get a right hander out LBW under such circs (I assume he was bowling
>around the wicket).
Wrong assumption. Therefore wrong conclusion.
>> Encouraging leg theory bowling is a very, very bad idea. It's no
>> surprise that it was suggested by one of rsc's most thorough-going
>> idiots.
>
>Sure, but there's a big difference between his suggestion and mine.
And what would that be? You're still encouraging the worst sort of
negative bowling. Your suggestion is merely 95% as negative as his,
which doesn't strike me as a big difference.
Cheers,
Mike
--
jzfredricks
> >On Mar 22, 8:39=A0am, CDK <"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
> >> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
> >> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>
> >Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
> >Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
> >umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
> >- so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
>
> What's wrong with a game of cricket played in the spirit and under the
> laws of the game?
Nothing, but eventually getting totally shafted by umpires wears down
that Spirit.
Eventually it's not enjoyable to pay your $20, field all day, then get
given out LBW for a golden duck when you hit it in the middle of the
bat.
The Spirit is nice, but it's not so nice to overcome that!
At the elite level, where they do have technology, the passion level
is 1000x as much. Whilst players probably deal with poor decisions,
fans don't fare quite so well.
Calvin
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:48:29 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:29:32 +1000, Mike Holmans
>> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
>>> the keyboard and brought forth:
>>>
>>>>>> lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket.
>>>>
>>>> Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that
>>>> I'd
>>>> advocate the change).
>>>
>>> Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
>>> years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
>>> would disagree that it would not be a big problem.Adding the risk of
>>> lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
>>> completely.
>>
>> I don't see how that follows. It would be almost impossible for a SLA to
>> get a right hander out LBW under such circs (I assume he was bowling
>> around the wicket).
>
> Wrong assumption. Therefore wrong conclusion.
Well perhaps you could provide a You Tube link so i can see what you are
talking about. Do you have other examples?
>>> Encouraging leg theory bowling is a very, very bad idea. It's no
>>> surprise that it was suggested by one of rsc's most thorough-going
>>> idiots.
>>
>> Sure, but there's a big difference between his suggestion and mine.
>
> And what would that be? You're still encouraging the worst sort of
> negative bowling. Your suggestion is merely 95% as negative as his,
That's just nonsense. If the batsman is standing in front of his stumps
then who's being negative?
--
cheers,
calvin
jzfredricks
> That's just nonsense. If the batsman is standing in front of his stumps
> then who's being negative?
Can you please describe a "fair" location for the batsman to stand?
Lawrence Logic
"Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
news:op.vsr0d...@04233-jyhzp1s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:09:56 +1000, Mike Holmans
> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:48:29 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
>> the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:29:32 +1000, Mike Holmans
>>> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
>>>> the keyboard and brought forth:
>>>>
>>>>>>> lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket.
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> advocate the change).
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
>>>> years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
>>>> would disagree that it would not be a big problem.Adding the risk of
>>>> lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
>>>> completely.
>>>
>>> I don't see how that follows. It would be almost impossible for a SLA to
>>> get a right hander out LBW under such circs (I assume he was bowling
>>> around the wicket).
>>
>> Wrong assumption. Therefore wrong conclusion.
>
> Well perhaps you could provide a You Tube link so i can see what you are
> talking about. Do you have other examples?
>
I've gotten confused. Are you saying that the ball should hit in line (ie
stump to stump line) when pitched outside off-stump, which is as per the
current Law? If that's the case, then you and Mike seem to be at
cross-porpoises in this thread.
--
Lawrence
"Stan, poke your grandma!" - Randy Marsh - 07 April 2010
Calvin
<lawrence-Omit...@amd-p.com> wrote:
> I've gotten confused. Are you saying that the ball should hit in line
> (ie
> stump to stump line) when pitched outside off-stump, which is as per the
> current Law? If that's the case, then you and Mike seem to be at
> cross-porpoises in this thread.
I'm not advocating it, but I'm saying that a law that allowed a batsman to
be out LBW to a ball that pitched outside leg provided it *hit* in line is
probably workable.
Mike seems to think that is 95% the same as the original suggestion which
*didn't* require the ball to hit in line.
--
cheers,
calvin
Calvin
wrote:
The batsman can stand wherever he likes.
--
cheers,
calvin
Lawrence Logic
For some unknown reason, I read "off" stump, even though it quite clearly
didn't say that. I'll have to make an appointment with SD's therapist...
--
Lawrence
"Butters, we're done talking about girls' balls right now. Pay
attention!" - Eric Cartman - 14 November 2007
higgs
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >> "subi...@hotmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calvin,
come on down.............
Higgs
jzfredricks
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:24:08 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 1:09 pm, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
> >> That's just nonsense. If the batsman is standing in front of his stumps
> >> then who's being negative?
>
> > Can you please describe a "fair" location for the batsman to stand?
>
> The batsman can stand wherever he likes.
I meant to add "without being accused of being negative".
Calvin
> Calvin,
>
> come on down.............
>
> Higgs
Thanks for your input Ken. And how are the voices today?
--
cheers,
calvin
higgs
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:31:04 +1000, higgs <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Calvin,
>
> > come on down.............
>
> > Higgs
>
> Thanks for your input Ken. And how are the voices today?
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
Assumption: a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were
true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
Idiot: a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-
defeating or significantly counterproductive way (see also: moron,
imbecile, and cretin).
HTH
Higgs
Calvin
> On Mar 23, 3:51 pm, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:31:04 +1000, higgs <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Calvin,
>>
>> > come on down.............
>>
>> > Higgs
>>
>> Thanks for your input Ken. And how are the voices today?
>>
>
> Assumption: a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were
> true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
I only had to assume because Mike didn't provide enough details re: Giles
bowling to Tendulkar 10 years ago. I'd suggest that's his fault, not mine.
Keep up the good work!
--
cheers,
calvin
CDK
When the game of cricket is played between two teams of robots use as
much tech as you like. When a sport is played between two teams off
humans, use human umpires.
CDK
CDK
I don't think everyone does want technology. I certainly don't, I'd far
prefer umpires being given the freedom to do their job without the
constant denigration that technology is.
CDK
CDK
So you agree with Hawkeye 100% of the time?
You agree with the fact that many catches are not given because of the
shortcomings of TV cameras and the distance from the action?
Snicko can only tell you that a sound happened, it cannot tell you what
made the sound.
I have even seen circumstances when Hot Spot is useless.
CDK
CDK
Given the so called popularity of Smash and Bash the average 'fan' has
the attention span of a gnat and will forget a poor decision before the
head off for the next beer fuled slash.
CDK
higgs
> On 23/03/2011 12:04 PM, Calvin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:40:17 +1000, CDK <"Dr Moreau"@theisland.com> wrote:
>
> >> Most of that technology has significant limitations. Hawkeye is crap
> >> (even you agree with that), slow mo doesn't always catch the moment in
> >> question, Hot Spot seems to be the most accurate of the lot, but there
> >> has even been controvesy about its results, Snicko is questionable
> >> because all it shows is sounds, which could be caused by any number of
> >> sources. The view provided by TV cameras is distorted and for things
> >> like whether a ball has carried or not is largely useless.
>
> > While the technology is not perfect, it is clearly the case that most of
> > its issues surround the protocols for its use and human error rather
> > than the technology itself.
>
> So you agree with Hawkeye 100% of the time?
>
Not that I'm one to agree with Calvin simply for the sake of it, but I
assumed (there's that word again) that when he said "While the
technology is not perfect, it is clearly the case that most of its
issues.......", he was implicitly saying that it's *not* perfect 100%
of the time.
You obviously read that as *is* perfect 100% of the time.
I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
> You agree with the fact that many catches are not given because of the
> shortcomings of TV cameras and the distance from the action?
>
Again, I missed that bit.
Can you point to where he said something about that?
> Snicko can only tell you that a sound happened, it cannot tell you what
> made the sound.
>
Of course.
That's why it's best used in conjunction with some footage.
Higgs
Calvin
Thanks CDK for provoking a rare moment of agreement between Ken and moi.
--
cheers,
calvin
max.it
wrote:
Well it seems like everyone wants technology, but their expectations
differ about how it should be used. I'm not sure one or the other way.
My first instinct as an umpire is to be suspicious. So I don't like
the way an unofficial party (broadcaster) is involved and I don't
trust hawkeye, no ball line calls in the earpiece maybe fair enough.
Though, when this was trialled. Rudi I think said he was distracted,
and anyhow he had the call and signal out before the earpiece told him
anyway.
Andrew Dunford
"max.it" wrote in message news:4d8a74b2...@news.btinternet.com...
Automatic no-ball checking is a strange one. The ICC trialled this with ear
pieces several years ago at a No Champions Trophy, and then from memory
promptly announced the experiment had failed. From what I can see the
method (ear piece) did not work, but the checking after-the-fact by the 3U
seems to me to be an obvious improvement on the status quo and need not hold
up the game.
Andrew
PlaySafe
A no ball can be judged by third ump without any hold up, it could be announced by ump before the next ball, at least it would be fair.
Crapats (TM)
> For ODI's
> - Allow the new ball to be taken at any time by the bowling side -
> allow starting off with an old ball
> - Allow upto two bouncers in an over
> - Allow bowlers to get an extra over for each wicket they take
> - For the free hit make it possible for a batsman to be given out
> bowled (in addition to run out)
> - Make the first 10 overs powerplay a floating one (to be decided by
> the batting team after new ball chosen or not)
>
> Ravi
I'm guessing you're an opening batsman.
PlaySafe
CDK
I'll trust most International umpires LBW calls over Hawkeye.
CDK
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 23, 9:52=A0am, max.it wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:52:31 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
>>
>> <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 22, 8:39=3DA0am, CDK <"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> >> Go back to having umpires making all decisions on field, including
>> >> whether a bowler chucks or not.
>>
>> >Ah, the good old days, when crap umpires ruined games.
>> >Anyone who actually watches cricket should realise just how bad
>> >umpires actually are. I really should say "just how hard umpiring is"
>> >- so hard that I don't think humans can do it properly.
>>
>> What's wrong with a game of cricket played in the spirit and under the
>> laws of the game?
>
>Nothing, but eventually getting totally shafted by umpires wears down
>that Spirit.
>Eventually it's not enjoyable to pay your $20, field all day, then get
>given out LBW for a golden duck when you hit it in the middle of the
>bat.
>The Spirit is nice, but it's not so nice to overcome that!
Do you get official umpires, I mean trained and qualified for your
cricket games?
>
>At the elite level, where they do have technology, the passion level
>is 1000x as much. Whilst players probably deal with poor decisions,
>fans don't fare quite so well.
How can you possibly measure passion unless you have a weather station
in Ballymena?
There are no poor decisions, there are only decisions. Batsmen never
nick a ball unless it is on to the pad, and bowlers never overstep.
The umpires are impartial, they are there only to ensure that the game
is played within the laws.
Rather than the umpires shafting a player the players are continually
trying to shaft the umpires. An umpires decision made in error is an
error nothing more. However constant stupid appealing, not walking,
not 'knowing' if the ball or body touched the boundary rope and the
old I don't know bumped catch scenario, are all deliberate attempts to
shaft the umpires. The worst one is the big (fake) celebration. It
only takes the keeper or captain to begin, and it spreads like
hysteria, of course it could be an error by the umpire or it could be
cheating by the players, but are they cheating or is it only the one
who began the celebration who is cheating, or are they all simply
mistaken?
It's a shame too, umpires are difficult to come by, it's hard to get
anyone to begin umpire training, and harder still to encourage them to
take the exams. It isn't that it's difficult, learn the stuff and do
the job easy peasy. Player discipline is a big issue, to a point that
the umpiring fraternity is heavily loaded with former policemen
lawyers and school teachers and the odd former hells angel ;)
I landed to umpire a game a couple of years ago. There was a 5ft fence
around the ground. From the other side of the fence I heard a voice.
I'm glad it's you, I've ran out of cigarettes. It turned out to be a
guy who was a sound engineer when I was giggin pubs and clubs had
taken up umpiring.I hadn't seen him for 20 years, didn't even know he
enjoyed cricket.
Take a look at
www.niacus.co.uk
there is a very handsome umpire on the site, did you know?
You should give real umpiring a try. Sometimes it's great and
sometimes it's not. Sometimes your colleague is good, you get on and
learn more and progress, and sometimes he's just a complete tool.
You should always learn the appropriate official greeting. Where were
you last, and what was the lunch like?
BTW. On passion, around here means heavy rain in Ballymena. It's
passion down.
Sex, is tea time in Ballymena, sex O'Clock.
Will go fir tha wan? - Shall we go for a pint?
Gwan ya bastard - you and your armoured car may pass.
jzfredricks
> Do you get official umpires, I mean trained and qualified for your
> cricket games?
We do, just the one, and I *hate* with a *passion* playing cricket
without them. It happens occasionally. Main reason is a car breaking
down, which I assume is code for "gone fishing".
Without an ump a verbal joust with accusations of cheating is pretty
much guaranteed. The risk of this can be reduced by agreeing to "no
lbws what-so-ever".
Having said that, quite a few of our umps are a few years passed their
best. I've seen some great umpiring, and I've seen some truly horribe
umpiring. I once saw a batsman play a cut shot, bottom edge, caught,
batsman started walking, he was RECALLED by the ump and the ump said
"you didn't hit it, the bat hit the ground". The toe of that bat
would've been about 60cm from the ground.
> >At the elite level, where they do have technology, the passion level
> >is 1000x as much. Whilst players probably deal with poor decisions,
> >fans don't fare quite so well.
>
> How can you possibly measure passion unless you have a weather station
> in Ballymena?
Perhaps I do ;)
> There are no poor decisions, there are only decisions. Batsmen never
> nick a ball unless it is on to the pad, and bowlers never overstep.
> The umpires are impartial, they are there only to ensure that the game
> is played within the laws.
> Rather than the umpires shafting a player the players are continually
> trying to shaft the umpires.
Players can certainly do a lot more to help. But ignoring players for
now, I think the umpire is too protected. Too sacrosanct.
Instead of saying "umpires can't, by definition, make mistakes" we
should be saying "umpiring is bloody hard, mistakes happen".
I think the latter would actually result in MORE respect for the
umpires, not less.
(ps: I'm not saying you feel this way, or said this)
>An umpires decision made in error is an
> error nothing more. However constant stupid appealing, not walking,
> not 'knowing' if the ball or body touched the boundary rope and the
> old I don't know bumped catch scenario, are all deliberate attempts to
> shaft the umpires. The worst one is the big (fake) celebration. It
> only takes the keeper or captain to begin, and it spreads like
> hysteria, of course it could be an error by the umpire or it could be
> cheating by the players, but are they cheating or is it only the one
> who began the celebration who is cheating, or are they all simply
> mistaken?
>
> It's a shame too, umpires are difficult to come by, it's hard to get
> anyone to begin umpire training, and harder still to encourage them to
> take the exams. It isn't that it's difficult, learn the stuff and do
> the job easy peasy. Player discipline is a big issue, to a point that
> the umpiring fraternity is heavily loaded with former policemen
> lawyers and school teachers and the odd former hells angel ;)
> I landed to umpire a game a couple of years ago. There was a 5ft fence
> around the ground. From the other side of the fence I heard a voice.
> I'm glad it's you, I've ran out of cigarettes. It turned out to be a
> guy who was a sound engineer when I was giggin pubs and clubs had
> taken up umpiring.I hadn't seen him for 20 years, didn't even know he
> enjoyed cricket.
>
> Take a look atwww.niacus.co.uk
> there is a very handsome umpire on the site, did you know?
um.. perhaps a bit later. I'm at work right now :)
> You should give real umpiring a try. Sometimes it's great and
> sometimes it's not. Sometimes your colleague is good, you get on and
> learn more and progress, and sometimes he's just a complete tool.
> You should always learn the appropriate official greeting. Where were
> you last, and what was the lunch like?
I actually enjoy umpiring. I'm the go-to-guy when the badge ump has
gone fishing.
> BTW. On passion, around here means heavy rain in Ballymena. It's
> passion down.
> Sex, is tea time in Ballymena, sex O'Clock.
> Will go fir tha wan? - Shall we go for a pint?
> Gwan ya bastard - you and your armoured car may pass.
I assume "Will go fir tha wan?" is a waste of 5 words.
Take it Easy
says...
They don't need to check it after the appeal. The 3U can check it during
the course and just put up a signal after the ball is delivered and
played completely. They take up atleast a few seconds during replay
which is really irritating.
Also the 3U can indicate no balls to indicate the extra run and free hit
even if it doesn't involve an appeal.
Takeiteasy.
>
> Andrew
max.it
Andrew Dunford
"max.it" wrote in message news:4d8a9c50...@news.btinternet.com...
Fair point, but Law 27 has been rather undermined by UDRS already.
Andrew
Bob Dubery
> exactly, if UDRS can be used after a player is given out and play held.
>
> A no ball can be judged by third ump without any hold up, it could be announced by ump before the next ball, at least it would be fair.
But would the calls come in time for the batsman to take advantage of
them? It seems to me there would be too many no-ball calls after the
delivery and whatever resulted from it. This would spoil the flow,
irritate spectators and may prevent batsmen punishing the no-ball.
Presumably the on-field ump wasn't concerning himself with no-balls at
all. That might free up his attention for other things.
CDK
Ask Dean Jones how well most umpires know point 7 of that Law
CDK
CDK
To the point where all they need is a 3rd umpire who can umpire tha
match from a TV booth.
Calls can be made via the Video screen at all grounds
CDK
CDK
UDRS has removed virtually all respect for umpires on an internationall
stage. This will filter down rather quickly to lower levels making it
even harder to get people to become umpires.
<snip>
CDK
jzfredricks
> UDRS has removed virtually all respect for umpires on an internationall
> stage. This will filter down rather quickly to lower levels making it
> even harder to get people to become umpires.
Again, I think you're wrong. If respect has been lost it is because
technology has shown just how many mistakes they make.
CDK
I think the technology shows how many decisions they get right.
We are getting to the point where the all they will need to have in the
middle of the ground is a coat rack to hold the players jumpers, caps etc.
Then we can start on removing the players from ythe games because they
too make mistakes.
CDK
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 3:40=A0pm, CDK <"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>> UDRS has removed virtually all respect for umpires on an internationall
>> stage. =A0This will filter down rather quickly to lower levels making it
>> even harder to get people to become umpires.
>
>Again, I think you're wrong. If respect has been lost it is because
>technology has shown just how many mistakes they make.
It doesn't say anywhere that you have to respect an umpire. Only the
role of the umpire
higgs
snip
>
> Players can certainly do a lot more to help. But ignoring players for
> now, I think the umpire is too protected. Too sacrosanct.
> Instead of saying "umpires can't, by definition, make mistakes" we
> should be saying "umpiring is bloody hard, mistakes happen".
> I think the latter would actually result in MORE respect for the
> umpires, not less.
> (ps: I'm not saying you feel this way, or said this)
>
I'd have to agree there, although my experience is limited to football
refereeing (of which I am a qualified and regular practitioner).
I'm constantly at odds with some of my colleagues at our monthly
meetings (who, by and large, unlike me, aren't current-and in some
cases even former-players).
I freely admit to having made mistakes, I'll even admit after the game
that I called it as I saw it and got it wrong but, in the absence of a
replay, I have to make a real-time immediate decision.
I don't like this 'I/we never make mistakes' attitude that some more
dogmatic types espouse. Referees make howlers, even at the elite
level, just as players do.
There have been plenty of times when I'd liked to have seen an
incident again, even though football lends itself even less to
stopping and starting during a game than cricket.
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
"CDK" <"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote in message
news:NLAip.13945$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
I think most umpires do, it's just that Clyde Cumberbatch did not. Mind
you, if either captain (and both were on the pitch at the time) had known
the Law they might have been able to talk him round.
Andrew
Calvin
>> On Mar 24, 3:40=A0pm, CDK <"Dr Moreau"@TheIsland.com> wrote:
>>> UDRS has removed virtually all respect for umpires on an internationall
>>> stage.
It's the replays that point out errors, not UDRS per se.
--
cheers,
calvin
CDK
It is the implementation of the UDRS whicdh shows that there is no
respect for umpires in international cricket.
CDK
Andrew Dunford
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26f8d837-5660-430a...@k10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
It's a shame people are apparently incapable of understanding that although
technology shows umpires make mistakes, it also shows that most at
international level are excellent decision-makers.
How long until somebody comes along and tells us how much the standard of
umpiring has declined in recent years?
The figure for reversals at the World Cup is something like 21%, which
implies the proportion of incorrect decisions being made is small.
Colin's point really has nothing to do with the number of mistakes being
made, but that the office of umpire has been undermined now that the players
no longer have to accept his decision.
Andrew
jzfredricks
> "jzfredricks" <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
My point was a chicken and egg thing. He's blaming DRS for the lack of
respect. I'm "blaming" the lack of respect for DRS.
subi...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:29:32 +1000, Mike Holmans
>
>
>
>
>
> <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:01:03 +1000, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> tapped
> > the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >>>> lbw to be given on balls pitching outside leg stump.
>
> >>> Horrible idea which would go a long way to ruining cricket.
>
> >> Provided it had to *hit* in line, I can't see a big problem (not that
> >> I'd
> >> advocate the change).
>
> > Anyone who watched Ashley Giles throttling Tendulkar in India ten
> > years ago under Laws which make it clear that lbw was not in play
> > would disagree that it would not be a big problem.Adding the risk of
> > lbw to what is incredibly negative bowling already would kill the game
> > completely.
>
> I don't see how that follows. It would be almost impossible for a SLA to
> get a right hander out LBW under such circs (I assume he was bowling
> around the wicket).
>
> > Encouraging leg theory bowling is a very, very bad idea. It's no
> > surprise that it was suggested by one of rsc's most thorough-going
> > idiots.
>
> Sure, but there's a big difference between his suggestion and mine.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
> calvin
anyone who can be a member of the liberal democratic party in britain
and call others an idiot is clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Yokel
Indeed, and in the old "Tom Smith's" book it was pointed out that while
the the role of the umpire had to be respected, individual respect as a
competent umpire had to be earned. It will be interesting to see if
this comment or one like it is in the new book.
There are umpires at all levels who are less good than others. I did
one season on our local Premier League panel (although as a "beginner"
this was only at the third or "bronze" tier) and encountered the following:
> An umpire who gave so many LBWs in one innings that a member of the
*fielding* side complained to me that my colleague was spoiling the game.
> An umpire who did not know how to fill in an over record card, so
when there was a dispute over the number of overs a bowler had bowled it
was left to me to sort out with the scorers.
> Umpires who complained about poor discipline / dissent by players,
but who were so overbearing and officious the thing that amazed me is
that they weren't physically assaulted.
I once umpired (in a friendly match) with a colleague wearing the
regalia of a full ACU&S member, who "No Ball"ed the bowler for a full
toss which hit the batsman on the helmet. Nothing wrong there, you may
think - exccept that at the moment of impact the batsman was lying flat
out on the pitch, having overbalanced while shaping up for a pull shot!
But for the most part I have nothing but respect for the guys who umpire
on the world stage. Tens or even hundreds of millions of people are
watching their every error on TV, analysed and replayed in full detail.
They are expected to make judgements in an instant from one real-time
view, yet those who so readily criticize them do so from the luxury of a
comfy chair having watched the incident a dozen times or more from
several angles and in slow motion. And, knowing how hard it is do do
the job for a few hours each weekend at local level, I can only admire
the umpires who do it hour after hour, day after day, in conditions far
more demanding than I have ever had to deal with.
As some commentators have been good enough to point out, for the most
part UDRS shows how good the quality of the decision making is (apart
from one or two umpires whose shortcomings have been exposed). There
are now some umpires whose reputation has reached the point that they
are rarely "referred" because the captains know it is likely to cost
them a review. But even the best will occasionally err, and they are
probably thankful that UDRS does now allow the occasional error to be
picked up and so save them being crucified by the media for spoiling a
game with one wrong decision.
--
- Yokel -
Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.