by
Homer
My reservations on the use of technology have been documented on this blog and elsewhere. One of my pet grouses has been that technology, as it stands today, is privy to human malice. Vide this new report in the Guardian
The International Cricket Council is powerless to sanction South African Broadcasting Corporation staff even if they are found guilty of sharp practice in protecting Graeme Smith's wicket today.
The ICC has launched an investigation into the circumstances of the referral to the third umpire, Daryl Harper, of Smith's wayward shot in the first-session. While British viewers were cheering an audible nick, Harper was heard by the Sky commentator Nasser Hussain saying he could hear no sound.
Conspiracists infer that this meant South Africa's broadcasting technicians had suppressed the audio, though some reports have suggested Harper may simply not have heard as he had the volume on his television turned up to only four out of 10.
But even if technicians did suppress the audio, they were under no obligation to do otherwise – other than a possible moral responsibility – since despite their role in the referral system effectively making them participants in the Test match, the ICC has no regulatory framework governing their conduct.
An ICC spokesman said: "Unfortunately we don't have any code of conduct in place for broadcasters. But we continue to make improvements and to update what is required from the referral system.
"After every series we discuss what has happened and how we can improve. If a broadcasters' code of conduct is agreed in principle it will be referred to the cricket committee, then to the chief executive's committee and then to the ICC board for a final sign off."
Players and officials are bound by the terms of a 29-page code of conduct that covers a number of offences, several of which carry life bans from all forms of cricket.
Vindication.
PS: From this
Cricinfo article It led Andy Flower, the England coach, to make an official complaint to Roshan Mahanama, the ICC match referee, who has also had a curious part to play in the whole affair after first telling Flower, incorrectly, that he had a different TV feed. It was only after England made further investigations and found out this wasn't true that Mahanama admitted Harper had failed to adjust his volume.
Harper was also the TV umpire during the England series in West Indies early last year, when he was unable to rule on a caught-behind appeal against Darren Powell. It transpired that, on that occasion, he was let down by the hardware because his TV screen wasn't wide enough to include the whole picture and the ball was lopped off. The ICC have put measures in place to ensure such situations don't arise again.
But later in the series, at Barbados, Harper failed to overturn an lbw against Shivnarine Chanderpaul that was clearly heading over the stumps, although at that stage of the UDRS trial, the predicative element of Hawkeye wasn't available to the TV umpire. All the same, regardless of the possible defences for Harper in those situations, a system is only as good as the people operating it - and faith in Harper's decision-making is currently at rock-bottom.
On the whole, the review system has emerged from this series with its reputation boosted after an iffy start at Centurion, during which the main issue was the length of time taken to ask for reviews. At Cape Town it was especially impressive as it overturned three glaring errors; a caught-behind against Ashwell Prince, an lbw against Kevin Pietersen when he inside-edged the ball and, most crucially, a first-ball slip catch at the start of Paul Collingwood's match-saving rearguard, when the ball deflected off his back leg. Ironically, the Prince and Pietersen errors were both made by Harper, the standing umpire, but that is what the system was designed for and it worked.
However, this latest controversy again highlights the problem of UDRS's inconsistent implementation around the world. In this series there is neither HotSpot nor Snickometer technology, and either of those would have offered a definitive answer to the question of Smith's edge. The lack of HotSpot is due to there being only four cameras in the entire world and they are all in Australia where, despite Mark Benson's walkout at Adelaide following an overturned decision against Chanderpaul, it has proved effective.
Read more...
Return
by
Homer
From Cricinfo, Trevor Bayliss has this to say on the UDRS
"The question that's got to be asked is, why the referral system is being used in every other series barring this one, when the ICC said that it should be used after October 1," Bayliss said. "No one's explained to us yet why it's not being used when it's being used everywhere else in the world. If Dilshan was able to go and make a big score in the first innings, things might have been a bit different."
Now, this can either be seen as a valid point for the increased use of Technology in cricket ( and grist to the mill for more BCCI bashing) or sour grapes.
I am inclined to go with the latter. And not just because of my well documented antipathy to the increased use of technology in cricket (
here and
here).
In one of the "other series" where the UDRS is being used, at the end of the first day's play, both teams involved are unhappy with the referral system. This despite having the full complement of everything the UDRS has to offer.
Ricky Ponting is unhappy because
"The Australia captain believed West Indies batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul was caught behind on 38 during the opening day of the second Test. But the third umpire did not give him out.".
And the West Indies are unhappy because "
Chanderpaul was fired on the flimsiest of evidence from one camera shot when other angles were inconclusive and the "hot spot" replay failed to show a touch on the edge of the bat."
And for the record, Snicko indicated a sound in both incidents - the source of which remains unknown.
So not only is the technology in use unreliable, it is further compounded by the fact that human error ( and human malice) has a huge role to play in the final result. So, not only can the technology in use produce erroneous results ( or be manipulated to produce said results) but you have the discretion of the third umpire to deal with AFTER the technology has delivered its verdict.
And who is to say that Sri Lanka would have benefited from the UDRS. For all I care, Prasanna Jayawardene would have never come close to the 154 he scored in the first Test at Ahmedabad had the technology been in play!
Does that answer your question, Trevor?
Cheers,
Read more...
Return
by
Gaurav Sethi
I'm thinking umpires, after this chat about chases at Well Pitched –
Golandaaz:
I think it’s the case of too little too late for Australia. All 400+ chases in Test Cricket have been architected by the top order. The only 350+ chase I remember, not starred by the top order, was against Pakistan by Gilchrist and Langer I think.
Australia winning is highly unlikely.
Q:
Golandaaz, You are right abt the Langer / Gilchrist chase orchestrated by the lower order.. however had the umpire given Langer out, as he was edging Wasim Akram behind the stumps, it would have never happened.
How that loss still hurts.
Coming back, so yeah the big chases have been due to the top order.. but if a fresh Clarke and Haddin can come firing in the morning, who knows what can happen..
Naked Cricket:
Q, Golandaaz, that Langer test of yours - Parker and Wiley umpired.
It was Parker who didn't give Langer's edge, right?
The edge was thick, and so was Parker.
Btw not that we care, but Parker turned 50 y'day. The Langers were over.
Ok, here is what I’m driving at: Peter Parker was an Aussie umpire officiating in a test match played by Australia v Pakistan. That was November, 1999. Ten years on, we have neutral umpires.
And while games like Hobart are tough to let go off, how easy will it be for the Aussies to forget Lord’s and forgive the neutral South African umpire?
Much as Lord's will be about Freddie for the Poms, it will be about Rudi for the Aussies.
The argument that Australia was outplayed 5 outta 5 days and England would still have won, doesn't hold here.
How far can Human Technology be? If ever there was a case, for a strong Nokia branding (human technology is their line), to interface man and machine, it is now.
The umpire can be the coat rack, ball counter, PR man on field, there are still many roles for him - best of all, we need him to stand there, fill space. Almost like a tradition we cannot let go off. But at the same time, these moronic mistakes (albeit human and unintentional) are starting to sully the sport.
Bring on the machines. Sir Don said so a long time ago, what do you say sir?
Read more...
Return
by
straight point
...for third umpire (obviously not counting special 'talent' daryl harper) to communicate to on-field umpire about an obvious error!
or
just stop stripping an umpire naked in front of the world by showing countless replays...
he has given a batsman out...get on with it...
related story: not dissent. not over appealing either
Read more...
Return
More »
