Beyond The Boundary: The inherent flaws in the rules of cricket [Soft signals]

[AssassinatedDevil]

Like all sports, cricket, for what it's worth, is imperfect at its core. It might perhaps be one of the most flawed sports ever played. Play called off due to rain, Duckworth Lewis method, bad light stopped play, and abandoned matches are just some of the phrases that strike fear into the hearts of cricket lovers and at the same time remind us of its intrinsically imperfect nature.

But some might say that it is this imperfection that adds beauty and excitement to the game. It is this element of uncertainty that has given rise to some moments that players and fans regard to be some of the best (and worst) moments of their lives. It has helped in notoriously special moments where unfair wide balls were given which got the batting team over the line on the last ball. It's resulted in countless batsmen being given out unfairly when their team needed them the most. It's resulted in many other moments that have left fans and players alike pulling their hair out. One might even argue that the governors and overseers of the game purposefully decided to implement some of these laws because they add a certain aspect of this aforementioned uncertainty.


LBW? Leg before wicket? How does it work exactly? Why does the ball have to pitch in line? Why does it have to cause an impact in line? Why does DRS not give it out if more than half of the ball doesn’t hit the wicket provided the umpire didn’t give it out to begin with? After all, if the same ball was bowled and the batsman wasn’t there, wouldn't it go on to knock the stumps over? How does any of this work or make sense? What are the exceptions to all these rules? The "Section X of Article Y" probably defines these laws in detail, but the harsh reality is that modern cricketing rules that govern the game are designed not to preserve the integrity of the game by ending up with objectively fair decisions, but rather to try their damned hardest to avoid overturning the umpires initial decision and try to arrive to decisions without the help of the proper technology available today. Rules about where the ball pitches and impacts the batsmen seem to be put just to provide a form of "saving grace" to the umpires just in case their decision turned out to be wrong.





The idea for this article originally came to me while watching the 3rd T20 between Pakistan and New Zealand. Watching the match made me question some of the fundamental technologies and rules used in the sport in the present day. On the final ball of the 13th over, Fakhar Zaman was controversially given caught out when Tom Bruce, standing in deep, caught the ball when Fakhar slapped it over point. The umpires went upstairs and gave the soft signal for out. The replays showed no conclusive evidence that Bruce didn’t catch it, but neither did it show that he DID catch it. Eventually, after several minutes of rewinding and playing going on, the 3rd umpire decided to give it out.

Let's for a moment think that Bruce had definitely caught the ball and it had not touched the ground at any point in time after being hit by Fakhar and landing in Bruce's hands.

The 2 main problems that arise with the way the whole scenario played out were:

1) "Hawkeye" being a DRS (decision review system) for LBW appeals has confused umpires into thinking they have the precision of a hawk when it comes to judging whether a catch is clean or not more than 30 yards away. Deciding to give the soft signal of "out" was bizarre since even on camera it was very hard to see if the ball hadn't touched the ground. If we are to persist with this soft-signal nonsense, why not just use the third soft signal, which is for "inconclusive" when the umpire doesn’t know at all if it's out or not?

2) If the evidence in inconclusive, the 3rd umpire will give the benefit of the doubt and go with the soft-signal of the on-field umpire. The final decision should be objectively made without any bias towards the soft-signal of the on-field umpire. If the 3rd umpire has the necessary technology and equipment, then he should be able to come to a definitive conclusion, which begs the question, why are soft-signals even a thing in cricket?


To answer that last question, I feel we have to look at the role of the umpires closely. The umpires are the ones with the most authority on the pitch. Without them, a professional game of cricket cannot go underway. But perhaps there is a fine line between bestowing power onto the umpires and treating them as the holy grail entirely. These soft-signals in my opinion are just one of the many examples where unnecessary authority is given to the umpires which often results in unfair final outcomes for the players affected.

Another incident in the 3rd T20 game between New Zealand and Pakistan was when Ish Sodhi was adjudged to have bowled a no-ball on the 2nd ball of the 6th over. Replays suggested that there was nothing wrong with the ball and it was completely legal, but instead of the laws of cricket being designed so that we come to the fair decision of the no-ball being overruled, nothing of the sort happened. The no-ball and free-hit cost them 4 runs in total. Not insanely costly, but you try to save every run you can in T20s.

There are enough factors at play in a cricket game that are just down to plain luck. Issues like rain, bad light and lost cricket balls are already painful enough as is. In my opinion, the role of on-field umpires needs to evolve as time progresses and as we progress technologically. Their role should just be to make sure play goes on and the players don’t take too much time to bowl a ball or set the fields or even start arguing with the opposition. Everything else such as calling no-balls and boundaries should be the third umpires job as he has access to live cameras and stump mics that, if used properly, are bound to be more accurate than on-field umpires. Since wickets already have cameras in them these days, they can be used by the 3rd umpire to judge LBW appeals. Down the line, hopefully all of this is automated and done by machines, but that’s a lot more controversial and way more down the line as of this point in time.

In short, I think cricket, like all other sports, has to do a better job to keep up with the latest technological innovations and breakthroughs. We can't be over reliant on technology but there comes a time when, through technology, we are able to automate several tasks and make our lives easier, all the while not sacrificing reliability, validity or accuracy. No one knows when is the right time to implement new technologies in sports, but the flag bearers of the game have to keep an open mind regarding such opportunities of change and be ready to adapt.

 

[Big Mac]

Soft signals for low catches are a thing because the foreshortening effect of the TV camera is a known, proven phenomenon so the 3D image that the umpires get from their own eyes are there to help the third umpire who has to deal with a 3D scene that has been translated onto a 2D screen and all the problems that come along with it.

 

[UN talkz]

Soft signal is utter rubbish, no need for such Garbage

 

[Executioner]

Soft signals for low catches are a thing because the foreshortening effect of the TV camera is a known, proven phenomenon so the 3D image that the umpires get from their own eyes are there to help the third umpire who has to deal with a 3D scene that has been translated onto a 2D screen and all the problems that come along with it.

I am no expert on this but foreshortening effect - doesn't it let us feel that things are 3D?

Would that mean that it will be able to give us a good indication of what is happening even though what we see is 2D?

 

[Big Mac]

I am no expert on this but foreshortening effect - doesn't it let us feel that things are 3D?

Would that mean that it will be able to give us a good indication of what is happening even though what we see is 2D?

The basic gist of it is that because most TV cameras are higher up in the stands, the angle creates a foreshortening effect that distorts everything slightly. In addition to that you have everything put into a 2D image which, combined with the angle, creates a very slight false perspective.

There are a couple of ways to get around this, one of which would be to put replay cameras at ground level which would reduce the problem somewhat. High frame rate cameras would help as well, because rocking back and forth one frame at a time can sometimes be misleading, but this is even more expensive than sticking a couple of extra cameras at ground level.

But basically right now, the overwhelming majority of catches taken low to the ground look like they bounced off the turf. That's because the TV replay lies to you, not because every slip fielder is a liar. I'm a support of technology in cricket, and have been for a while, but you also have to understand the limitations.

You can mess around and experiment with this yourself, I know channel 4 did it years and years ago where they had a commentator take a low catch and hold the ball a couple of inches off the ground. The camera that was next to him on the ground showed his hands and the ball were clearly off the ground. Then when they showed it from the TV camera used in games it looked like the ball was grounded.

I took a photo a couple of years ago when PPers were arguing about it, the angle is more severe than TV replays but that's a combination of me being an arms length away instead of 90-100 metres and exaggerating the effect slightly for emphasis.

That ball was a couple of inches off the ground iirc.

And yes I know the carpet needs to be cleaned

 

[MenInG]

Fantastic article AD!

Absolutely agree with your views and this soft signal business is rubbish!

 

[DeadBall]

Should get rid of the soft signal totally.

Btw nice article AD mate but too much of a POTW bait.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Fantastic article AD!

Absolutely agree with your views and this soft signal business is rubbish!

Thanks bro. Glad you liked it.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Should get rid of the soft signal totally.

Btw nice article AD mate

Thanks man. Appreciate it.

too much of a POTW bait.

That wasn't the intention. I already won it this week so I dont expect to win it soon again. Just thought about sharing my views.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

The basic gist of it is that because most TV cameras are higher up in the stands, the angle creates a foreshortening effect that distorts everything slightly. In addition to that you have everything put into a 2D image which, combined with the angle, creates a very slight false perspective.

There are a couple of ways to get around this, one of which would be to put replay cameras at ground level which would reduce the problem somewhat. High frame rate cameras would help as well, because rocking back and forth one frame at a time can sometimes be misleading, but this is even more expensive than sticking a couple of extra cameras at ground level.

But basically right now, the overwhelming majority of catches taken low to the ground look like they bounced off the turf. That's because the TV replay lies to you, not because every slip fielder is a liar. I'm a support of technology in cricket, and have been for a while, but you also have to understand the limitations.

You can mess around and experiment with this yourself, I know channel 4 did it years and years ago where they had a commentator take a low catch and hold the ball a couple of inches off the ground. The camera that was next to him on the ground showed his hands and the ball were clearly off the ground. Then when they showed it from the TV camera used in games it looked like the ball was grounded.

I took a photo a couple of years ago when PPers were arguing about it, the angle is more severe than TV replays but that's a combination of me being an arms length away instead of 90-100 metres and exaggerating the effect slightly for emphasis.

That ball was a couple of inches off the ground iirc. .

And yes I know the carpet needs to be cleaned

You present a strong case and i agree that this foreshortening effect is a problem to an extent when using cameras to judge iffy catches. But I dont think that the soft-signal is justifiably used just because of thos effect. If a catch is taken far away near the boundary and it is questionable then the umpire would have a hard time to judge it properly. All i think the umpires do is go off of the fielders reaction or even just give the soft signal without thinking. For example, in case of Fakhar's dismissal, there was no way the umpire could tell if it was out since it was extremely close and very well could've hit the ground.

I think the best way to combat this as you said is to use high frame-rate cameras that could be used by the 3rd umpire. The problem then arises in purchasing those high-frame rate cameras as they would cost more than the normal ones. I dont know what the frame-rates exactly are that the cameras record at. I assume that it's either 24, 30 or 60. The question then is if they do decide to step up the frame rate, then should they bother broadcasting on that frame-rate as well. The umpire could receive the recording at higher frame-rates but not the viewers at home. It's going to take more bandwith so obviously that's a concern.

Another way of combating it is to use higher resolution cameras for cricket matches around the world, preferably around 4k or atleast more than 1080p. Some test matches in UK last year were shot in 4k I believe. Using higher resolutions will get rid of the blurry images that the umpire sees when zooming in on to the ball. Perhaps that could aid in judging if the ball hit the ground since it will be more clear. But then the same problem arises as with using higher frame rate cameras. Cost and expenses associated with broadcasting in 4k will be tremendous, especially since most people dont have 4k tvs in their households.

 

[waleed88]

Soft signal for Post of the Week

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Soft signal for Post of the Week

Hahahaha thanks man glad you think so

 

[charlie007]

A few that come to mind:

1. Why should it be not out if the ball pitches outside the leg stump but would have hit the wickets flush?
2. Why are there always eyebrows raised and spirit of cricket questioned when someone mankads the non-striker? Why is the law of cricket against the spirit of cricket?
3. In DRS, if you are trusting technology, why select an arbitrary percentage of ball to be clipping the stumps to be out/not out?

Good post, OP!

 

[jagatk]

A few that come to mind:

1. Why should it be not out if the ball pitches outside the leg stump but would have hit the wickets flush?
2. Why are there always eyebrows raised and spirit of cricket questioned when someone mankads the non-striker? Why is the law of cricket against the spirit of cricket?
3. In DRS, if you are trusting technology, why select an arbitrary percentage of ball to be clipping the stumps to be out/not out?

Good post, OP!

1. This rule basically stops negative line, if this rule did not exist we would have leg side fields and bowlers just looking to hit the pads, imagine spinners on a 5th day wicket in india it would be a nightmare scenario for batsman not being able to pad anything.

2.Only idiots do that, mankading is fair thing, spirit of cricket is ** used by cheaters who don't like being caught doing so. If you don't want to be mankaded stay in the crease and stop moaning.

3. That's because technology is not 100% accurate, it has a margin of error as it is judging something that might happen, which is why they have umpire's call.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

1. This rule basically stops negative line, if this rule did not exist we would have leg side fields and bowlers just looking to hit the pads, imagine spinners on a 5th day wicket in india it would be a nightmare scenario for batsman not being able to pad anything.

I see your point but if the ball pitches outside leg but the impact is in line and goes on to hit the stumps, then i dont see why it shouldnt be given out. The bowler would have enough skill to pitch the ball outside leg, but make it come back in after hitting the pitch, but then again, i might be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle.

 

[Mirpur express]

VG post mate , agree especially with that soft out carry on.. I think umpires should refrain from soft outs if it’s more than 20 yards away

 

[barah_admi]

Well written piece!

I have to disagree with some, if not most of it haha

A soft signal is important, because the high can judge distance and height better than any camera on Earth. Going up to the 3rd ump is designed to simply back up what the umpire thinks happened on the field. In days gone by, it would be based entirely on the cricketer saying if he had caught it or not but as the game became more professional and more money was involved, the "honesty" of the players could no longer be trusted (if it ever could).

As for the use of DRS, I think it is the best implemented, technological decision making system in any sport outside tennis (that is far simpler). For example, the recent implementation of decision reviews in football (VAR) has been shambolic. In cricket, the idea that the umpire is right until proven gravely wrong is fine, because the DRS was never brought in to overrule the umpire every time, it was brought in to remove what we may colloquially label as "howlers", i.e. really bad decisions.

You mentioned points such as why only a fraction of the ball has to hit the stump to support the umpire and why there are rules about pitching in line and how much of the ball has to do it. The answer is simple, as with any piece of technology or judgement, there has to be room for error. Imagine a situation where a bowl pitches a foot outside of off stump, seams back in and strikes the pads. It may or may not go onto hit the stumps, but the margin of error is much larger than a ball that pitches in line. This is a basic mathematical and scientific principle.

I think decisions and decision reviewing is the best it has ever been in cricket. Can you imagine the days of home umpires and home cooked decisions? They were by all accounts terrible, causing problems in major series' between West Indies, England, Pakistan and plenty of others.
[MENTION=146253]AssassinatedDevil[/MENTION]

 

[barah_admi]

1. This rule basically stops negative line, if this rule did not exist we would have leg side fields and bowlers just looking to hit the pads, imagine spinners on a 5th day wicket in india it would be a nightmare scenario for batsman not being able to pad anything.

2.Only idiots do that, mankading is fair thing, spirit of cricket is ** used by cheaters who don't like being caught doing so. If you don't want to be mankaded stay in the crease and stop moaning.

3. That's because technology is not 100% accurate, it has a margin of error as it is judging something that might happen, which is why they have umpire's call.

True but I think mankading should not be allowed. Batsmen should be given some leeway on how they are at the non strikers end. It should be written into the law, thus removing mankading for good.

 

[Kroll]

Great write up AD, the technology used should be balanced to keep the game moving. Spectators don't want to be sat watching endless replays to see if someone was out or not.

 

[jagatk]

True but I think mankading should not be allowed. Batsmen should be given some leeway on how they are at the non strikers end. It should be written into the law, thus removing mankading for good.

So you are against run outs and stumpings too? Because as i see it mankading is basically an extension of that, the spirit of cricket is **, the law says don't step out of the crease until the ball is bowled, either follow it or you get mankaded, as simple as that.

 

[jagatk]

I see your point but if the ball pitches outside leg but the impact is in line and goes on to hit the stumps, then i dont see why it shouldnt be given out. The bowler would have enough skill to pitch the ball outside leg, but make it come back in after hitting the pitch, but then again, i might be missing some crucial piece of the puzzle.

Don't think you need that much skill for that, just have a left armer bowling to RHB's and Right armed bowlers to LHB's and you have a natural angle just to do that through out the game. As i said it is a bit harsh on bowlers but if given a leeway you are basically allowing matches to turn into negative bowling bore-fests.

 

[barah_admi]

So you are against run outs and stumpings too? Because as i see it mankading is basically an extension of that, the spirit of cricket is **, the law says don't step out of the crease until the ball is bowled, either follow it or you get mankaded, as simple as that.

You have to try and understand the history of the game, thus the idea of "spirit of cricket". It is historically an unsaid pact, between batsman and bowler, that the batsman at the non- strikers end will be allowed to back up a little, while the bowler is running up. It's taught in coaching at every level for the batsman to be ready for a run.

It's like in football, when a player is injured, if the referee does not blow his whistle, by the letter of the law states they can carry on playing, however it is expected that the opposition kick the ball out of play. Once play resumes, the ball is given back to them.

This is just a normal basis for sport, that there are rules and then there is what is known as best conduct or "spirit" for that particular sport.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Here's a flaw.

A delivery in Test cricket may not be deemed wide, but the exact same delivery in ODI/T20 is wide.

Where's the logic in this?

 

[jagatk]

You have to try and understand the history of the game, thus the idea of "spirit of cricket". It is historically an unsaid pact, between batsman and bowler, that the batsman at the non- strikers end will be allowed to back up a little, while the bowler is running up. It's taught in coaching at every level for the batsman to be ready for a run.

It's like in football, when a player is injured, if the referee does not blow his whistle, by the letter of the law states they can carry on playing, however it is expected that the opposition kick the ball out of play. Once play resumes, the ball is given back to them.

This is just a normal basis for sport, that there are rules and then there is what is known as best conduct or "spirit" for that particular sport.

They can back up straight to batsman on strike's crease for all I care just make sure you have something behind the crease or suffer your deserved fate.

spirit of cricket it is stupid, there are rules covering everything follow them, that's it. I hate watching batsman walking as a CA my boss taught me 1 thing well, if a client pays you x provide services worth x not a penny more, as a batsman your job is score runs do that, no need to turn into an umpire there are 4 of them actually paid to do that. Same with the rest of spirit stuff.

 

[Big Mac]

You have to try and understand the history of the game, thus the idea of "spirit of cricket". It is historically an unsaid pact, between batsman and bowler, that the batsman at the non- strikers end will be allowed to back up a little, while the bowler is running up. It's taught in coaching at every level for the batsman to be ready for a run.

It's like in football, when a player is injured, if the referee does not blow his whistle, by the letter of the law states they can carry on playing, however it is expected that the opposition kick the ball out of play. Once play resumes, the ball is given back to them.

This is just a normal basis for sport, that there are rules and then there is what is known as best conduct or "spirit" for that particular sport.

Stay.

Behind.

The.

Crease.


Batsmen always whining about one thing or another, so soft.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

VG post mate , agree especially with that soft out carry on.. I think umpires should refrain from soft outs if it’s more than 20 yards away

Thanks man, glad you agree with my points.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Great write up AD, the technology used should be balanced to keep the game moving. Spectators don't want to be sat watching endless replays to see if someone was out or not.

Thanks man. The way the game plays out should be respectful of the time of the spectators. Most of us don't have enough time as is and endless replays just lengthen cricket matched even more. Such replays also break the momentum of the game, which is never fun to see.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Don't think you need that much skill for that, just have a left armer bowling to RHB's and Right armed bowlers to LHB's and you have a natural angle just to do that through out the game. As i said it is a bit harsh on bowlers but if given a leeway you are basically allowing matches to turn into negative bowling bore-fests.

Thats a good point and the angle of the bowlers would defintiely make it easier to get leg side lbws. But even then, it could serve as a way to bring more balance to the game instead of letting it remain heavily batsman favoured. If leg-side bowling is made more lenient, stricter fielding restrictions can be put on the leg side so that it doesnt end up in negative bowling when they want to contain runs. Rules such as "2 leg-side lbw appeals in an over are the maximum amount of appeals that can be considered by the umpire to be given out" could also be enforced so that not every lbw appeals is on the leg side. It would be similiar to the " max 2 short-balls in an over" rule enforced currently. There could be countless other new rules, some better than others, but anything that restores the balance of the game is going to be beneficial.

 

[jagatk]

Thats a good point and the angle of the bowlers would defintiely make it easier to get leg side lbws. But even then, it could serve as a way to bring more balance to the game instead of letting it remain heavily batsman favoured. If leg-side bowling is made more lenient, stricter fielding restrictions can be put on the leg side so that it doesnt end up in negative bowling when they want to contain runs. Rules such as "2 leg-side lbw appeals in an over are the maximum amount of appeals that can be considered by the umpire to be given out" could also be enforced so that not every lbw appeals is on the leg side. It would be similiar to the " max 2 short-balls in an over" rule enforced currently. There could be countless other new rules, some better than others, but anything that restores the balance of the game is going to be beneficial.

I think the bat and ball balance can be corrected with pitches, more pitches like ones we received in SA just take the variable bounce out of the equation or the ones we served up during home season for the most part and less of the rubbish being served up in Ban-SL game would do a good job. LoI's need to be batsman friendly as tests need to be bowler friendly for good enjoyable games.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

I think the bat and ball balance can be corrected with pitches, more pitches like ones we received in SA just take the variable bounce out of the equation or the ones we served up during home season for the most part and less of the rubbish being served up in Ban-SL game would do a good job. LoI's need to be batsman friendly as tests need to be bowler friendly for good enjoyable games.

Making more competitive pitches would be easier than changing the rules of the game for sure, but sadly we get pitches that more often than not are more suited for batting, even in tests. Pitches in australia are the best imo, with good bounce and good for batting as well. SL-Ban series pitches absolutely rubbish.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

One more flaw in the rules of cricket it seems....

Badly timed lunch breaks :-(

 

[jagatk]

Making more competitive pitches would be easier than changing the rules of the game for sure, but sadly we get pitches that more often than not are more suited for batting, even in tests. Pitches in australia are the best imo, with good bounce and good for batting as well. SL-Ban series pitches absolutely rubbish.

You are kidding right, pitches in Australia are the worst when it comes to test cricket, unless you are a 150k bowler you are minced meat, very little help for spin, rarely any movement. Maybe 10 years ago they had bounce now there is nothing called great bounce left in them.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

You are kidding right, pitches in Australia are the worst when it comes to test cricket, unless you are a 150k bowler you are minced meat, very little help for spin, rarely any movement. Maybe 10 years ago they had bounce now there is nothing called great bounce left in them.

They are good in the sense that they don't wear down easily and develop cracks after the 3rd day like some of the Indian pitches. Bowlers like Hazlewood perform well and he's not 150 kph or anywhere near. Nathan Lyon does well too.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[DeadBall]

Even today in the AFG vs Zim game, the wicket keeper misjudged a catch but took it in the end. The umpires conferred and gave the soft signal of Not Out. The third umpire however saw a couple of replays and gave it out in a hurry as there weren't many close up angles of the catch. While it certainly looked like a clean catch from the angles how could the umpires who were standing so close give a soft signal of not out?

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Even today in the AFG vs Zim game, the wicket keeper misjudged a catch but took it in the end. The umpires conferred and gave the soft signal of Not Out. The third umpire however saw a couple of replays and gave it out in a hurry as there weren't many close up angles of the catch. While it certainly looked like a clean catch from the angles how could the umpires who were standing so close give a soft signal of not out?

Exactly! Seems to me like they are just guessing instead of arriving to the decision after thinking carefully. Alot of incorrect decisions must've been given over the years because of this soft signal non-sense. It doesnt add anything to the game and shows how we are still so overreliant on umpires in the modern day.

 

[Abdullah719]

This soft signal nonsense has to come to a stop, for catches, at least.

How the hell does the onfield umpire 'think' that a catch taken by a fielder 40 yards away from him is out or not out?

The Saif Badar catch today looked to be out but was given not out simply because of the soft signal, and vice versa for the Shan Masood catch.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Looked out <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://t.co/G8vXObzZak">pic.twitter.com/G8vXObzZak</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971470674937212928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brilliant catch by Shan Masood <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://t.co/aQze2ZuaGa">pic.twitter.com/aQze2ZuaGa</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971473038876266498?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Abdullah719]

This soft signal nonsense has to come to a stop, for catches, at least.

How the hell does the onfield umpire 'think' that a catch taken by a fielder 40 yards away from him is out or not out?

The Saif Badar catch today looked to be out but was given not out simply because of the soft signal, and vice versa for the Shan Masood catch.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Looked out <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://t.co/G8vXObzZak">pic.twitter.com/G8vXObzZak</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971470674937212928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brilliant catch by Shan Masood <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://t.co/aQze2ZuaGa">pic.twitter.com/aQze2ZuaGa</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971473038876266498?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Deano in agreement.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We need to get rid of the soft signal... let 3rd umpire do his stuff. If the on ground umpires gave that out.. the batsmen would have been given out. <a href="https://t.co/58wBMNDt4z">https://t.co/58wBMNDt4z</a></p>— Dean Jones (@ProfDeano) <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfDeano/status/971477658960789504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[DeadBall]

Hopefully they will get rid of the soft signal by 2021.

 

[shariqnoor]

Regarding the soft signal for catches and umpires call for lbws, let me try and explain why they are there. For the record, I'm only offering an explanation and it's not an endorsement of the rule:

To understand the soft signal and the umpires call, it is imperative to first understand that the two umpires in the middle are still considered to be the prime decision makers in the game of cricket, barring run outs. So you have to think like this - had technology not been present, what decision would you have went with? Naturally the on-field call that was made irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.

Now when there's a dubious catch or a marginal LBW call, the ICC still wants to keep the on-field umpires the prime decision makers. How do they do this? They do this through a soft-signal and umpire's call. When the soft signal is Out, the onus is put on Technology to 100% refute the on-field umpire's decision otherwise if you give Technology the right to change marginal decisions, then there remains no point in having on-field umpires. Every game-play can then be monitored by technology. Same goes with Umpires Call. You want to give the umpires the maximum benefit therefore only if the ball is completely missing the stumps will an Out decision be overturned or completely hitting the stumps will a Not Out decision be overturned. You want to keep that element of human error in the game.

At the end of the day, it all has to do with keeping the powers of the on-field umpire. The technology is not there to completely remove errors. It's only there to supplement the on-field umpires when the decision is seen to be 100% wrong.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

This soft signal nonsense has to come to a stop, for catches, at least.

How the hell does the onfield umpire 'think' that a catch taken by a fielder 40 yards away from him is out or not out?

The Saif Badar catch today looked to be out but was given not out simply because of the soft signal, and vice versa for the Shan Masood catch.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Looked out <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://t.co/G8vXObzZak">pic.twitter.com/G8vXObzZak</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971470674937212928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brilliant catch by Shan Masood <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MSvQG</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://t.co/aQze2ZuaGa">pic.twitter.com/aQze2ZuaGa</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971473038876266498?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Decisions like this make me wonder if modern day cricket is a playground for umpires to do as they will. Mindboggling to see this soft-signal nonsense.

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Soft signals by umpires at the Pakistan Super League are a joke. Most of the time the umpires are giving the wrong decision <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KKvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KKvQG</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971818338044215297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Another rubbish soft signal today, thankfully it was pretty obvious it was a clean catch.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Soft signals by umpires at the Pakistan Super League are a joke. Most of the time the umpires are giving the wrong decision <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PSL2018?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PSL2018</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KKvQG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KKvQG</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/971818338044215297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Soft signals are a universal problem. They aren't any better in the IPL, BBL or international cricket than they are in the PSL.

 

[hadi123]

Soft signal has been overturned just now, that's pretty rare! Good catch from Shafiq.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICC should get rid off the soft signal and let the 3rd umpire who has all the technology to make the decision when the on field umpires send it upstairs,all the controversy is always around the soft signal given.<br>This isn’t a comment on the decision FYI &#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611; <a href="https://t.co/rvOeJEfnKF">https://t.co/rvOeJEfnKF</a></p>— Ben Stokes (@benstokes38) <a href="https://twitter.com/benstokes38/status/1610580833177403394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Pat Cummins has called for change to how catches taken close to the ground are adjudicated after three separate incidents sparked division and debate during Australia's final NRMA Insurance Test against South Africa.

Speaking to cricket.com.au after the drawn Test on Sunday, Steve Smith conceded his day-four grab, a one-hander off Dean Elgar at second slip, probably touched the turf. But Smith, like Simon Harmer when he took a low catch off Marnus Labsuschagne on day three, was adamant his final-day snare going forward to an edge off Nathan Lyon's bowling was clean.

In both those instances, the on-field umpire's soft signal was 'out', indicating they agreed with the fielder that the catches were legitimate.

Yet the television umpire Richard Kettleborough, on those two catches as well as Smith's other close one, ruled in favour of the batter on all three occasions.

Both Cummins and his opposite number Dean Elgar expressed a level of sympathy for Kettleborough's difficult task, but the Australian insisted the current system requires an overhaul.

"I feel for the umpires in that sort of situation. I don't really know the answers but there has to be a way to improve it," said Cummins.

"As it currently stands, it's really hard to give a batter out. If there's any kind of doubt it goes the batter's way.

"With a couple of camera angles really slowed down it's pretty hard … I do feel for 'Ketts' (Kettleborough) up there. I don't know the answer but there surely there can be some small changes we can make to get a bit more definitive answers.

"I know there are 30-40 cameras here at the ground, it looks like the third umpire only has a couple of those angles available. Maybe there's more of those angles we can use down the track.

"Money to be made for someone with a good idea."

Australian players have suggested they thought Harmer's catch was also fair.

Smith conceded himself there was enough doubt over his diving grab off Elgar where he appeared to slide the ball along the grass in the act of completing the catch.

"Yesterday I was bit more uncertain than today. I was pretty certain I got underneath the one today," Smith said. "Because my wrist was kind of flexed I think I may have slid it along the grass potentially, but today I was pretty sure I got underneath it.

"I think those ones that are close to the turf always don’t look right. But today I felt the slap on my fingers and I knew I was under the ball.

"That happens – the umpire is there to make a decision."

Sunday's call on Smith’s second catch came under the microscope, with experts suggesting the elevated profile of the Sydney wicket table created the illusion the ball was closer to the grass than it really was.

The use of topsoil over time means the SCG square, like other non-drop-in pitch Test venues in Australia, sits slightly higher than the rest of the outfield.

"This is the crown of the square that has betrayed Steve Smith – I think he's caught that, but the camera angle and the crown will suggest it's hit the ground," former Test spinner Kerry O'Keefe, who played 42 first-class games at the SCG, told Fox Cricket.

Channel Seven's Trent Copeland, another NSW veteran who has played extensively at the Sydney venue, also criticised the process of that review given the inconclusiveness of replays provided to Kettleborough.

Former Test umpire Simon Taufel revealed this week the International Cricket Council has recently changed its guidance to officials on how much weight the soft signal should carry.

"The ICC did tweak its third umpire protocols in this area last year, where the soft signal in this particular case with a fair catch would carry less weight, only if the TV replays were inconclusive or poor, or non-existent," Taufel told Seven.

But, by the letter of the law, the soft signal should still hold considerable sway if the TV umpire feels replays do not show decisive evidence.

"If the third umpire advises that the replay evidence is inconclusive, the on-field decision communicated at the start of the consultation process shall stand," state the ICC's playing conditions.

Josh Hazlewood believes the television umpire should be given even more power.

"You should probably take the soft call completely out of it," Hazlewood said on Saturday.

"Obviously (if) the two umpires aren't sure on field and I think it should basically just go straight to the third umpire with 'We're uncertain, you make the call'.

"They're sort of biased by that decision on-field and then they can't really find a lot to overturn it."

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/pat...change-south-africa-third-test-scg/2023-01-08

 

[Gilly]

Soft signal is different to umpires call.

Soft signal is to used when technology is unable to be used then they revert back to the umpires call. For example if the cameras are blocked by fielders or there is technical problems that prevent the third umpire from accessing any technology.

If you remove the soft signal it will make no difference to the third umpires job because once he has technology available the soft signal is no longer relevant and the third umpire will make his own decision aided by technology.

Removing the soft signal makes no sense and achieves nothing at all.

 

[Firebat]

A good riddance to soft signal for catches finally! Umpire's call I understand the logic for, regarding the technology uncertainty, but this can't exist for a catch.

It's out or it's not. Forget the soft signal rubbish and let the third umpire just decide it either way. Good decision by ICC.