Time to rethink umpiring rules

[dildilpak]

Ok, this follows through from another thread about excessive bouncers allowed by umpires but in general is a commentary on umpiring, especially now that advanced cameras/technology are easily available. Is it time to do away with those archiac umpiring rules like ‘Umpire’s call’, ‘Soft signal’ or bouncers? Another case in point, is the interpretation of ‘offering a shot’ in LBWs by the umpire. Just like no-balls are now decided by third umpires, why not completely use technology to take away that interpretive element which often seem not to be fair or consistent.

Somehow, i feel that the rule makers of the game (is it still the MCC?) are reactive instead of being proactive & also slow to react to change & technology. There is no excuse why we need the on-field umpires to adjudicate everything, if technology can do that better.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

I have a problem with “umpire’s call”. If the trajectory on DRS shows even 10% of the ball hitting the stumps, it’s hitting the stumps.

 

[Stark]

I have a problem with “umpire’s call”. If the trajectory on DRS shows even 10% of the ball hitting the stumps, it’s hitting the stumps.

Damn straight.
They possibly are still elated that they allowed teams to retain the review on umpire's call, but they failed to see what stamp of stupidity they have embossed on themselves.

Unless they are utterly sure that the system's inaccuracy is beyond repairs/correction, they really should revisit the policy.

 

[dildilpak]

On the same lines, why is an umpire supposed to provide soft signal about a catch which happened in the deep? Each catch/lbw which had been appealed to should be reviewed with a clean slate, without trying to appease an on-field umpire.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Damn straight.
They possibly are still elated that they allowed teams to retain the review on umpire's call, but they failed to see what stamp of stupidity they have embossed on themselves.

Unless they are utterly sure that the system's inaccuracy is beyond repairs/correction, they really should revisit the policy.

I just don’t get it, how on earth can an umpire be more accurate than the ball tracking system.

If it’s an “umpire’s call” it should always, always be given out.

It will also help reverse some of the rules back in favor of the bowler and provide a little bit more balance in the modern batting-dominant game.

 

[Idreamofcricket]

I think Umpire's call is there to preserve the unforced errors of Human Beings acting as umpires. Otherwise why not have a game played by robots and supervised by robots! .. I think it's purely there to account for 2 things..

1. DRS system is accurate.. but not 100% .. there was a twitter post showing the image of how when DRS was reviewing a decision, the stumps had shifted positions in the digital superimposition

2. To preserve the "Human element" of the game.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I just don’t get it, how on earth can an umpire be more accurate than the ball tracking system.

If it’s an “umpire’s call” it should always, always be given out.

It will also help reverse some of the rules back in favor of the bowler and provide a little bit more balance in the modern batting-dominant game.

You're not understanding the whole reason umpires call exists.

There's a margin for error within DRS if I'm not wrong that has been calculated as being roughly half the ball, so essentially, 51% of the ball must be calculated by DRS to be hitting the stumps to categorically state that its out and to overturn the decision.

If its 49%, however small the likelihood is, DRS cannot categorically say the umpire's decision was incorrect, hence the umpires call verdict. There is still a possibility the algorithm is wrong, hence they stick with the umpire.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current system imo. It was harsh when sides lost reviews on those marginal calls, but that's been addressed and it works and is implemented perfectly. It was implemented to remove howlers, which it has.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

I think Umpire's call is there to preserve the unforced errors of Human Beings acting as umpires. Otherwise why not have a game played by robots and supervised by robots! .. I think it's purely there to account for 2 things..

1. DRS system is accurate.. but not 100% .. there was a twitter post showing the image of how when DRS was reviewing a decision, the stumps had shifted positions in the digital superimposition

2. To preserve the "Human element" of the game.

I agree that DRS is not 100% accurate. Let’s say it’s 95% accurate.

How accurate is the umpire? Let’s say 80%.

If a ball is showed by DRS to be touching the stumps 20%, it should be out, but the umpire gives it not out.

Why is the umpire trusted more than DRS?

 

[Thunderbolt14]

You're not understanding the whole reason umpires call exists.

There's a margin for error within DRS if I'm not wrong that has been calculated as being roughly half the ball, so essentially, 51% of the ball must be calculated by DRS to be hitting the stumps to categorically state that its out and to overturn the decision.

If its 49%, however small the likelihood is, DRS cannot categorically say the umpire's decision was incorrect, hence the umpires call verdict. There is still a possibility the algorithm is wrong, hence they stick with the umpire.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current system imo. It was harsh when sides lost reviews on those marginal calls, but that's been addressed and it works and is implemented perfectly. It was implemented to remove howlers, which it has.

I completely agree there’s a margin of error in DRS. But that’s not the entire story. There’s a margin of error with the umpire too.

Why is the umpire (who might have an 80% success rate) trusted more than the ball tracking (which might have a 90% success rate)?

 

[dildilpak]

You're not understanding the whole reason umpires call exists.

There's a margin for error within DRS if I'm not wrong that has been calculated as being roughly half the ball, so essentially, 51% of the ball must be calculated by DRS to be hitting the stumps to categorically state that its out and to overturn the decision.

If its 49%, however small the likelihood is, DRS cannot categorically say the umpire's decision was incorrect, hence the umpires call verdict. There is still a possibility the algorithm is wrong, hence they stick with the umpire.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current system imo. It was harsh when sides lost reviews on those marginal calls, but that's been addressed and it works and is implemented perfectly. It was implemented to remove howlers, which it has.

Every technology has an error rate built in, but it usually is a very small variance & even with that, will be infinitely more accurate than a pair of human eyes standing some distance away. To say that an umpire should not be overruled because of a small variance or that soft signals should be used to determine a catch which cannot be conclusively determined by technology creates more inconsistent scenarios than the usage of technology on its own. Besides technology is surely more advanced now, since the initial days of the adoption of the DRS.

I feel that the call to retain the umpire calls has nothing to do with technology, but to make sure that on-field umpires dont lose their jobs. Must be some union or something which has lobbied to keep their relevance.

 

[HitWicket]

There's a margin for error within DRS if I'm not wrong that has been calculated as being roughly half the ball, so essentially, 51% of the ball must be calculated by DRS to be hitting the stumps to categorically state that its out and to overturn the decision.

If its 49%, however small the likelihood is, DRS cannot categorically say the umpire's decision was incorrect, hence the umpires call verdict. There is still a possibility the algorithm is wrong, hence they stick with the umpire.

This isn't entirely correct, there isn't actually any link between the margin of error for ball tracking and the size of the region for umpires call. The margin of error is actually significantly smaller. This results in scenarios where the ball tracking is entirely confident that a decision is wrong but still the decision doesn't get overturned.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

"Soft Signal" should not be a thing in cricket

As it is there are way too many stupid rules in this sport.

Just now, the third Umpire gave Yadav out when the ball blatantly touched the ground. Just because the on field umpire gave the soft signal as out. How exactly is the on field umpire supposed to know from his position and in real time whether the ball might have touched the ground. Unbelievably stupid rule. If you're going to use technology, let the technology decide.

 

[Devadwal]

Great fielding effort. But not out IMO. Again, soft signal ... might pinch quite hard .. Why should the umpire have to observe a soft signal from so far out.. when it’s so tricky even for the third umpire on replays!

 

[silentkiller187]

I understand for lbw however for catches use all the technology available. The other side of the coin is do we even need on field umpires anymore if we have technology making better more accurate calls.

 

[Last Monetarist]

 

[Last Monetarist]

I get the impression that umpires in India don't get any decent training over the role of a tv umpire. SOme of these decisions have been frankly bewildering.

 

[silentkiller187]

I get the impression that umpires in India don't get any decent training over the role of a tv umpire. SOme of these decisions have been frankly bewildering.

Umpire called for elevated camera angle of the rashid boundary, seems like he thought he was still watching a training simulation or he is just very incompetent

 

[dildilpak]

Now that Kohli (BCCI) has made known his displeasure about the soft signal nonsense, expect ICC to finally take up this issue. But the very fact that the ICC/MCC is so slow to react to these rules is atrocious to say the least - again case in point the ridiculous boundry decider rule for the WC final.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I have a problem with “umpire’s call”. If the trajectory on DRS shows even 10% of the ball hitting the stumps, it’s hitting the stumps.

There is an even more granularity to it.

What if the ball barely brushes the stumps and umpire’s call of “OUT” takes effect but in reality, the bails won’t fall?

This has happened quite a few times. Ball has brushed the stumps, bails even wobble but don’t fall and the batsman is not out.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I understand for lbw however for catches use all the technology available. The other side of the coin is do we even need on field umpires anymore if we have technology making better more accurate calls.

You need field umpires for two main reasons.

Stop the scuffle between players when sledging gets out of hand.

They will continue to raise the finger to keep the tradition alive; however, umpire’s call will have no value when an LBW is reviewed.

Three red dots, it’s out.
Pitching out side the off stump but followed by two red dots to follow? Out!

Otherwise not out.

Matter of fact, pitching outside the leg followed by two red dots should also be out. Why not? We have the technology now.

 

[bala977]

I think India should take this on the chin and move on, it is part and parcel of sport. You can never have a solution that is 100% perfect, just not possible.

Variables like this (toss, soft signals) actually make the game more interesting.

Whilst I am an Indian supporter and SKY was clearly not out, I dont think wholesome changes are required. Two very key decisions, once during batting and another during bowling, went against India. However, the rules are what the rules are ... just move on. I'd have said the same thing had India lost as well.

 

[jnaveen1980]

If Rashid had tried to save the ball from going to the boundary and umpire would check third umpire to see i he had touched the rope. He won't say "soft signal is 4". Why can't they follow the same with catch.

 

[Napa]

I agree that DRS is not 100% accurate. Let’s say it’s 95% accurate.

How accurate is the umpire? Let’s say 80%.

If a ball is showed by DRS to be touching the stumps 20%, it should be out, but the umpire gives it not out.

Why is the umpire trusted more than DRS?

It's about information updating. Umpire is supposed to be the best judge (we humans are prideful creatures). So when he gives a signal, a lot of value is placed on it. That value can only be overturned when the machine contradicts him by a wide margin.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Soft signal has no place any longer. When in doubt use 3rd umpire.

 

[dildilpak]

It's about information updating. Umpire is supposed to be the best judge (we humans are prideful creatures). So when he gives a signal, a lot of value is placed on it. That value can only be overturned when the machine contradicts him by a wide margin.

Exactly, the whole premise is based on a fallacy that umpires are the best judge, which is just used as an excuse to keep them relevant (& fill their pockets). Cricket should move ahead with times & admit that technology is way more accurate than an human eye can ever be, especially in cases like catches in the deep. Let DRS be used as a standalone unbiased arbitrator rather than using it to play second fiddle to human biases.

 

[Napa]

Exactly, the whole premise is based on a fallacy that umpires are the best judge, which is just used as an excuse to keep them relevant (& fill their pockets). Cricket should move ahead with times & admit that technology is way more accurate than an human eye can ever be, especially in cases like catches in the deep. Let DRS be used as a standalone unbiased arbitrator rather than using it to play second fiddle to human biases.

Not sure if DRS is infallible. We can actually do an experiment to judge how accurate it is. Just have a few bowlers bowl a thousand balls with no batsmen present, but give the DRS the data about the ball before it reaches the point where the ball would have hit the pad (a bit before the crease). Then check the DRS prediction against whether the ball actually hit the wicket or not. One can easily just take the data from actual games that are played where it is known that the bat or pad didn't make contact with the ball, and check the accuracy of the DRS predictions.

 

[dildilpak]

Not sure if DRS is infallible. We can actually do an experiment to judge how accurate it is. Just have a few bowlers bowl a thousand balls with no batsmen present, but give the DRS the data about the ball before it reaches the point where the ball would have hit the pad (a bit before the crease). Then check the DRS prediction against whether the ball actually hit the wicket or not. One can easily just take the data from actual games that are played where it is known that the bat or pad didn't make contact with the ball, and check the accuracy of the DRS predictions.

I agree, its easy enough to judge DRS efficacy in LBW by comparing the predicted path of the ball with the actual. But my earlier point was specifically in relation to the soft signals from the square leg umpire for catches in the deep - cant see how the DRS won’t be more accurate than human eye in those scenarios & why the umpire decision should weigh in over the third umpire when he reviews the DRS. That has to go ASAP.

 

[HitWicket]

If Rashid had tried to save the ball from going to the boundary and umpire would check third umpire to see i he had touched the rope. He won't say "soft signal is 4". Why can't they follow the same with catch.

The soft signal had no influence on the Rashid decision.

 

[OMB]

India vs England: Why is soft signal so important? Virat Kohli questions

AHMEDABAD: Indian captain Virat Kohli on Thursday questioned the concept of requiring "conclusive proofs" to overturn a "soft signal" of the field umpires, saying that rules should be made simpler so that teams do not suffer in high-stake games.
During the fourth T20I against England here, which India won by eight runs, there were at least two dismissals that benefitted England for want of conclusive proofs.

Asked about the incidents at the post-match presentation, Kohli went back to a Test match against England, which preceded The T20 series. "There was an instance during the Test series when I was next to Jinks (Ajinkya Rahane) and he clearly caught the ball but he wasn't sure so we went upstairs. If it is a half and half effort and the fielder is in doubt, there is no way the umpire from square leg can see it clearly.

"The soft signal becomes that important and it becomes tricky. Where there should be conclusive proof? I don't know why there can't be an 'I don't know' call with the umpires as well. It is similar to umpire's call as well.

"These are decisions that can change the course of the game, especially in these big games. We were on the receiving side today, and tomorrow it could be some other team."
Suryakumar Yadav was unlucky to have been given out in the 14th over after repeated replays of Dawid Malan's catch off Sam Curran by the TV umpire. A part of the ball seemed to have touched the ground but the TV umpire did not overturn the on-field umpire's decision (soft signal) due to a lack of conclusive
proof.

Washington Sundar was also given out in the last over after repeated replays by the TV umpire to see if Adil Rashid had touched the ropes with his back heel while taking the catch failed to get a conclusive evidence.
The Indian captain said the rules should be made simple by "ironing out" the grey areas.
"... keep the game really simple and linear. It isn't ideal in high pressure games and have a lot of clarity on the field."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/england-in-india/india-vs-england-why-soft-signal-is-so-important-virat-kohli-questions/articleshow/81580594.cms

 

[Firebat]

Will never understand an umpire giving a soft signal for something happening on the boundary. How can they possibly think it's out or not out from so far away?

The soft signal they are giving is entirely 50-50, and then the 3rd umpire massively gives the benefit of doubt to that meaningless, 50-50 soft signal the on-field umpire gave. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/iccs-cricket-committee-set-to-back-contentious-umpire-s-call-rule-101616558830699.html

The International Cricket Council's (ICC) Cricket Committee has recommended that the concept of 'Umpire's call' rule in the Decision Review System (DRS) should stay, citing that the ball-tracking technology was not going to be 100 per cent correct.

The recommendation will be tabled at the governing body's chief executive committee meeting, scheduled for a virtual meet in the coming week.

The committee, headed by former India captain Anil Kumble and counting a set of former international captains -- Andrew Strauss, Rahul Dravid, Mahela Jayawardene, Shaun Pollock - as well as match referee Ranjan Madugalle, umpire Richard Illingworth and Mickey Arthur, among its members, took suggestions from other match officials, broadcasters, and Hawk-Eye, the ball-tracking technology supplier.

The committee, after some debate, decided that the 'Umpire's call' rule should stay because of the aforementioned reason.

'Umpire's Call' has been a huge debating point in the cricket world since the onset of the DRS and many former players have urged the ICC to do away with this. However, earlier this month, umpire Nitin Menon highlighted why this needs to be stuck with.

"See, first of all, Umpire's Call is regarding decisions which are very close, the decisions which are 50-50, which can go either way, goes with the call of the on-field umpire. It is not a completely perfect decision that has been overturned, so it is a 50-50 decision which can go either way, to the batting side or the fielding side. When we know that technology is not itself 100 per cent correct, so that is when you need the Umpire's Call," Menon had told ANI.

"When we know technology is not 100 per cent correct, so whatever the on-field decision is given, since it is a very marginal call, so we will stick with the decision the on-field umpire has given. This concept needs to be understood by the general public because they are not aware of why Umpire's Call concept is there in DRS. It is basically because it was a marginal call and 100 per cent technology cannot say whether it was hitting the stumps or not," he had added.

India skipper Virat Kohli recently said that the Umpire's Call is creating a lot of confusion at the moment and the lawmakers need to look at it so that it does not leave a grey area when a big tournament is being played.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No soft signal, 90-minute innings

https://indianexpress.com/article/s...2021, set to begin,each innings to 90 minutes.


Today Pandya's catch was inconclusive. But if they had used the old rule it would have been given out for sure. Umpire did not give out. Will this be the way to go?

 

[Captain]

The law regarding a ball being deamed dead after umpire gives it out needs to change because it can effectively cost a team a game.
Example. If a team needs two runs of the last ball and the batsman plays the ball down the legside to the boundary for four but the umpire judges that to have flicked the pad only and gives it LBW. Now the batting team can review the decision in their favour and it will be given Not Out by the TV umpire but the batting side will not be awarded the Four crucial runs per the law of the game and hence will lose the game.
So my problem is the team has lost the game even having successfully reviewed against the onfield decision. This needs looking at before it cost a team a game or an entire tournament.