Referrals A-Go-Go
July 9th, 2009 by Gideon Haigh in The Ashes 2009In the last series BR (Before Referrals), the umpires find themselves in a peculiar lacuna – on technotrial without the possibility of technoredemption, while every so often there is a glimpse of the shape of things to come. On the first day, Billy Doctrove reprieved Kevin Pietersen (61), who looked, as they say in the classics, ‘horribly adjacent’ to Ben Hilfenhaus, Hawk-Eye suggesting that the delivery would have neatly bisected off and middle. For about ten minutes, it loomed as the stuff of Thursday’s headlines, until Clarke granted Pietersen a further reprieve, then Pietersen reprieved Australia by self-destructing on 69.
On the second, Hilfenhaus got one to hold its line to Anderson (18) which Hawk-Eye suggested would have hit the stumps having struck the pads in line with leg. But minute analysis of the strike zone showed that the ball pitched perhaps a third-in, two-thirds out, with the seam just outside. Although it’s unclear whether the seam position was a work of graphic speculation or a reflection of reality, this implies that the ball made contact with the turf outside the relevant area. Sky were still tormenting their viewers about this ten minutes later; under the referral system, who knows how long the game would have been turned into a waxworks of whiteclad figures? Anderson finally brought a halt to reviews and recriminations by holing out for 25.
It may be – and I would be interested in readers’ comments – that a more straightforward means of improving umpiring accuracy would have been to simplify the Laws, rather than regarding the Laws as immutable and seeking to enforce them with a battery of technical aids, which still fall short of cast-iron certainty. In particular, what exactly does cricket gain by the multiple preconditions of the lbw Law? And in general, what does cricket lose by the further erosion of the central umpire’s authority?
Posted in The Ashes 2009 | 10 Comments »
July 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with the points you make here.
It was quite something to see Gower, Bumble @ Co. even get into the minutae like “half the ball” landed in the line of stumps as opposed to the “whole ball” today.
If we are going to split the seam like this, what kinds of technological advancements await us to measure the landing footprint of a spherical or hemispherical shape on reactangular strip now? And is 51 percent of the ball the deal clincher from now on ? The third umpires better get ready..
At this rate, the ummpires will be resuced to class monitors – minding the language, waving for drinks, taking messages from the pavillion and passing the decision onto the players etc.
Cricket will lose a LOT when the enter the AR era.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I totally agree Gideon.
I can’t imagine there are many cricket fans who enjoy the idea of the total erosion of the umpires authority – the current progression makes it inevitable that umpires will soon no more than hatstands.
But how to simplify the laws? Or should we just accept that fallibility of umpires (as much as players) has long been one of cricket’s quirks? Wonder what Damien Martyn thinks…
Loved the ‘waxworks of whiteclad’ figures by the way
July 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Agonising over details that are basically undetectable to the naked eye should NOT be what referrals are designed for – they are meant for clearing up clear errors. This is a good thing.
To answer your question: as you know, the lbw law has emerged organically as batsmen and bowlers pick and find holes in it. Each tweak has increased the complexity, yes, but this is to negate even more boring bowling/batting tactics.
And I think the umpire’s authority will be enhanced by referrals – players will suddenly see just how much the umpires actually get right.
So good points as always Gideon, but i don’t whole-heartedly agree.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I agree. The lbw law was designed from the perspective of what you can see with the naked eye. Who cares whether the ball pitched a fraction outside the line? If you can’t see it then it’s not enough to matter.
Secondly, we need to consider how much the game loses by these long interruptions. Over rates are already a problem. If we get a couple of referrals a session we lose up to ten minutes while umpires dither. From a pure entertainment point of view (and Twentybloody 20 keeps reminding us that entertainment is supposedly paramount), referrals spoil the flow of the game. Unless we can have instant info in the umpires ear (eg. hitting stumps, no bat on it), then don’t bother.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I found the review system they used in Stanford (of all things) the best. Let umpires decide what needs reviewing, and give them all that technology can offer. It retains the authority and importance of the umpire and ensures that the ecstasy moment of the decision remains. Getting and then losing an LBW decision took a real pleasure away from the game.
As a principle the laws should be simplified, though I’d be interested to know the details.
The central authority the umpire finds in Test cricket feeds down the system. At risk of sounding like the Daily Mail, the respect umpires enjoy in club cricket is remarkable and needs protecting.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Boards fiddling wih the laws is a bit like governments fiddling with the economy,inevitably a failure!
Surely one immediate improvement would be to change the rule to ‘any part of the ball’ in line rather than ‘more than half’. ‘Not out’ by 3 mm is quite idiotic.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Boards fiddling with the laws is a bit like governments fiddling with the economy, inevitably a failure.
Surely one immediate improvement, however,would be to change the rule to ‘any part of the ball’ rather than ‘more than half’. ‘Not out’ by 3mm is idiotic.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Whether ‘more than half the ball’ or ‘any part of the ball’, a not out by 3mm will still be possible.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
dear gideon, what are the historical reasons for the law that a batsman cannot be given out to a ball pitching outside of leg stump or a ball hitting the pad outside the line of off? I’ve never understood the basis for the asymmetry between leg and off laws…
i guess you are suggesting that all such stipulations be removed anyway? might this not create more uncertainty in certain circumstances: i’m thinking of a situation like warne bowling on a fifth day pitch, sans the leg-side law. judging whether a ball spinning from outside leg is hitting the stumps might be very difficult. but with the leg-side law, this judgment is greatly simplified.
another thing that seems puzzling to me, with regards to the hawkeye system, is the ‘illusory certainty’ with which the ‘reconstructions’ are presented on tv. in science there is always some error associated with a measurement, and this error is conventionally represented as a ‘zone of uncertainty’ (e.g. error bars, or confidence intervals) around the estimated value of a variable.
my question, then, is: why no estimate of the uncertainty on hawkeye reconstructions? is the system so precise that the error is effectively too small to show?
July 26th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Ahaan… I will follow.