Sachin's take on technology

[whats_at_stake]

Sachin Tendulkar has come out and said what the referral system should be like instead of the current trials.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-sport/leave-only-lbws-to-umpires-tendulkar-20091026-hgja.html

Basically
-this is something I found interesting and a great idea which should be investigated. Use of a sensor for no balls (like the tennis serve one). This means umpires do not need to look at no balls

-hot spot for catches, and no technology for lbw which I like- personally I do not have an issue with lbw's being given (particuarly if looking for no balls are taken out).
What does annoy me is poor caught behind (non) decisions and hot spot should be able to get rid of them.

What does everyone else think? I think it should only be for test cricket as well. Possibly ODI (although its not necessary) and definately not for Twenty20.

[Alpha1]

Yeah I agree with Sachin, use the tech for no ball calls or make the no ball the back foot. But prefer to use it for no balls so the umpires don't have to readjust their eyes by looking down and up again. I think that's the problem with the LBW the umpire only get a fraction of a second to pick up the line of the ball before it hits the batsmen etc, really need to make it easier for them.

[aussie1st]

I use to think about cricket using the no ball sensor. Good to see it being brought up by someone that can get it put into play.

[Selective Retention]

Well duh he is a batsman and gets away with more lbws than he gets dodgy ones.

[whats_at_stake]

Well duh he is a batsman and gets away with more lbws than he gets dodgy ones.

I think it is more that it means umpires still have relevance and if are only focussing on that will make the right decision. In a test match you might have one-two LBW shouts per over. Going to technology would be wasteful as opposed to a caught behind which might happen once every 8 overs.

I really like the no ball sensor idea. Should come in IMO.

[likka]

There are three areas where umpiring howlers occur regularly these days.

1) LBW
2) Caught behind
3) Catches in close

Technology should be used for challenges to:

LBW Decisions
1) Did the ball pitch outside leg?
=> Replays definitive.
2) Did the ball strike the pad in line?
=> Replays definitive.
3) Did the batsman hit it?
=> Replays, snicko and hotspot definitive 99.99% of time.

* Predictive ball paths should not be used to ascertain height or line after the ball hits the pad. Technology should only be used to replay what actually happened, not make shit up.

If an ump makes a blunder on line or height of the ball (ie half volley pitching on middle and hitting middle) he should be sacked. Usually when a decision this obvious is turned down the ump has heard two noises and assumed an edge.

Caught Behind Decisions
1) Did the batsman hit it?
=> Replays, snicko and hotspot definitive 99.99% of time.

Caught In Close Decisions
1) Did the batsman hit it?
=> Replays, snicko and hotspot definitive 99.99% of time.

Missed No Balls When Wicket Falls
1) Was the ball legal?
=> Replays definitive.

The automatic front foot no ball technology doesn't exist and quite frankly I don't see how it could ever work. A cricket ground is not a tennis court... just where will these lasers be mounted and how will they be calibrated?

[whats_at_stake]

You raise good points. I still am happy to accept wrong lbw decisions and I think this will be less frequent if umpires only really need to focus on them. I think there will be too many appeals if you allow it for LBW's. To me caught behind and bat bad decisions should be correct all the time. I agree trajectory should never be used.

With the front foot thing possibly you could put a sensor in the bowlers shoes and it would beep if it went close to the line? Not too sure if that would work.

[roostersgal4eva]

i agree re using the technology for no balls instead of LBW - let the umpire focus on the important decisions of the LBW itself

if the umpire looks at the stumps 100% of the time rather than looking at the crease then looking at the stumps in a matter of seconds then we wouldnt have half the bad decisions we do now

[Cooldude]

Well, if the umpires don't have to spot the noballs all the day, surely it'd have to help them with the lbw decisions.

Besides, I don't trust Hawkeye. If it's used for the third umpires to judge then might as well not use it at all. Daryl Harper was known to give lbws anyway even when replays clearly show they're going well over the top. Third umpires still make errors in lbw decisions and consume more time, just let it stay as is and let the on field ones do it.

[Cousin Jed]

Replays are perfect for getting LBW's right. If a bloke on drives it into his pad and gets given out, use the replay.

Wouldn't trust guys like Asoka de Silva, Daryl Harper, Rudi et al to get it right even without looking for no balls.

[aussie1st]

Agree, hotspot and sniko and maybe even a standard replay will ensure we don't get that wrong.

[Wallaby]

The No Ball sensor wouldn't work with current technology as used in tennis- it's a box that sits about 10-15 yards from the court. We don't want that sitting on the field at mid-on.

One thing I've always thought odd re no balls is why do we have a white boot coming down on a white crease line - if they were different colours it would be much easier to pick no-balls - a black crease line would work fine (I think it would still be visible enough for run-outs and stumpings).

Here's a thought - why do we have a square-leg umpire? All stumpings and run-outs are now 3rd-umpired, so all he does is watch for bouncers over the head and waist-high full-tosses. Those could be adjudged by the bowling-end umpire. Maybe we could use him better - maybe stand at mid-off to watch no-balls.