South Africa v England, 4th Test, Jo’burg, Jan 14-18

Shoeshine wrote:

embee wrote:No it's not Shoey

The umpire has to see something resembling an edge ...and then uses sound as a backup

I doubt an umpire would hear too many nicks at a test ground with a crowd going off `

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Loads of edges show no deviation whatsoever. If they aren't given on sound, how does the umpire give it? Telepathy?

I think MB is possibly the only official ump on here.

Rachel (Not Tom) may be too

Merlin wrote:I believe that asking for a fine edge catch behind to be reviewed in Saffer land is a total waste of a referral.

SATV (?) do not have Snicko nor Hot Spot and for the 3rd ump to freeze frame a 750 pixel screen looking for a feather edge I'd imagine, is almost impossible.

And Trev - I think you might find that it's not upto the ICC to provide a TV station's camermen with all the gadgetry that would ensure one Saffer was given out!

Don't confuse me with Trev Merls - not disagreeing with the point about the lack of technology. What I'm saying is that it is weird that sound is so often ignored as a factor by the third umpire when if it is given out by the on field umpire, that on field umpire is going on sound alone. It's a double standard.

embee wrote:Merls agrees with me ...we must be right

welcome to being right , Merlo

PMSL ..... Agree with you ?
NEVER ....
With an Aussie ??
Are you kidding?
Just setting a decent Pom forummer right on the Umpire's Union you Wozzie.

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

embee wrote:No it's not Shoey

The umpire has to see something resembling an edge ...and then uses sound as a backup

I doubt an umpire would hear too many nicks at a test ground with a crowd going off `

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Loads of edges show no deviation whatsoever. If they aren't given on sound, how does the umpire give it? Telepathy?

I think MB is possibly the only official ump on here.

And I'm one of few who play the game. I trust I'm always right over those who don't?

embee wrote:Rachel (Not Tom) may be too

I think Rachie might be on some sort of rules committee at the MCC.

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

embee wrote:No it's not Shoey

The umpire has to see something resembling an edge ...and then uses sound as a backup

I doubt an umpire would hear too many nicks at a test ground with a crowd going off `

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Loads of edges show no deviation whatsoever. If they aren't given on sound, how does the umpire give it? Telepathy?

I think MB is possibly the only official ump on here.

And I'm one of few who play the game. I trust I'm always right over those who don't?

Most here have played the game at some stage

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

embee wrote:No it's not Shoey

The umpire has to see something resembling an edge ...and then uses sound as a backup

I doubt an umpire would hear too many nicks at a test ground with a crowd going off `

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Loads of edges show no deviation whatsoever. If they aren't given on sound, how does the umpire give it? Telepathy?

I think MB is possibly the only official ump on here.

And I'm one of few who play the game. I trust I'm always right over those who don't?

Most here have played the game at some stage

And I can go through levels of play, say they only did school matches, say I play at a better standard (or others can) blah, blah, blah. It's not relevant, that's the point.

Shoey

I didnt play the "I umpire I must be right" card ...although it's on the table now so I'll use it

I'm trying to explain how CA umpires (which Harper is one) are taught to give caught behind decisions .

I know the training the umpires on the National Panel do on this matter and it involves eyesight and focus . Hearing is secondary in the decision making process

if it was done on sound alone, Pup would have been done twice today before he changed his bat . . . .

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

embee wrote:No it's not Shoey

The umpire has to see something resembling an edge ...and then uses sound as a backup

I doubt an umpire would hear too many nicks at a test ground with a crowd going off `

Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Loads of edges show no deviation whatsoever. If they aren't given on sound, how does the umpire give it? Telepathy?

I think MB is possibly the only official ump on here.

And I'm one of few who play the game. I trust I'm always right over those who don't?

Most here have played the game at some stage

And I can go through levels of play, say they only did school matches, say I play at a better standard (or others can) blah, blah, blah. It's not relevant, that's the point.

Of course it's relevant. To umpire you have to pass through various levels and be graded.

Not sure what level MB's reached now but clearly is better qualified to comment than someone who hasn't gone through the system

Shoeshine wrote:

Merlin wrote:I believe that asking for a fine edge catch behind to be reviewed in Saffer land is a total waste of a referral.

SATV (?) do not have Snicko nor Hot Spot and for the 3rd ump to freeze frame a 750 pixel screen looking for a feather edge I'd imagine, is almost impossible.

And Trev - I think you might find that it's not upto the ICC to provide a TV station's camermen with all the gadgetry that would ensure one Saffer was given out!

Don't confuse me with Trev Merls - not disagreeing with the point about the lack of technology. What I'm saying is that it is weird that sound is so often ignored as a factor by the third umpire when if it is given out by the on field umpire, that on field umpire is going on sound alone. It's a double standard.

Not confusing you shoesey ... Trev did actually make a silly suggestion earlier in the piece about wishing the ICC saw fit to install gizzmo's for referrals in Safferland!

And regards sound ... most of the time the sound heard on slo-mo, overlapping the one you're listening out for, is the grating sound of a Yeti being castrated with a pair of rusty bolt cutters ...... which, at normal speed, turns out to be the bowler/keeper appealing!

embee wrote:Shoey

I didnt play the "I umpire I must be right" card ...although it's on the table now so I'll use it

I'm trying to explain how CA umpires (which Harper is one) are taught to give caught behind decisions .

I know the training the umpires on the National Panel do on this matter and it involves eyesight and focus . Hearing is secondary in the decision making process

OK, here's the situation: Ball goes past very close to the bat, there's no deviation (which is extremely common), but there's a sound. Your decision is based on?

Merlin wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Merlin wrote:I believe that asking for a fine edge catch behind to be reviewed in Saffer land is a total waste of a referral.

SATV (?) do not have Snicko nor Hot Spot and for the 3rd ump to freeze frame a 750 pixel screen looking for a feather edge I'd imagine, is almost impossible.

And Trev - I think you might find that it's not upto the ICC to provide a TV station's camermen with all the gadgetry that would ensure one Saffer was given out!

Don't confuse me with Trev Merls - not disagreeing with the point about the lack of technology. What I'm saying is that it is weird that sound is so often ignored as a factor by the third umpire when if it is given out by the on field umpire, that on field umpire is going on sound alone. It's a double standard.

Not confusing you shoesey ... Trev did actually make a silly suggestion earlier in the piece about wishing the ICC saw fit to install gizzmo's for referrals in Safferland!

And regards sound ... most of the time the sound heard on slo-mo, overlapping the one you're listening out for, is the grating sound of a Yeti being castrated with a pair of rusty bolt cutters ...... which, at normal speed, turns out to be the bowler/keeper appealing!

And according to both Sky and the BBC, the sound engineer here neglected to turn the sound up for Harper. No conspiracy, but if so that's pretty incompetent. But that was bat, it couldn't have been anything else.

Merlin wrote:I believe that asking for a fine edge catch behind to be reviewed in Saffer land is a total waste of a referral.

SATV (?) do not have Snicko nor Hot Spot and for the 3rd ump to freeze frame a 750 pixel screen looking for a feather edge I'd imagine, is almost impossible.

And Trev - I think you might find that it's not upto the ICC to provide a TV station's camermen with all the gadgetry that would ensure one Saffer was given out!

Like I said, when hotspot was merely a gadget to entertain the TV viewer, then there was no problem with the TV company paying for it. However, it has now become a vital part of the ICC's referral system, and some TV companies (like SABC in this series) can't afford it. So if the ICC wants to improve decision making on the field, they need to fork out the money to get the best technology available for all games.