Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[fineleg]

Bucknor makes 96% correct decisions!!! Gimme a break!
K.Hariharan respects Bucknor as well (prob he wants to learn from bucky).

The ICC has responded to comments made by Steve Bucknor, their most senior elite umpire, who complained that TV production companies were misusing technology to make umpires look bad and key players look good.

"Umpires are always defensive about their own decisions," said Dave Richardson, the ICC's general manager - cricket, before insisting that technology was there to help, not hinder officials, by sparing them from the intense scrutiny that surrounds even the most marginal of bad calls.


"I often point to him [Bucknor] as a very good example of why we need to give technology a go," said Richardson. "He's done particularly well this year. After not a great year last year, he's averaging around 96% of his decisions being correct, and yet he's made one or two decisions which have come in for terrible criticism from the media and from fans writing in to us."


Richardson's views were backed by Steve Norris, head of production at Ten Sports. "I am very surprised to know what Bucknor has said," Norris told PTI. "I have been in this field for 20 years and I have never come across such a thing. It just doesn't happen. There might have been technical mistakes but that is absolutely human error which batsmen, bowlers and everyone does."

Brian Murgatroyd, the ICC's media and communications manager, said extending the use of technology was an issue which needed to be discussed and debated from all perspectives. "From that point of view, I guess Steve has contributed to the debate," he said. Asked to comment on Bucknor's remark that production crews often failed to provide crucial frames, Norris said "it is a television thing. Normally there are 25 frames per second. What Bucknor is talking about we call 'between frames'."

"People must remember that things like Hawk-Eye, Strike Zone [the imaginary mat projected stump to stump for leg before decisions] were never designed for umpires," said Norris. "These are for viewers' appreciation ... The Hawk-Eye is 90 percent accurate, that is what they [the creators of the technology] claim.

"I often say to people, 'go back 20 years to the days of run-out decisions without cameras'. You have to just imagine how many times players were hard done in those instances," Norris continued. "Television has taken the pressure off the umpires; it has made some of the decisions so much easier. In general, all these years technology has only proved that umpires make the right decision, that majority of their decisions are correct."

K Hariharan, an ICC international umpire, was cautious while commenting on Bucknor's charge. "I have not come across such a thing but if Bucknor says so, he must have had such an experience." He also welcomed the ICC's recent decision to provide more technological help to umpires. "The earpiece connected to the stump microphones is really very helpful. In fact, we have been telling the ICC to provide us this for some time now. We raised this at the Sydney meeting last year."

Richardson said it was not the ICC's intention to have the umpires appear bad or lose respect. "It's kind of a lesser of two evils. We don't want to compromise the spirit of cricket and we don't want the players having little respect for the on-field umpires, but on the other we want to avoid umpiring controversies."

[kban1]

ICC hits back at Bucknor
- He’s a good example of why we need technology: Richardson 
 

London: The ICC on Thursday hit back at Steve Bucknor for claiming that broadcasters misused technology, saying the veteran umpire “was a very good example” of why the game needed to rely more on TV footage.

“Umpires are always defensive about their own decisions,” ICC’s general manager (cricket) Dave Richardson said.

“I often point to him as a very good example of why we need to give technology a go,” he told a sports TV channel.

“He’s done particularly well this year. After not having a great 2005, he’s averaging around 96 per cent of his decisions being correct, and yet he’s made one or two decisions which have come in for terrible criticism from the media and from fans writing in to us.”

Richardson said the ICC had chosen the lesser of the two evils — whether to risk compromising the spirit of the game or avoid umpiring controversies.

“It’s kind of a lesser of two evils. We don’t want to compromise the spirit of cricket and we don’t want the players having little respect for the on-field umpires. On the other hand, we want to avoid umpiring controversies.”

Bucknor, international cricket’s most experienced match official, had claimed that inaccurate on-screen graphics and incomplete video clips had been used to make umpires look bad.

His allegations came in the wake of the ICC Cricket Committee’s proposal to allow teams three appeals per innings against umpiring decisions. The proposal, if ratified by the Full ICC Board, would be tried out at the Champions Trophy in India in October-November.

Richardson did not say whether they would ask Bucknor to provide more details of his allegations concerning the use of TV replays. ICC media and communications manager Brian Murgatroyd said extending the use of technology was an issue, which needed to be discussed and debated. “From that point of view, I guess Steve has contributed to the debate,” he said. (PTI)

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060512/asp/sports/story_6213491.asp

[fineleg]

I'd be surprised if blind bucky even got 50% of his decisions right.

He of all umpires does NOT want technology to help! Yes, why will he care whether his deczn is right/not. Its always right for him!

[worma]

I'd be surprised if blind bucky even got 50% of his decisions right.

He of all umpires does NOT want technology to help! Yes, why will he care whether his deczn is right/not. Its always right for him!

I'm quoting something I wrote on Sightscreen on this 96% theory of Richardson :

---------
As to that high percentage figures that Richardson keeps throwing up, showing how *good* the umpires already are...well, as with all statistics, they don't reveal the full picture. For example, out of the 96% right decisions made by Bucknor, how many were really tough ones? I bet the straightforward ones would be close to 90%. I'm guessing that includes the clean-bowled, the absolute plumb, the outfield catches, the clear caught behinds or close catches, and the runouts which were either clear or assisted by third ump. Anyone knows more on this?

It would be interesting to know what's Bucknor's (and some others') percentage for those close ones. But even this would not tell the full story. That missing 4% could contain a decision which changed the entire course of the match (the one against Lara on their last tour down under comes to mind).  So getting 96% right is not really laudable, unless we dig deeper into the match details.

And btw..didn't mean Bucknor was invovled with that Lara decision...just a general example of what tha 4% (or any such small figure) can hide

[k-slice]

bucky gets 96% decisions right. i am sure it is true. i dont doubt it one bit. the remaining 4 percent consist of about 96 percent of all decisions he makes against india and sachin especially

[avinashgodkhindi]

Well mind you depends on how u choose the sample set. Evening calling play, drinks,stumps, over are all decisions!!!! Plus add to that everytime a bowler or fielder half raises his hands in the air and feebly calls of "hozzat" , that can be constituted as an appeal. Bhajji repeatedly pitches the ball 2 foot outside the leftstump of a leftie and whenever it hits the pat, he puts his hand on the head and asks the umpire, thats legally an appeal!!! And everytime bucknor takes 5 minutes before he pronunces not out for such decisions ,he has added one more CORRECT decision to his kitty!!!!

Statstics are funny, they can be royally abused

[prfsr]

Well mind you depends on how u choose the sample set. Evening calling play, drinks,stumps, over are all decisions!!!! Plus add to that everytime a bowler or fielder half raises his hands in the air and feebly calls of "hozzat" , that can be constituted as an appeal. Bhajji repeatedly pitches the ball 2 foot outside the leftstump of a leftie and whenever it hits the pat, he puts his hand on the head and asks the umpire, thats legally an appeal!!! And everytime bucknor takes 5 minutes before he pronunces not out for such decisions ,he has added one more CORRECT decision to his kitty!!!!

Statstics are funny, they can be royally abused

Great points! I would go further and say that there are several decisions made every ball. Is it a no ball? Is it a wide?.....
 
-P

[yorker]

I think those 4% are the ones he had to make decisions on like LBW, Caught behind (Faint edges), bat-pad catches etc. Remaining correct 96% are where he agrees that batsman was out bowled, caught at point,cover etc or batsman just walking.

[toney]

96% or not, I am sure Bucknor rejected this statistic. As the television images are already distorted by cheating producers(!!!), how can they be used to confirm that Bucknor is 96% right anyhow?

[flute202020]

96% or not, I am sure Bucknor rejected this statistic. As the television images are already distorted by cheating producers(!!!), how can they be used to confirm that Bucknor is 96% right anyhow?

good point..I want to his face when somebody makes this point with Bucknor