On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
>
> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
>
> By
> Tim Wigmore
> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
>
> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
>
> But Conway stood his ground, promoting a meeting in the middle between on-field umpires Richard Kettleborough and Richard Illingworth. Kettleborough, the standing umpire, duly referred the incident to the third umpire Michael Gough, but not before delivering a soft signal of 'not out', indicating he felt the ball had not carried.
>
> Under ICC rules, the burden of proof was then on Gough to prove that Kettleborough had made a mistake if he wanted to overturn the decision. After studying replays, Gough sided with the on-field officials, saying that the ball had "clearly" been grounded.

.... which makes the argument about the soft signal pointless in this
case. If the soft signal had been scrapped and that decision had been
referred, the fact that the 3rd umpire thought (rightly or wrongly) that
the ball had clearly touched the ground would have meant that Conway
would have been given not out anyway.

Is the reporter too thick to work that out?

> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
>
> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.

I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
"senior figures" should pay more attention.

--
David North

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
>> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
>>
>> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
>> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
>>
>> By
>> Tim Wigmore
>> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
>> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
>> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
>> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
>>
>> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
....
>> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
>>
>> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
>
>I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
>they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
>"senior figures" should pay more attention.

Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
that Broad was bowling.

That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
> >> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
> >>
> >> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
> >> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
> >>
> >> By
> >> Tim Wigmore
> >> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
> >> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
> >> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
> >> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
> >>
> >> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
> ...
> >> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
> >>
> >> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
> >
> >I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
> >they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
> >"senior figures" should pay more attention.
> Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
> ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
> being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
> that Broad was bowling.
>
> That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
> surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Master Unwholesome is out of his depth ye again. If the situation is that the bowler's end umpire has given a decision and the decision is challenged by either batsman or fielding side without the umpire giving a soft signal then the position is that either the off-field unripe will change the verdict or there will be umpire's decision. If the soft signal exists it is weighing the verdict against the technology evidence . rH

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 15:04:11 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
>>> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
>>>
>>> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
>>> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
>>>
>>> By
>>> Tim Wigmore
>>> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
>>> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
>>> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
>>> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
>>>
>>> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
>...
>>> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
>>>
>>> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
>>
>>I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
>>they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
>>"senior figures" should pay more attention.
>
>Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
>ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
>being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
>that Broad was bowling.
>
>That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
>surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

The umpire who is answering an appeal can only ask for assistance on a
point of fact. It always remains his decision. Conversations go like
'I'm sure that ball never carried, but did you see anything
different'? It's been in the law for a long time, there's just an
extra umpire these days, with slomo replays at hand.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 3:46:54 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> The umpire who is answering an appeal can only ask for assistance on a
> point of fact. It always remains his decision. Conversations go like
> 'I'm sure that ball never carried, but did you see anything
> different'? It's been in the law for a long time, there's just an
> extra umpire these days, with slomo replays at hand.

It USED to be this way. Now the 3rd umpire can make decisions and just inform the on-field ump.

On 13/06/2021 16:44, RH wrote:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
>>>> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
>>>>
>>>> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
>>>> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
>>>>
>>>> By
>>>> Tim Wigmore
>>>> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
>>>> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
>>>> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
>>>> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
>>>>
>>>> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
>> ...
>>>> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
>>>>
>>>> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
>>> they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
>>> "senior figures" should pay more attention.
>> Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
>> ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
>> being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
>> that Broad was bowling.
>>
>> That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
>> surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.
>
> Master Unwholesome is out of his depth ye again. If the situation is that the bowler's end umpire has given a decision and the decision is challenged by either batsman or fielding side without the umpire giving a soft signal then the position is that either the off-field unripe will change the verdict or there will be umpire's decision.

Oh, so you want the on-field umpire to give the batsman Out or Not Out
without referring to the 3rd umpire, and then allow the decision to be
challenged? That isn't what you said originally, which was just "get rid
of the soft signal", and it isn't what Broad or anyone else seems to be
suggesting.

In this case, the on-field decision would have been Not Out and, if
England had referred it, the 3rd umpire, who thought it had clearly hit
the ground, would have confirmed the decision, and England would have
lost a review. I'm not sure that that would have improved Broad's mood. ;)

> If the soft signal exists it is weighing the verdict against the technology evidence . rH

I don't see how your suggestion reduces that. Instead of a soft signal,
you would have a "hard signal" before the referral, and presumably the
3rd umpire would still need to see clear evidence that the original
decision was wrong in order to overturn it, so there is no obvious
reason why the outcome for decisions that were referred would be any
different from what they are now.

However, it would surely reduce the number of catches being referred,
because the team on the wrong end of the original decision may not be
willing to risk losing a review or, occasionally, may not have any
reviews left to use. In those cases, the technology wouldn't even get a
look-in.

--
David North

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:48:57 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 13/06/2021 16:44, RH wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
> >>>> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
> >>>>
> >>>> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
> >>>> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
> >>>>
> >>>> By
> >>>> Tim Wigmore
> >>>> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
> >>>> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
> >>>> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
> >>>> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
> >>>>
> >>>> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
> >> ...
> >>>> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
> >>>>
> >>>> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
> >>> they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
> >>> "senior figures" should pay more attention.
> >> Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
> >> ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
> >> being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
> >> that Broad was bowling.
> >>
> >> That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
> >> surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.
> >
> > Master Unwholesome is out of his depth ye again. If the situation is that the bowler's end umpire has given a decision and the decision is challenged by either batsman or fielding side without the umpire giving a soft signal then the position is that either the off-field unripe will change the verdict or there will be umpire's decision.
> Oh, so you want the on-field umpire to give the batsman Out or Not Out
> without referring to the 3rd umpire, and then allow the decision to be
> challenged? That isn't what you said originally, which was just "get rid
> of the soft signal", and it isn't what Broad or anyone else seems to be
> suggesting.

No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it. What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:01:54 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it. What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH

Are you saying that the 3rd umpire should make their decision whilst ignoring what the on-field umpire said?
If so, I agree.
So long as Benefit of Doubt goes to the batsman, and not back to the on-field umpire.

eg
onfield says out
referred by batsman
3rd ump rules "doubt"
final result should be Not Out.

On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:01:54 UTC+1, RH wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:48:57 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > On 13/06/2021 16:44, RH wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:21:56 +0100, David North
> > >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 12/06/2021 13:43, RH wrote:
> > >>>> ....because it gives to much weight to the umpire's decision. RH
> > >>>>
> > >>>> cricket chiefs urged to review soft signals after Devon Conway survives controversial claimed catch
> > >>>> The incident prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket who blamed the system for skewing the decision-making process
> > >>>>
> > >>>> By
> > >>>> Tim Wigmore
> > >>>> 11 June 2021 • 7:40pm
> > >>>> Zak Crawley attempts to catch an edge from Devon Conway.
> > >>>> England were unhappy with the decision made by the umpires CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
> > >>>> Cricket chiefs have been urged to review the use of soft signals after New Zealand opener Devon Conway controversially survived a claimed catch by Zak Crawley.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The incident occurred when Conway had made 22 in New Zealand's first innings. He edged a delivery from Stuart Broad to Crawley at third slip, who dived forward to take the catch, with Broad celebrating the wicket.
> > >> ...
> > >>>> England struggled to contain their irritation on the field, with Stuart Broad gesturing at the umpires that Crawley had got his fingers under the ball, and the incident also prompted a backlash from senior figures within cricket, who blamed the soft signal system for effectively skewing the decision-making process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "You could see from the reaction on the field [the players] were clearly frustrated," said Jon Lewis, England’s fast bowling coach. "It's sport and it divides opinion. You see every Saturday in football a decision some players don't agree with.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm not sure if the players on the field can hear the 3rd umpire, so
> > >>> they may have had an excuse for getting the wrong end of the stick. The
> > >>> "senior figures" should pay more attention.
> > >> Given that Broad thinks that the lbw Law is "The batsman is out if the
> > >> ball hits the pad without hitting the bat.", I don't consider Broad
> > >> being upset about a decision as evidence of anything beyond the fact
> > >> that Broad was bowling.
> > >>
> > >> That the imbecile wants the third umpire to adjudicate everything is
> > >> surprising, since they didn't have third umpires in the 1950s.
> > >
> > > Master Unwholesome is out of his depth ye again. If the situation is that the bowler's end umpire has given a decision and the decision is challenged by either batsman or fielding side without the umpire giving a soft signal then the position is that either the off-field unripe will change the verdict or there will be umpire's decision.
> > Oh, so you want the on-field umpire to give the batsman Out or Not Out
> > without referring to the 3rd umpire, and then allow the decision to be
> > challenged? That isn't what you said originally, which was just "get rid
> > of the soft signal", and it isn't what Broad or anyone else seems to be
> > suggesting.
> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it.

How is that different to what I wrote?

> What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH

.... and if the on-field umpire has already given his decision, why is that any less likely to sway the verdict of the 3rd umpire than a soft signal?

--
David North

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 06:02:37 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 09:01:54 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:48:57 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> > Oh, so you want the on-field umpire to give the batsman Out or Not Out
>> > without referring to the 3rd umpire, and then allow the decision to be
>> > challenged? That isn't what you said originally, which was just "get rid
>> > of the soft signal", and it isn't what Broad or anyone else seems to be
>> > suggesting.
>> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it.
>
>How is that different to what I wrote?
>
>> What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH
>
>... and if the on-field umpire has already given his decision, why is that any less likely to sway the verdict of the 3rd umpire than a soft signal?

Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
decision would have to be Not Out.

In other words, the imbecile's proposal is that it's up to the
fielding side to decide whether they should invoke the TV umpire,
assuming they have any reviews left, and risk losing the review if the
TV umpire confirms it as Not Out. So it would skew the adjudication of
catches massively in favour of the batsman. Nothing wrong in that if
that's what you want, but it would make Stuart Broad even less happy.

What's the betting that if it had been NZ who felt somewhat aggrieved
about this incident, the imbecile would have adopted precisely the
opposite view?

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:53:03 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
> can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
> decision would have to be Not Out.

Um... is that right? I thought there could be, and have been, soft signals of Out.

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 9:53:29 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:53:03 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
> > can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
> > decision would have to be Not Out.
> Um... is that right? I thought there could be, and have been, soft signals of Out.

yes i've certainly seen some. I thought they got it right on the crawley catch
whatever england say. But it wasnt umpiring decisions that cost england,
it was dropped catches. But I agree the soft signal should go, it just confuses
the issue.

mike

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:53:03 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
> can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
> decision would have to be Not Out.

We once argued about this, and you literally said "doubt can't exist in an umpire's mind - to them it's either Out or Not Out".
If I could be arsed, I'd dig it up.

On 15/06/2021 22:27, mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 9:53:29 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:53:03 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
>>> can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
>>> decision would have to be Not Out.
>> Um... is that right? I thought there could be, and have been, soft signals of Out.
>
> yes i've certainly seen some.

My feeling is that the soft signal is more often Out than Not Out. The
on-field umpires seem to refer more or less every catch where the hand
is on the ground, probably because they'd look foolish if they didn't
and were proved wrong.

--
David North

On 15/06/2021 09:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:01:54 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it. What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH
>
> Are you saying that the 3rd umpire should make their decision whilst ignoring what the on-field umpire said?
> If so, I agree.
> So long as Benefit of Doubt goes to the batsman, and not back to the on-field umpire.
>
> eg
> onfield says out
> referred by batsman
> 3rd ump rules "doubt"
> final result should be Not Out.

Hmmm. IIRC, the soft signal was introduced because the slo-mo replays
were often unclear, and I'm not sure that they have improved much since
then (judging by what I see on my TV; the 3rd umpire may have better
technology for all I know). I get the impression that the on-field
umpire is generally better able to judge it, so I think the current
system is probably the least-bad option until the technology improves.

--
David North

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 7:36:05 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 15/06/2021 09:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:01:54 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it. What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH
> >
> > Are you saying that the 3rd umpire should make their decision whilst ignoring what the on-field umpire said?
> > If so, I agree.
> > So long as Benefit of Doubt goes to the batsman, and not back to the on-field umpire.
> >
> > eg
> > onfield says out
> > referred by batsman
> > 3rd ump rules "doubt"
> > final result should be Not Out.
> Hmmm. IIRC, the soft signal was introduced because the slo-mo replays
> were often unclear, and I'm not sure that they have improved much since
> then (judging by what I see on my TV; the 3rd umpire may have better
> technology for all I know). I get the impression that the on-field
> umpire is generally better able to judge it, so I think the current
> system is probably the least-bad option until the technology improves.
>
> --
> David North

Plenty of umpires calls get overturned on appeal.... RH

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:52:30 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/06/2021 22:27, mike wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 9:53:29 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:53:03 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> Since this soft signal stuff only occurs when the on-field umpires
>>>> can't make up their minds definitively that it's out, the on-field
>>>> decision would have to be Not Out.
>>> Um... is that right? I thought there could be, and have been, soft signals of Out.
>>
>> yes i've certainly seen some.
>
>My feeling is that the soft signal is more often Out than Not Out. The
>on-field umpires seem to refer more or less every catch where the hand
>is on the ground, probably because they'd look foolish if they didn't
>and were proved wrong.

As usual, jzf fails to understand English. Umpires are not supposed to
give on-field decisions of "out" unless they are certain. Going by his
previous history of wrong-headed posts on umpiring, what I said is
exactly what the numbskull usually recommends.

If the umpires are referring because they cannot be *definite* that
it's out, then if they were giving an on-field *decision*, they would
*have* to give not out because they are not *certain*.

A soft signal of out says "We *think* this is out, but we aren't sure
*enough* to be able to give it as out and would therefore have to give
a *decision* of not out, so can you tell us whether the evidence backs
us up so that we can give an out *decision*?"

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 6:06:16 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:

That's all well and good, but there's more to it. The OFU who gives a soft-call of Out knows that unless there's clear overriding evidence that they are wrong, the final result will be Out.
Also, if the 3rd umpire says "oops, TV footage isn't working", then it would return to the OFU and he'd give it Out.
So if forced to make a decision himself, the OFU thinks the batsman is Out.

On 16/06/2021 07:44, RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 7:36:05 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 15/06/2021 09:47, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:01:54 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>>>> No. The on field umpire would give his decision and it would then be left to the batsman or the fielding side to accept it or appeal it. What I am against is the soft signal which will self-evidently be likely to sway the verdict of the off field umpire. RH
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the 3rd umpire should make their decision whilst ignoring what the on-field umpire said?
>>> If so, I agree.
>>> So long as Benefit of Doubt goes to the batsman, and not back to the on-field umpire.
>>>
>>> eg
>>> onfield says out
>>> referred by batsman
>>> 3rd ump rules "doubt"
>>> final result should be Not Out.
>> Hmmm. IIRC, the soft signal was introduced because the slo-mo replays
>> were often unclear, and I'm not sure that they have improved much since
>> then (judging by what I see on my TV; the 3rd umpire may have better
>> technology for all I know). I get the impression that the on-field
>> umpire is generally better able to judge it, so I think the current
>> system is probably the least-bad option until the technology improves.
>
> Plenty of umpires calls get overturned on appeal.... RH

On the question of whether a catch is taken cleanly? I can't say that
I've noticed many.

Certainly not "on appeal", as such cases are usually umpire reviews
rather than player reviews.

--
David North