|
Post by jaybee on Jul 3, 2008 15:29:35 GMT
... What really changed my out / not out "ratio" was taking part in a competition which on the result of a tie had a single wicket "bowl out". Here the bowlers had so many deliveries to bowl at the stumps and the most wickets broken won ( a bit like a penelty shoot out). Simple you may think. However it was at least 25 deliveies before the wicket was broken. I thought to myself how many of those would I have given out. Food for thought - One of the benefits of doing nets I think. True - think also of how many times the fielders all go 'Ooh' or 'Agh' (or worse) and then ask "how the h*ll did that miss?" My home ground also has a slight slope and - as at Lord's - the ball drifts away, making the whole thing very difficult to judge. At the end of the day the umpires who are apt to 'trigger' frequently get far less respect than those who think hard and give the batsman the benefit where there is doubt.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 4, 2008 11:46:49 GMT
One further point on the question of 'doubt'. Law 27(6) says: I know this refers to consultation but the implication is that - if there is doubt - it is not out. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman in other circumstances achieves that other desirable aim - consistency.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 20, 2008 21:22:20 GMT
Well, I had an lbw decision disputed after the game for a second time today. It was a cup game that went to the wire, and it was an emotional affair. There were so many tight calls and things got difficult to say the least.
It was a front-foot lbw again that hit the batsman low on the pad; my partner said it looked out from sq. leg (low enough) so it annoys me that batsman take issue with this so much. Sometimes it really does seem like I'm one of very umpires who'll even consider a front-foot lbw. I'm going to phone my mentor about this, because either I've got to change my philosophy or it's just a case that batsmen get mardy (especially after losing!).
Apparantly, I 'raised my finger too fast' - does anybody get that comment from players? I had a partner earlier this season who was almost made to look a fool because he took over 5 seconds to make a decision. I don't know what to say!
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on Jul 21, 2008 8:56:35 GMT
I never shy away from front foot LBW's. I will give front foot as readily as back foot, provided all criteria is met. You must develop a thick skin approach. Don't let it phase you, if the dissent is over the top report the offender. You are right to give front foot LBW's. Don't let anyone tell you different.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jul 21, 2008 9:22:45 GMT
Apparantly, I 'raised my finger too fast' - does anybody get that comment from players? I had a partner earlier this season who was almost made to look a fool because he took over 5 seconds to make a decision. I don't know what to say! Blackbeard gives good advice. My only comment is do not be trigger happy with raising your finger or even saying not out. A few seconds delay will show the batsman you have considered all the criterea. No batsman thinks he can be out LBW. My reaction time is closer to 5 seconds than being instant. Do not enter into any discussion. It is simply in your view he is out or not out. If you don't upset the batsman you will the bowler. Thats the job.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 21, 2008 10:46:03 GMT
Good advice from John Golding. Also don't forget that more often than not the batsman will have played at the ball and missed it - showing that he didn't know exactly where it was. Early this year I had someone who stepped inside a full toss to play it down to long leg. It then swung gently and straightened on the line of leg or even middle and leg. He wasn't happy - but he soon got over it.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 21, 2008 14:54:10 GMT
To reinforce what others have said:
There's no reason not to give front foot lbw's if all the criteria are met. IMHO anyone that says "that was front foot and he was a long way down the pitch so you can't give it" is a numpty! So long as there is enough travelling distance for you to be sure of the trajectory then fine.
As for the decision time, I always take a while to decide because I always re-run the delivery through my memory so by the time I've done that at least a couple of seconds have gone by. There have been many occasions when I've taken five seconds or more to decide. IMHO then taking a few seconds is psychologically more acceptable to both batsman and bowler because they can see that you've thought about the decision. I've had the positive comment "at least you thought about it first ump" a lot more times than I've been criticised for it.
I think that even if you are certain of the decision instantly, instantly raising the finger does get you accused of being trigger happy. Better to take an artificial couple of seconds to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 21, 2008 15:00:30 GMT
I forgot to add, yes you also need to develop a very thick skin. Giving or not giving LBW is always going to upset someone.
I have developed rhino-hide! ;D
|
|
jrbp
Junior Contributor
Posts: 5
|
Post by jrbp on Jul 28, 2008 13:04:45 GMT
Some thoughts on decision making which you may, or may not, find useful.
First we should accept that we all “get it wrong” from time to time. Having said that, is there a process that will help us to get it right more consistently? Some things just do not work; they do not help us to improve our performance. Taking LBW as an example, percentages given out and not out do not help. Over the weekend I guess I had about thirty LBW appeals, all but three were easy decisions, most hitting the batsman outside of off stump with a shot being played. There were only three that needed further thought, of these I gave one out; one in thirty, a very low percentage. Yet in other games I have certainly given up to five in one innings using the same criteria, and applying it in the same way. Feedback from others does not necessarily take us any further forward either. The only people who may be in good positions to see what happened are some of the players, but their opinions are notoriously untrustworthy. A method that I have found useful depends upon categorising our decision making.
First, and easiest to resolve, are genuine “mistakes”. For example, we give a batsman out, and then on reflection realise that he had gotten a faint touch with bat onto ball first: or we give him out and, again on reflection, have doubts about whether the ball would have passed over the stumps. In these cases we have all of the information that we need to make a correct decision but we realise later that we got it wrong. Taking more time over decisions, and replaying the delivery in our minds before making a decision, will eradicate most genuine mistakes.
Errors of judgment. In every walk of life where people make many decisions over a long period of time there will be occasions when they get it wrong, and often in the same way. For LBWs we may give a batsman out when the decision should have been not out and visa versa. If we call these Type I Errors (given out, should have been not out) and Type II Errors (given not out, should have been out) each umpire can begin to work on determining if he or she has a bias in either direction. The decisions that I am talking about here are, in general, the marginal ones – decisions where one umpire will put his finger up and other umpires will call Not-out. For most people there will be a tendency to have either more Type I or more Type II Errors. Some of us will know intuitively that we are “Outers” others will know that they are “Not Outers”. Even this level of self-awareness will help some umpires to improve their decision making. Taking it a step further could help even more. Think honestly about every ball that does not make contact with bat or pads. Would you have judged that it would have hit the stumps? If you regularly answer yes to balls that miss the stumps you are erring in the direction of Type I Errors, giving batsmen out that should have been not out. If you regularly think that the ball would have missed the stumps, but it hits them, you are biased to Type II Errors, not giving enough out. Don’t try to apply what you learn too rigidly, this is just an indicator of how you should be thinking about each individual decision.
The types of errors described above are all marginal decisions. Applying my thinking will not necessarily help the majority of umpires but I hope that a few find it useful; I did when I first started umpiring. I would certainly appreciate any thoughts or techniques that others have which I could use to improve my own performance.
New umpires should always keep in mind that all decisions are “in their opinion” and that everyone gets it wrong from time to time. Take time over decisions and be confident that you have done your best when giving them. No-one should ask more of you than that.
Sorry about the length of this post, I have a tendency not to post often but to ramble on when I do.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 28, 2008 21:42:28 GMT
I don't like the view that umpires who 'trigger' get less respect, whether it's true or not. In many cases the umpire will know stright away if it's out or not, run-outs or snicks behind for example. Even cases of lbw can be concluded stright away. I see many many umpires on TV who act on instint as well as those who pause for 5 seconds or longer (which could suggest doubt and then should result in a 'not out' verdict).
Each to his own though, as I'm sure you'd all agree.
Having said all that though, I had an instance where I gave consecutive 2 lbws (the only 2 in the match) almost in an instant, as a reaction. The hat-trick ball then hit the batsman in-front of middle on the back foot but pitched just outside leg so I immediately moved to get square-on for the leg-bye, because in an instant I decided it wasn't out. The fielders were understandably frustrated but were quick to accept the reason.
When I was asked by one of my partners to 'count to 5' though, before I made a decision, it seemed completely unnatural to me and made me feel uncomfortable. That said, he took so long to make a decision that many fielders assumed it was not out! He's a very good umpire though.
Anyway, I hope none of us get labelled as 'outers' or 'not-outers', though I have come to understand that it's important to err (slightly) in favour of the batsman, and that therefore it's not just an opinion, because on a couple of occasions it was my opinion that the ball would have clipped the stumps, but I gave 'not-out'.
Food for thought, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jul 29, 2008 8:39:45 GMT
Hi missingleg.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that one should delay a decision on such as caught behind or run outs, only lbw's. All decisions other than lbw can be determined instantly (unless you need to confer with your colleague of course).
Some lbw's can be determined at once, usually not-outs where the ball snicks the bat first or pitches outside leg.
Where the decision should (IMHO) be delayed are those lbw's where everything stacks up and the only remaining question is "would the ball have hit the stumps?". In these cases, again IMHO you then need to consider if there was enough travelling distance, how high was the bounce, etc. This takes a little time and it's where a delay before lifting the finger (or not) is inevitable otherwise the "trigger happy" lable can be applied.
If there's any doubt then the decision has to be "not out".
|
|
|
Post by TrueDub on Jul 29, 2008 10:44:57 GMT
Where the decision should (IMHO) be delayed are those lbw's where everything stacks up and the only remaining question is "would the ball have hit the stumps?". Or, if you use the other method, when you need to ask yourself "Is there any reason not to give this batsman out?" Essentially, ensuring in your head that all criteria are met is a good thing, and worth a second or two's delay.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jul 29, 2008 12:13:24 GMT
I don't like the view that umpires who 'trigger' get less respect, whether it's true or not. In many cases the umpire will know stright away if it's out or not, run-outs or snicks behind for example. Even cases of lbw can be concluded straight away. May I suggest you get some bowlers to bowl at the stumps with no batsman present. You take you normal position at the bowlers end. Think in your mind if a striker was present would you give it out or not. Then how many ACTUALLY hit the stumps. You will be suprised (so will the bowler). I usually take about 2-3 seconds to decide. I have had comments such as "I can see you are a proper umpire because you think". As you say we all have our own techniques and no one is classed as better.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 29, 2008 15:32:52 GMT
Thanks again. I am of course going to take your advice because I can only consider myself slightly better than a novice at present. It just irritates me that an umpire can be accused of being 'trigger happy' even when giving a 'plumb' (I don't like that term!) lbw stright-away.
I saw Mark Benson the other day; he gives lbws in a flash, but I hope he's as respected as the next man. I find that the longer I think about it, the less likely I am to give it out, as doubt creeps in, the moment had passed and the memory of the delivery gets poorer until I find reasons to say 'not-out'.
This then makes me partial in favour of the batsman the longer the thinking time goes on, which is why I don't think I've ever taken longer than 2 or 3 seconds at the most to give ANY decision, including lbws.
I also believe that the longer it takes to think, the more likely the batsman will be annoyed if you give him out as he'll think there would have to have been significant doubt.
I hope I'm getting my points across without too much confusion!
However, the last thing I'd want people to believe is that I'm in some way challenging other people's systems.
This season, to help me set a consistant plan, I've decided that if I think the ball would have hit a stump/bail in the face, it's out, if I think it would have clipped it or half hit it then it's not out. Is that a sensible philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jul 29, 2008 20:01:17 GMT
This season, to help me set a consistant plan, I've decided that if I think the ball would have hit a stump/bail in the face, it's out, if I think it would have clipped it or half hit it then it's not out. Is that a sensible philosophy? Providing the other criteria are met ie Ball pitching, point of contact in relation to the off-stump (was a shot being played), first point of impact not the bat etc. Would seem fair, but think about it. You also mentioned doubt "I find that the longer I think about it, the less likely I am to give it out, as doubt creeps in, the moment had passed and the memory of the delivery gets poorer until I find reasons to say 'not-out'" There should be NO doubt.
|
|