Cricket must embrace technology or abandon it

If that is an example of cheating, then Australia have had more than a few cheats representing our national side. I hope you have been just as condemning of them. Being a hypocrite would be worse than being accused of cheating.

I would suggest cricket has decided to embrace technology fully, and I would also suggest that for the most part it works very well. Regardless of the clarity of footage, those 50/50 catches are invariably difficult to reach a conclusive decision- that's why they get sent upstairs in the first place, and no matter how slow or zoomed in the footage may be, the problem is a judgment call, be it with the on field or TV umpire.

You can turn one hell of a phrase sometimes, Paul.

More poor form than claiming a catch you knew there was a chance you didn't get it clean? You know. You may not be sure that you took it clean; you fumbled it, or that there was doubt. He had no doubt. His attitude was unequivocal. His attitude lead to the soft call. It is because he claimed the catch, without even a shadow of a doubt on his face, that they didn't reverse the decision. Had he had some doubt, the umpires would've gone upstairs and probably have given a not out call. You know what's more poor form than calling someone a cheat? Being one.

I'm certain Butler felt he caught it. Everyone else is putting themselves inside players and umpires heads in this topic, so I might as well too

This summer has proven that not all players know when they have edged it. A couple of LBW decisions against England in Melbourne would have clearly been overturned due to inside edges, had the batsman reviewed it. I am happy to give Butler the benefit of the doubt, as a small part of the ball seemed to be in the tip of the gloves. Its the footage that showed the rest of the ball on the ground that has opened Pandora's Box.

Not true. Butler believed he got some of the ball in his glove which he did. The umpires job was to decide whether the ball carried or not. The replay seemed to show that much of the ball was on the ground, despite the edge of the ball being in the tip of the glove. Apparently, the camera angles flatten out the view to some degree. The problem is with the "soft call" process, the third umpire's use of the technology and the quality of the technology itself. Calling Butler a cheat is just poor form.

It was conclusive on the first two frames I have already had this discussion with Charlie.

And I also didn't say anything about agreeing with you about standing his ground so stop picking words then putting a spin on it to suit your narrative.

My beef for the second time is with Buttler he claimed a catch he grassed and Smith took his word for it. We don't want to go back to the dark old days of the Michael Slater incident.

We're both making assumptions. You're assuming "the umpire obviously felt it was out" based on his soft signal. Fair enough; that's hardly a leap in logic. I'm assuming the umpire had doubt over one aspect of his call (ie the catch), enough so to refer it upstairs. Similarly, I don't think that's a leap in logic. I'm simply saying that if there is enough doubt to send it upstairs to check something, then it calls into question how the umpire has enough confidence to make the soft signal in the first place. Just give it out, and leave it up to the player to utilise the technology via DRS. Or send it upstairs for confirmation of doubt, with Not Out the fallback position if confirmation cannot be made.

Buttler would not have known he picked it up on the half volley. I have seen an identical situation from a metre away where the fielder claimed it but the rest of us in the cordon knew he didn't catch it. Both batsman and umpires were happy with his catch claim which the fielder genuinely believed and the batsman went. As we've seen with a couple of run outs in T20 the camera technology isn't good enough. They need higher shutter speeds, more frames.

Already players are under pressure to complete the allotted amount of overs in given time period. There are simply far too many appeals in cricket many more out of hope than much else . It will just be too time consuming. 99% of the time the current system works very well . May need a bit of consideration over Smiths dismissal but this is a rare incident. Even in Rugby the system fails from time to time , either through incorrect interpretation of the footage by the TV ref as happens in cricket too or simply with the camera being unsighted in for example a drive of multiple players over the tryline. Where I am unconvinced is over the accuracy of hawkeye . But predictive software continues to improve so I may be wrong. Even my wife in her own sweet way has asked if hawkeye knows when the ball is reverse swinging.

There have been several instances this season of the technology-processes casting doubt on the decision originally made by the naked-eye-at-top-speed belief of the umpire. I believe there can be one (already tried and usually proven) solution to this problem : Why can't the Umpire acknowledge the difficulty and immediately call for a filmed examination BEFORE making his decision? This works in Rugby Union, and adds to the excitement of the game - and also in confirming the respect of the Referee.

Haha, I can just picture that in the next broadcast rights squabble - "we opted for Ten due to the enhanced DRS camerawork, as well as a private assurance Michael Slater will not be allowed within 200 yards of the commentary box"

And you need to look up the definition of the word conclusive, it's in the dictionary between combative and condescending

Like I said. He could have stood his ground. You agree with me on that, as well agree with me he won't be walking again in a hurry. What is your beef exactly, apart from my throwaway remark?