[thomasfoster96]

Wait until you get into watching cricket umpiring decisions that are referred to a TV umpire (by players or umpires) - slow motion replay (with a separate camera to normal tv coverage), hotspot cameras, microphones, ball tracking...

[pauljohncleary]

With cricket the player's intent is not considered unlike many other sports and in courtroom trials. So looking at the most minute detail (e.g. the snickometer, the checks if the ball made a "snick" sound passing the bat, indicating contact) makes sense to the sport.

[erez]

I think there's something in the LBW rules about intent, not to mention the whole concept of "where would've the ball gone has it not been etc. etc." I personally dislike the whole fixation over minutiae in Cricket today. The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology, for instance the front-foot no-ball which now is preposterous when they keep trying to see whether a millimetre of the foot crossed the line or not, or the run-out with whether the bat was firmly touching the ground on the other side of the crease or not. Those laws were fine when the umpiring wasn't technology assisted, but they are turning the whole game to a circus these days.

[thomasfoster96]

Yep, if the ball pitches outside the line of the stumps it's not out unless the batsman made no attempt to play a shot.

> The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology,

I disagree (although being young I've only ever watched cricket with this sort of technology). Given the other aspects of the game rely so much on precision, I can't see letting the umpiring become more subjective and/or allowing for more human error would improve the game.

[erez]

Actually I have. And that's a different issue, but also very annoying.