Good job too.
I reckon the soft signal was only for the broadcast value, it didn't
really add anything to the game.

max.it

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7:04:34 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Good job too.
> I reckon the soft signal was only for the broadcast value, it didn't
> really add anything to the game.
>
I don't recall how it was meant to be used was it
"I think he took it so if you don't see anything that clearly shows it touched the ground he's out"
or was it
"I think he took it but if you can't confirm that we'll go with not out"?

If it's the first then it's really a case of umpire's decision stands unless there's grounds to overrule it
If it's the second it isn't providing much.

For the first it gives a decision if there's not a good view for replays while without the soft signal is it now always not out if there's not good footage?

On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 01:48:09 UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 7:04:34 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > Good job too.
> > I reckon the soft signal was only for the broadcast value, it didn't
> > really add anything to the game.
> >
> I don't recall how it was meant to be used was it
> "I think he took it so if you don't see anything that clearly shows it touched the ground he's out"
> or was it
> "I think he took it but if you can't confirm that we'll go with not out"?
>
> If it's the first then it's really a case of umpire's decision stands unless there's grounds to overrule it
> If it's the second it isn't providing much.
>
> For the first it gives a decision if there's not a good view for replays while without the soft signal is it now always not out if there's not good footage?

It was the former, presumably because the replays were often unclear and potentially misleading. I can't say that I've noticed a marked improvement in the replays since then.

Cricinfo reports that "the on-field umpire will simply consult with the TV umpire to rule on contentious catches".

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-scraps-soft-signal-rule-for-contentious-catches-1375894

It remains to be seen how that works in practice. If they do actually consult, then it may be that the on-field umpire just gives their opinion privately rather than publicly, in which case the outcomes probably won't change much. If the on-field umpire just hands over the decision to the 3rd umpire without giving their opinion, then it is likely to result in more not-out decisions.

'"The committee deliberated this at length and concluded that soft signals were unnecessary and at times confusing since referrals of catches may seem inconclusive in replays," Sourav Ganguly, the head of the Men's Cricket Committee, said.'

That seems like poor logic to me. Inconclusive replays make the on-field umpire's opinion, as indicated by the soft signal, more necessary, not less.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:57:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> Inconclusive replays make the on-field umpire's opinion, as indicated by the soft signal, more necessary, not less.

Not if this committee agrees that there's an implied benefit of the doubt (to the batsman) in the Laws.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:02:40 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:57:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > Inconclusive replays make the on-field umpire's opinion, as indicated by the soft signal, more necessary, not less.
> Not if this committee agrees that there's an implied benefit of the doubt (to the batsman) in the Laws.

(to the batsman) <--- ignore this part. Technically it doesn't matter who the BoD goes to. Either way, the soft signal would be irrelevant/overruled by the doubt found in the inconclusive replays.

On 19/05/2023 23:12, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:02:40 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:57:06 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>>> Inconclusive replays make the on-field umpire's opinion, as indicated by the soft signal, more necessary, not less.
>> Not if this committee agrees that there's an implied benefit of the doubt (to the batsman) in the Laws.
>
> (to the batsman) <--- ignore this part. Technically it doesn't matter who the BoD goes to. Either way, the soft signal would be irrelevant/overruled by the doubt found in the inconclusive replays.

Well OK, I'll qualify "more necessary" with "if anything", but the idea
that inconclusive replays make the soft signal unnecessary is still
ridiculous.

--
David North

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 6:52:24 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> Well OK, I'll qualify "more necessary" with "if anything", but the idea
> that inconclusive replays make the soft signal unnecessary is still
> ridiculous.

I, on the other hand, see no great reason for the soft signal in the first place.

What is the purpose of announcing the soft signal prior to 3rd umpire taking a look?
The only benefit I can think of is it reduces the risk of spectators thinking "the on-field umpire changed their minds even though 3rd ump evidence was inconclusive".
But the con is there's currently a risk, by a similar type of spectator, of thinking "telling the 3rd umpire the soft signal might influence the 3rd ump's decision".
I actually think the soft signal COULD influence the 3rd ump's decision. It might broaden the definition of "inconclusive", due to fear of over-ruling colleague on close decisions.

The soft signal is particularly troublesome if it has been decided that benefit of the doubt should be applied in these decisions (as I hope it does).

Just went to read the current Test Match playing conditions and they still include the Soft Signal, so... it might be best to see the updated rules before commenting much further.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:55:48 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> The soft signal is particularly troublesome if it has been decided that benefit of the doubt should be applied in these decisions (as I hope it does).

It's also pointless if this;

"The ICC had recently tweaked the soft signal process — conclusive evidence was no longer required to overturn on-field calls, meaning third umpires essentially made the final decision."

is true.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/waste-of-time-icc-finally-scraps-soft-signal-rule-after-years-of-controversy/news-story/388d168c31868e86e48cc4c683a99e3e

That comment prompted me to find the new playing conditions. Unsuccessfully..

On 22/05/2023 06:55, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 6:52:24 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> Well OK, I'll qualify "more necessary" with "if anything", but the idea
>> that inconclusive replays make the soft signal unnecessary is still
>> ridiculous.
>
> I, on the other hand, see no great reason for the soft signal in the first place.

I wouldn't say that's the other hand. It's a different question.

> What is the purpose of announcing the soft signal prior to 3rd umpire taking a look?
> The only benefit I can think of is it reduces the risk of spectators thinking "the on-field umpire changed their minds even though 3rd ump evidence was inconclusive".

AIUI, under the procedure up to now, it eliminates that risk, because
once the decision is referred, the on-field umpire plays no further
part. The 3rd umpire makes the decision (falling back to the soft signal
if necessary) and sends it to the big screen. No-one knows whether the
on-field umpire changed their mind.

> But the con is there's currently a risk, by a similar type of spectator, of thinking "telling the 3rd umpire the soft signal might influence the 3rd ump's decision".
> I actually think the soft signal COULD influence the 3rd ump's decision. It might broaden the definition of "inconclusive", due to fear of over-ruling colleague on close decisions.

That's no different to a player referral (apart from the fact that the
technology used for low catches tends to be less helpful than that for
other decisions, so it is more likely to be inconclusive anyway, and
also more subjective).

--
David North