Referrals

[Basil Fawlty]

Has this ruined the game of cricket? Because IMO it has, I was always told when I was young that the Umpire decision was final and you had to walk. Now with these referrals the Umpire decision goes out of the window, and I'm sorry I think it should be thrown into the dustbin. Because what is the point of umpires if there decisions won't make a blind bit of difference!

 

[Paxton Dazo]

Ruined game, end of. If it carrys on I'll slowly lose interest in it.

 

[Beach Hut]

It has only because of the length of time and the cock ups in the communication system making it far too lengthy. We even had the umpire walking out to tell the others the decision FFS.

May be the umpire has just 60 seconds to decide and if he can't then the appeal is dismissed.

 

[Flavor Flav]

just makes umpires look bad

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Trash. Not only does it undermine the umpires, it causes delays. Cricket survived for over 400 years (c1533 - Flanders) without a referral system and I think it shall survive if it were removed.

 

[Superseagull]

Should be limited to just one referral per innings (for each side) just to keep the game interesting, but not break it up and slow it down too much. Once you use your referal its gone whether the decision goes your way or not. At the moment it just takes away the authority of the umpires.

 

[The Large One]

Has this ruined the game of cricket? Because IMO it has, I was always told when I was young that the Umpire decision was final and you had to walk. Now with these referrals the Umpire decision goes out of the window, and I'm sorry I think it should be thrown into the dustbin. Because what is the point of umpires if there decisions won't make a blind bit of difference!

You still are young.

Just past the larval stage last time I saw you.

 

[SNOOBS]

Not sure. Has this just been a series full of terrible umpiring decisions?

 

[Skint Gull]

It has the potential to be a very decent system, anyone who is a fan of NFL will tell you that. Trouble is the umpires in this series have not had the proper and full technology to use it properly.

Also at the moment batsmen seem to be using it because they feel it was too close to be given out when in reality unless something proves the umpire made a bad call the decision has to stand, and bowlers seem to using it for LBW when even if it probably would be out, unless it's stonewall it's not going to be overturned.

The referal system is not there as a 3rd umpire, it is simply there to overrule on field cock ups where the ball has pitched outside leg or there was a big inside edge. Maybe the ICC should impose some sort of penalty like the FA do for 'frivolous referrals' so that it only gets used in the extreme circumstances

 

[The Large One]

This is the point from earlier.

Chanderpaul was given out, he asked for a referral and the referral was inconclusive. Therefore he should have been out, but was given not out.

Technology entering the game is one thing, mis-used technology is just shit.

 

[Beach Hut]

Technology entering the game is one thing, mis-used technology is just shit.

I think this needs time to bed in and Umpires have a split second to make a decision so actually it is probably the right idea.

Eventually when they get the technology right I think this will benefit the game.

 

[The Large One]

I think this needs time to bed in and Umpires have a split second to make a decision so actually it is probably the right idea.

Eventually when they get the technology right I think this will benefit the game.

From what I got from earlier today, th 3rd Umpire didn't so much not understand the new technology, he more didn't properly implement its 'rules of engagement'.

 

[Beach Hut]

From what I understand from earlier today, th 3rd Umpire didn't so much not get the new technology, he more didn't understand its 'rules of engagement'.

More than likely and as I said it will take time to get used to this by all parties.

Obviously in cricket major errors do occur and this will help ensure they can be corrected. Rugby Union, Tennis and American Football all manage to encompass this technology and I am certain football will also regarding the ball crossing the line.

It is going to happen but just needs time to bed in and understand the rules of engagement.

 

[The Large One]

True, but even Geoffrey Boycott made them sound simple to me.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think that they should only be used as a referral by the umpire if he is not sure thus allowing a 3rd Umpire the chance to give an affirmative view as either out or not out. They should not allow the batmen or bowlers to appeal the decision. Anything that makes the umpiring decisions more accurate prone to less mistakes and wrong decisions must be encouraged. In the same manner that they do with run outs this can be extended to include LBW (hawkeye) and catches.

As it stands now the non striking batsmen could object a batsmen being bowled on the strength that it should have been a no ball called, which is obviously ludicrous.

 

[The Large One]

I think that they should only be used as a referral by the umpire if he is not sure thus allowing a 3rd Umpire the chance to give an affirmative view as either out or not out. They should not allow the batmen or bowlers to appeal the decision. Anything that makes the umpiring decisions more accurate prone to less mistakes and wrong decisions must be encouraged.

But the temptation would be for the umpire in the middle to refer almost everything, especially if put under pressure from the players.

 

[BensGrandad]

It doesnt happen with run outs so if the umpire is a strong man it wouldnt affect him. Could you imagine Dickie Bird ever feeling that he neededa 3rd man to tell him ifa batsman was out. The problem is highlighted because as said by Bob Willis these are the two worst ever umpires at this level of cricket and have made many mistakes

 

[Pavilionaire]

Referrals is a great idea but at present it is simply half-arsed and makes everyone look stupid.

Firstly, the 3rd umpire MUST have immediate access to technology equal to, if not better, than Sky Sports. Secondly, if the 3rd umpire is in doubt he should stick with the original umpire's decision.

The porblem today was that the 3rd umpire didn't have either sound or hotspot. Had he done so Chanderpaul might have been given out a bit earlier and this match could have turned England's way.

That said, Strauss was clearly out but not given later on.

The key is giving the 3rd umpire ALL of the available technology.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

This is the point from earlier.

Chanderpaul was given out, he asked for a referral and the referral was inconclusive. Therefore he should have been out, but was given not out.

Technology entering the game is one thing, mis-used technology is just shit.

Easy solution is that the Umpire makes the call, and then there must be conclusive evidence that DISPROVES what he has said to overturn his decision. Thats how it works in the NFL, and pretty much in Rugby (referee asks if there is any reason to give or not give the try).

 

[Brovion]

This is the point from earlier.

Chanderpaul was given out, he asked for a referral and the referral was inconclusive. Therefore he should have been out, but was given not out.

Technology entering the game is one thing, mis-used technology is just shit.

Agreed. Also when Cook was given out the referral was inconclusive (although there was no sound) and so this time the on-field umpire's decision WAS upheld. So you had one inconclusive decision where the on-field umpire changed his decison and another, identical, one where he didn't.

The fact that both went against England means I'm a little bit jaundiced about the system at the moment, however I think it probably could work, but as you say it needs to be applied correctly and consistently. All that's happened at the moment is, far from correcting bad umpiring decisions, it's simply added another layer of dispute and controversy.

Another point - why don't they use Hawkeye, the Hotspot and the Snickometer? If they're going to use technology why not use all of it to come to a decision?