Referrals

[sten_super]

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).

Absolutely agree. From what I understand, that is how it is supposed to work. The problem, as with any new system, is that the people implementing it don't know the rules. Maybe a change in wording would be better, as you suggest; if the process involves the player invoking a challenge, and the umpire who made the decision then calling the man upstairs and saying 'is there conclusive evidence that I was wrong?', it makes it much clearer for all concerned.

 

[KZNSeagull]

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).

Thats how this system is supposed to work at the moment isnt it?

Mr Botham was right last night that it seems that there is confusion in how the system is supposed to work and that it should have been piloted and perfected elsewhere before being thrust into the test match arena. He also mentioned that in the SA vs Australia series, the teams asked for hotspot to be used as well and they got it. Why? Surely the ICC should set the rules and stick to them - ahows how useless they are as an organisation.

I dont really understand where this obsession with getting decisions right 100% of the time is coming from. Is it because there is much more money in sport these days, too much telly coverage or what?

In cricket, it seems that they are trying to avoid Umpiring howlers, but then surely the standard of umpiring has to be improved. Simon Taufell's decisions are nearly always right, whereas some of the other umpires decisions are rarely right. Isnt that part of the game? Where will it end - not having umpires at all and having a computerised umpire standing at either end? It is ruining the game in my opinion and is causing more problems than it actually solves.

 

[Jello]

oops voted no but misread title. BIN it as Kev says every decision is being queried and it seems to take forever. Doesn't help that there's only 3 hot spot cameras in the world, as they would help with thin edges.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

They are still new and in the experimental phase, which they clearly have not got right yet. In the fullness of time with some tweaking it will probably come good. I think the fundamental basis is that the correct decision should be arrived at by whatever means.

The thing that has ruined this series for me is obviously the pitches. Whilst I love watching decent cricket, it's not very interesting watching hundred after hundred being scored with very little chance of a wicket - it's not an even contest. If these are the sort of tracks for the future, this is what will bring about the decline of the sport.

 

[keaton]

I was in favour of them but in this series they are just stupid. If they can't sort out how to use then they should definetely just get rid and keep the video ref for use by the umpire

 

[Tom Bombadil]

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.

I think that's the problem at the moment. In principle referals are imo a good thing, but the system at the moment is poor.

 

[Skint Gull]

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).

This is exactly what the system is supposed to be, it's just implemented very badly! As you say it regularly happens in NFL where if you had to make a decision looking at a review you would say the referee probably got it wrong, however unless you are 100% certain he did you go with the ruling on the field.

That's why I don't get how the Umpires, who already appreciate the importance of being 100% certain can't grasp it. The idea is not to send the decision upstairs to 'see if it was out', the idea is to send it upstairs to see if the on field umpire has DEFINATELY got it wrong! Unless you are certain it was an incorrect decision you go with the ruling on the field

 

[deckchair]

maybe umpires should be able to refer desicions to third umpire if they arent sure?

 

[deckchair]

sorry about my spelling!

 

[sam86]

Meh, agree with the majority, if it was quicker, it would be fine.

Perhaps the third umpire should be limited to how many times he can review the incident. If he is unable to decide after say 3 or 5 viewings (played at whatever speed he wishes), then the decision is given not out. In my opinion, if someone can not decide after 5 viewings if it's out or not, it should be given not out.

 

[sam86]

There's also the point that if a bowler has been building up so much pressure on the batsmen, they think they have him, but it gets referred for 5-7 minutes, I'd say a good part of the pressure they've been building up goes to waste.

 

[Marc]

Referrals IMO are rubbish, you may aswell give the Batsmen an Extra Life so that if he plays a poor shot he can take it and stay in the middle. Umpires have been fine for over a Century so why this sudden need to f*** about with things I'll never know. Not only that but the ICC moan about Over Rates and with these referrals it slows everything up, I find them pointless to be honest. If the Umpire makes a genuine mistake then so be it, get on with the game....Batsmen make genuine mistakes every match and sometimes they get dropped other times they get caught so dont see the need to make Umpires 100% fool proof.

 

[sten_super]

Meh, agree with the majority, if it was quicker, it would be fine.

Perhaps the third umpire should be limited to how many times he can review the incident. If he is unable to decide after say 3 or 5 viewings (played at whatever speed he wishes), then the decision is given as the on field umpire initially indicated. In my opinion, if someone can not decide after 5 viewings if it's out or not, it should go with the initial decision.

I agree with the sentiment, but have adjusted the conclusion.

 

[Gritt23]

I think referrals are the way to go but they need some changes ....

1. Surely the point is that we are all sat there at home seeing "evidence" that means we are on our sofas knowing the umpire got it wrong, and THAT is the situation they want to avoid. So give the 3rd umpire everything we see at home. he should have Hawkeye, Snicko and Hotspot. Unbelievably they don't even have the sound at the moment, so they can't judge whether there was a noise as the ball passes the bat.

2. Something needs to change whereby we don't just have referrals for the sake of it. It was been fairly unpleasant seeing us refer every "OUT" decision KP gets simple because it's KP, or Monty referring his own plum dismissal simply because we hadn't used both up at the end of our innings. How long before the key batsman refers a clean bowled in the hope that it was a no-ball? Not sure the solution, but perhaps the 3rd Umpire requests time to have a closer look - like the last 2 mins of the half in the NFL - rather than the players calling for the referral.

3. Clearer understanding of the relationship etween on-field and off-field umpires. It would seem that the ICC have been so careful not to undermine the on-field umpire that they have completely cocked this up at the moment. the on-field umpire asks the 3rd umpire to check something specific, and he reports back his opinion on that element of the decision, for the on-field umpire to then decide again. Madness. If it's referred, the 3rd umpire simply has to be sure to over-rule, and any doubt he goes with the orginal call. End of.

Overall, this series has been carnage with the referrals, but I hope the ICC review and amend the regulations rather than merely bin it.

 

[GT49er]

I voted to sit on the fence on this one, but I'm leaning towards the "bin it" argument. As it has been used in this test, it is NOT working. Someone said that the third umpire needed better technology that Sky Sports. I thought they WERE using Sky Sports! - might as well!
Some more testing to be done on this - but for the moment, I think a limit should be put on the number ofappeals allowed (two per team per innings, perhaps - and perhaps it should be down to only the captains to ask for referrals).