Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Nov 09 19:05
Date Joined: 01 May 02
| Topic/replies: 951 | Blogger: Mushtaq's blog
Too expensive.
Pause Switch to Standard View RIP the referral system?
Show More
Report michael knight November 17, 2009 6:47 PM GMT
Can't they just introduce a partial referral system. ie start with the lbw. With lbw's the referral system only used technology to see where the ball pitches and how high. Every broadcaster has this technology available anyway. Leave things like snicko and hot spot for a further date.
Report mafeking November 17, 2009 6:50 PM GMT
feck knows why they couldn't just get the 3rd umpire to have a word in his mate's ear when an obvious howler has been committed. you can always rely on the authorities to overcomplicate matters. would have a travesty if they used hawkeye to adjudicate on lbws in any event.
Report Deadly Earnest November 17, 2009 7:11 PM GMT
I am with you on that Mafe. This really is poor going to leave the door open to errors that ae easily detected on replay, whether you like the referal system or nay.
Report Lori November 17, 2009 9:23 PM GMT
Why can't they show a replay on the big screen if called for and let the two umps on the field decide.
Report Lori November 17, 2009 9:23 PM GMT
EG: When the ump isn't sure if it pitched outside the line, or an obvious nick they missed etc.
Report chumptastic November 17, 2009 9:31 PM GMT
it's absolutely nothing to do with the costs involved.

the indian players have told the bcci they don't want referrals. so referrals aren't happening.
Report anyother November 17, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
did guys given out before technology complain .. genuine question .. seems to me that now they know they will be vindicated .. as in they know they did'nt get bat on ball .. or they know its hit their sleeve / thigh pad etc .. then they walk of with the hump whilst watching the replays .. i'm asking if in the days before tech did cktrs show disrespect to the umps decision to the extent its now shown .. almost like a mirror image of the way the respect has gone for the ref in footie :(
Report Lori November 17, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
The more I think about the big screen thing, the more I like it. The player who calls for the referal can actually say to the ump what he thinks happened and they can both see the replay so there should be no grounds for argument.
Report mafeking November 17, 2009 9:52 PM GMT
that's fine for the batsman but doesn't work as well for the bowling side. you can't expect them to know for sure if the batsman's nicked it or if the ball was knocking the lot out.
Report Lori November 17, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
That's fine. If they don't know for sure it's not something the referral scheme need to be addressing.
Report anyother November 17, 2009 10:05 PM GMT
NFL tried it .. gave it up .. brought it back .. god knows if they still use it .. i gave up on it a long time ago .. think the already dreadful over rate in test ckt would suffer interminablely
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics November 17, 2009 10:10 PM GMT
good to see you agree with your idea lori... ;)

i actually don't like it - the players must be left out of the decision, because whichever way it goes one is going to be happy and one is not...if you want players to respect the umpires, the umpires must completely be in charge - they must make mostly correct decisions the first time (THE single biggest problem at the moment) and use any available technology and the third ump to change howlers ASAP

on a side note, i have started umpiring park cricket this season - 2 weeks ago, i gave a batsman not out. the bowler waited till the end of the over (one ball only) and then asked me "why didn't you give that out?" i replied that you don't ask an umpire that, called his captain over and explained the problem was with the phrasing, that an ump may casually explain a decision but is under no obligation to do so.

last week (first week of a 2-day match), i gave a batsman not out - it was a left arm fast bowler over the wicket to a right-hander - a full ball that swung back in slightly hit him on the foot on the full - i gave it consideration, but it hit him about off stump, and even with the swing i decided it was probably continuing past off stump

after i had said not out, the bowler got down on his knees and continued the appeal, and while still on his knees said to me "what was that missing?"...i said something like "not out, get on with the game" - i will have a word with his captain at the end of the game next week, but not sure what good it will do...the whole thing was designed to make me look incompetent, when i had actually made a fair, impartial (and i still believe correct) decision

respect for umpires at all levels is on the decline - constant replays and highlighting of errors has not helped, but it is also probably symptomatic of today's society

there are 2 ways that i think this decline can be arrested

1. Pick the best, most in-form umpires available - don't be stuck with those who are on the panel if they are out-of-form or past it

2. back those umpires to make mostly correct decisions on the field, and work as a team using all available technology to change any howlers quickly
Report mafeking November 17, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
should be so simple. just give it the 3rd ump and if he can't overturn it before the next ball is bowled. i.e 30 seconds and 2 or 3 replays then the decision stands. can't be having daryl harper spending 5 minutes looking at endless replays and still getting it wrong.
Report Lori November 17, 2009 10:21 PM GMT
The other problem is there's only two umpires watching a zillion things.

Something like American Football which still manages to arse up decisions even with a challenge system, has several umps on the field.
If they could automate something like no balls it may help?
Report mafeking November 17, 2009 10:26 PM GMT
indeed asking far too much to ask to 2 middle aged (at least) men) to spend hour upon hour in usually boiling temperatures and expect them to get decisions which involve millimetres from the best part of 30 yards away. as one ump said recently (can't remember who) we never get to win the toss.
Report dougydougy. November 17, 2009 10:59 PM GMT
thank god, if it was going to be introduced it would be good if they get a system that works first. Good work from the Indian board for once.
Report spassky November 18, 2009 1:22 AM GMT
The only thing I strongly disagree about is the argument that over rates will suffer. That annoys me because we are supposed to have 540 balls a day and actually get about 510. Losing another 10 is hardly going to make a difference whereas ............
in those 500 odd deliveries, something really interesting/contentious happens on about five of them. I don't understand what the rush is to get on with the game. I would much prefer to see snicko/hotspot/hawkeye and uncletomcobley if something interesting/howler has happened.

It's a bit like saying that you don't want to see replays of a goal scored in football. 89 minutes of sheer tedium .... you might as well watch and re-watch the one interesting thing that happens every hour or so.

Finally ...... hotspot is absolutely superb. Personally I would give up on hawkeye for now. Just use hotspot until everybody gets used to it, and realises that it enhances the game to get more decisions correct, then phase in more technology as you phase out the dinosaurs who discredited it when it was first introduced.
Report dougydougy. November 18, 2009 2:01 AM GMT
No problem with it if you actually get the right decisions as a result of the technology, problem when it was introduced was it didn't actually help the game at all, producing more controversy than before. Also slowed the game down massively with ridiculous LBW guess work going on from captains, bowlers , batsman and the 3rd umps.

We've had 2 days of a test here in India without 1 controversial decision, proving that umps are well capable of still doing the job to a decent enough standard, although that would be raised if they had a few more on the elite panel.

If they do introduce it agian it has to be with specific guide lines, I'd like to see 1 referal per team, then you only use it if it's an absolute shocker and you are certain the standing ump has got it wrong. Also I think you should only be able to refer non subjective decisions. That would include - did it hit the bat yes/no, did it pitch outside leg yes/no, did it hit in line yes/no. Those are definates. What you can't refer is a subjective decision such as will it hit the stumps, because all you are doing is transfering the guessing process to somebody else.

It would work something like this

LBW appeal , not out, reason not hitting - can't refer

LBW appeal, not out, reason hit outside the line, pitched outside leg, inside edge - can refer

Same occurs for the batsman. But obviously they would be able to refer all umps decisions, to challenge the definitive umpires calls i.e whether it hit in line, outside leg, whether they got an inside edge etc but the decison the umpire had made that it is hitting the stumps can not be overturned.

Setting up the system with specific parameters such as these would reduce the confusion we saw when it was trialled last time and reinforce the umpires role in the game, rather than making him redundant. It would also shed light on the umpires decisons, forcing them to explain their decision, which would in the long run probably make their decision making far more accurate.
Report runout November 18, 2009 4:51 AM GMT
I am for the referral system. Prevents maniplation. brings confidence to players, betting players and umpires themselves. removes unscruplous elements from doing shady deals.ICC should force respective boards to implement like they did for elite panel, third umpires for runouts etc. the cost is negligilble compared to the overall health of the sport. those talking of cost first need to be investigated by the ACU of the ICC. I am sure they will find something there.
Report runout November 18, 2009 5:29 AM GMT
How can it slow down the Game? two wrong referrals at the maximum. how much time will that take and if the refferals proove useful , then the refferals have proved their worth. Time consuming is a useless argument against referrals.
Report runout November 18, 2009 5:29 AM GMT
How can it slow down the Game? two wrong referrals at the maximum. how much time will that take and if the refferals proove useful , then the refferals have proved their worth. Time consuming is a useless argument against referrals.
Report runout November 18, 2009 5:29 AM GMT
How can it slow down the Game? two wrong referrals at the maximum. how much time will that take and if the refferals proove useful , then the refferals have proved their worth. Time consuming is a useless argument against referrals.
Report runout November 18, 2009 5:30 AM GMT
sorry for multiple posting. sometechinical mistake.
Report dougydougy. November 18, 2009 5:41 AM GMT
When they introduced the trial period some decisions took upto 5 minutes to resolve the review, that is just far too long in a time based game where no clock is stopped, that could acount for an unmeasurable amount of time being lost with 2 referrals per team per innings being used plus succesful ones resulting in refferals not being lost (rightly i suppose).

Lets say each referal takes 3 minutes on average. With a minimum of four bing used each innings, but more like an average of 6 considering the fact teams would only use them if they are convinced they are not out, you are talking about 18 minutes being lost per innings or 72 minutes per test. That is over an HOURS Play!!!!!!
Report Conkers November 22, 2009 11:54 AM GMT
Very good points, mafeking.

All these morons forget the basic idea behind referrals is simply to correct the mistakes that are immediately glaringly obvious.

And it's also obvious to a blind man you don't encourage palyers to openly question an umps decision - it has to be sorted out by all the officials - surely one of the three off field hangers on can glance at the screen once in a while to confirm or overrule as required?
Report michael knight November 22, 2009 12:04 PM GMT
I'm for it but I'm against using hawkeye as a predictive tool telling us what the ball will do after it hits the pad.

Things like the 'red line', snicko and hotspot have been tried and tested for years and should be used.

Anyone catch the aggers interview with the CE of NZ cricket at the interval today? Aggers claimed he was recently told by the BCCI's Prof Shetty that the only reason referral's are not being used in the current Ind-SL series is because the Indian players don't like it but the CE of NZ cricket claimed the ICC have told boards the only way they can opt out of it is if cost issues arise.
Report rimmer17 November 22, 2009 12:27 PM GMT
I like the referral system but I think that the current balance is wrong with two referrals each for the batting and bowling sides. Would be fairer to give the bowling side three and the batting side one as it should just be there to clear up blatant errors, and more decisions go against the bowling side.

As it is with two each we get situations where a team loses its best batsman, or goes 5/6 down having not yet used a referral, and they will refer regardless- hoping for any benefit of the doubt or even a potential no-ball. This is not what the system is there for. (obviously would help if we don't have clowns like Harper in the 3rd umpire's box overruling correct on-field decisions)
Report Conkers November 22, 2009 12:41 PM GMT
It's simply wrong to legislate so as to encourage questioning the umpires decision.
The fact that MCC World Cricket committee can't see this, while out of the other side of their mouth their always prattling on about "spirit of cricket" is just a further illustration of how grotequely incompentent all these blazered freeloaders are...
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539