Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Innocent Bystander
05 Dec 09 21:59
Date Joined: 10 Jan 03
| Topic/replies: 3,297 | Blogger: Innocent Bystander's blog
Huge story if true

Was it his decision that was overruled for Shiv?
Pause Switch to Standard View Mark Benson quits cricket in protest...
Show More
Report Innocent Bystander December 5, 2009 10:00 PM GMT
should have read the 2nd half of the article and answered my own question :D
Report mafeking December 5, 2009 10:02 PM GMT
i wondered why ralph was doing it yesterday. presumably this explains it.
Report RockMonkey December 5, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
1 down-how many left to go? Shut the door on yer way out lad.
Report mafeking December 5, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
coat rack behind the stumps for jumpers and caps the next step ?
Report michael knight December 5, 2009 10:07 PM GMT
What a big girl.

He knew coming into the test the referral system was being used. If he was so against it why did he stand in the first place.
Report RockMonkey December 5, 2009 10:09 PM GMT
Will always obviously need an on-field presence to prevent a descent into fisticuffs but the sooner as many decisions as possible are taken away from the likes of Benson, Gould, Rauf, Harper, Llong, Rudi etc the better. Ask Dilshan if he wants his career to lie in the hands of the clowns who have fired him out twice in this test.
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 5, 2009 10:10 PM GMT
no big loss - i reckon even a coat rack could get more than 79 overs bowled in 6 hours...
Report Jan1ne December 5, 2009 11:08 PM GMT
can understand this, only so much BS you can take from**s like Ponting on a cricket field
Report bigpoppapump December 6, 2009 6:11 AM GMT
There's probably less pressure on the umpires now with a review system than there was beforehand," Broad said. "Umpires would stand out there in the morning and captains and fielders would strut around not really knowing the result of it. With the review system they know the result straight away."

this feller must post on here. I've never ever read such sh1t - less pressure now they've institutionalised the right to argue with the ump?? FFS.
Report naive December 6, 2009 6:19 AM GMT
Benson's a decent bloke and a first rate umpire. One consequence of this "system" is that the good ones will seep away over time, to be replaced by sweater-carriers who don't have to exercise any judgement. The cricket will indeed be in a sorrier state, for as we've seen already, not everything can be settled by technology. The likes of Dilshan's career(previous post) is obviously important: the integrity of the game even more so.
Report mittheimp December 6, 2009 7:33 AM GMT
there is nothing that risks the integrity of the game more than crap umpires deciosns which have totally changed the shape of the match. Umpires are just umpires - people dont come to watch them! Its ridiculous there are so few ICC umpires and that they are all well knwn names - they are just umpires ffs! and the like s of Rudi koetzen and Billy Bowden are awful and need all the help they can get.

Unfortunately most cricket journalists are very set in their ways and will see any problem or mistake by the new system as a vindication for their outdated view - forgetting that 99% correct decisions by the review system is far preferable to the 50/50 in tight calls that we often see now!
Report naive December 6, 2009 7:41 AM GMT
a point of view, but I think you're missing the wider picture, which is that most of the time, most of the top umpires get it right. The game flows; you get a rough one sometimes. But technology can't sort out catches properly, and the lbw with hawkeye doesn't convince. The solution imo is to develop and support the top umpires, and get rid of the poorer ones from Test panels. If as reported Benson was upset about the referrals, it may not augur well for the competent umps to want to stay with a system which is still flawed. Result? You get poor sweater-carriers - and the technology isn't good enough to compensate for their inadequacy. A sad day for cricket if/ when that happens, and a bit of reflection now about what we may be letting ourselves in for wouldn't go amiss.
Report wasnot December 6, 2009 8:05 AM GMT
Welcome to the world of X Factor TV. Next step is telephone voting by viewers to decide if the batsman is out.

Sad day.
Report riccardo December 7, 2009 12:04 PM GMT
I wish I'd seen this...

The thing that stuck out for me in the Sunday Times story was this:

[i]Ponting later aired his own frustration about the referrals.
Report Lix December 7, 2009 2:59 PM GMT
As if you quit a $100k+ a year job like this! Being an international ump is probably one of the cushiest jobs in the world.
Report Green Beard December 7, 2009 3:39 PM GMT
when technology wasnt here, i used o call for it all the time, and whne i heard it was coming in, i thought it would be great . . . but now its in, it just seems noone likes it, players, umpires, pundits, fans . . . and also, its tiny, but to me is important, when you get a batsman out, and the umpire raises his finger, theres no cheering from me or excitement, i have to wait to se if batsman is appealing and a wicket turns out to be a drawn out affair and theres just no fun in it anymore . . . i miss the umpire finger raise being final and allows me to check the odds etc, and as a fan cheer or groan, even if its a howler, but instead im left with the finger raise and i think more "right stage one done, lets see if the batsman goes" . .

noone likes it, it does kill the game a bit, and the players obviously dont trust it anyway
Report Green Beard December 7, 2009 3:41 PM GMT
in tennis its fine, because its quick, and the players trust it, if hawkeye has it 1mm out, it may well have been in, but its better than the naked eye, and they get on with it . .. also bit in there for the fans

technology in cricket just takes out the fun of the most significant event in a game imvho
Report Mushtaq December 7, 2009 4:21 PM GMT
Federer doesn't trust it! ;)
Report spassky December 8, 2009 10:15 AM GMT
"when technology wasnt here, i used o call for it all the time, and whne i heard it was coming in, i thought it would be great"

i was with you up to here, gb. Why did you then go on to say no-one wants it ? It seems to me that a few vocal luddites, such as Agnew, are vociferously against it. Also, Harper and a few others have managed to discredit it, by finding new ways to make howlers.

Personally I was never in favour of applying technology to lbw decisions. Even Bucknor should be able to beat Hawkeye. It was the bat/pad and caught behind howlers that were making the game unwatchable. The umpires simply can't tell whether or not the ball has touched something, or what it was eg bat or thigh pad. They were simply guessing. Hotspot and snickko are much much much much much much much much much much much better at it !!!

Don't throw the Hotspot baby, out with the Hawkeye bathwater.
Report ramone December 8, 2009 11:39 AM GMT
I was at the Oval last night to hear Mike Atherton, CMJ and Harmison discuss the Ashes. The Q&A focused on the referal system making the following points:

- players generally don't want the referal system. They are not comfy with challenging the umpire's decision.

- no-one likes being on the end of a wrong decision but the game would be poorer without this element of human error.

- technology isn't going to go away and so need to find a way to use it better than we are doing.

Atherton prefers the umpires to control when they ask for technology not the players.
Report BigMig December 8, 2009 12:47 PM GMT
Yes, Ramone, the only good thing to come out of the Stanford farce was the system by which the umpires called for a referral to help their decision-making.

Obviously better than players challenging decisions.
Report Innocent Bystander December 8, 2009 12:51 PM GMT
Interesting mixed stories coming out from the ICC

Originally Benson left cos of a recurrance of health problems (interesting he went straight onto a plane for a 24hour flight home and not get checked out at a hospital first)

Now they are saying he's not up to the job of umpiring, however, they are not removing him from the Umpires panel

ICC coming across as incompetent buffoons? HTEHB asks a Mr D.Hair from Aus
Report dougydougy. December 8, 2009 12:51 PM GMT
Disagree, then you'd get umpires doubting them selves, they'd be crucified for the decisions they didn't refer and got wrong, meaning they'd refer every decision which would literally take hours out of the game.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 12:57 PM GMT
100% agree with last 2 posts. However clueless we might think umpires are at times, players have been shown to be more clueless, sometimes to the point of looking totally stupid.

whatever issues we have with even the current review system, I would say instinctively with enormous confidence it is managing to change more decisions for the better than it does for the worse, and by a pretty significant factor.

Just take the referrals away from the players and give the 3rd ump carte blanche to review or the standing ump use of the 3rd ump + technology to help him make decisions about which he is uncertain.
Report dougydougy. December 8, 2009 12:58 PM GMT
what's been by far and away the most annoying aspect of the introduction of the system is the increase in dissent with the system even after a referal has been overuled and the original decision upheld. Surprise surprise this has been by the aussies, who ahve acted like petulent little brats when things haven't gone there way. I was starting to not mind ponting after this summer but once agan rat boy does it again and shows his real colours. Booo the fecking little **.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 12:58 PM GMT
Lol, 2 more posters jumped in, it was Ramone and BM I was agreeing with.
Report Innocent Bystander December 8, 2009 1:04 PM GMT
I knew you would never agree with me :D :D :D
Report michael knight December 8, 2009 1:14 PM GMT
I find it hard to believe the players are not comfortable questioning an umpires decision and thus are unsure of the referral system in its current format.

How many test matches have now used the ref system. We have a reasonably big sample so it would be interesting to see how many decisions were actually overturned.
Report ramone December 8, 2009 1:26 PM GMT
I am not over keen on the referal system because it disenfranchises the paying spectator.

Atherton in his column recently lamented the pitches where the bowler has little chance and correctly states that the magical moments in a day's play surround the falling of a wicket.

Under the referal system, the spectator doesn't know if the wicket has fallen or not. The spectator is never shown the replays and has to wait for the result to come on the screen. You may as well pay to watch someone play a game on their PlayStation.

Too many referals therefore reduce the spectacle of test cricket to the point where it isn't worth going to the game. Test cricket is very much poorer for few spectators at the ground.

The problem with umpires calling for referals is that I suspect there may be quite a few of them as technology does really help in many cases and it can't hurt to check.

I prefer to limit the number of appeals to 1 incorrect per innings.

The main value of the referal system is to remove the glaring error that decides the result and causes resentment that a game was decided by umpire error. The ICC stats show that there aren't that many errors - around 8% of decisions are wrong - so 1 is enough.

It may take a few less cerebral captains a while to work out that they should save it for a really clear cut error.
Report dougydougy. December 8, 2009 1:33 PM GMT
agreed, i am not a fan of the system for exactly the reason you have outlined. But if they are going to have a system the current one with just one referal is the way to go, captains/batsman then only use it when they are 100% certain that not only is the decision is wrong but that technology will clearly overturn it. We all know these kind of decisions and they are the ones that need to be eradicated from the game.
Report spassky December 8, 2009 2:00 PM GMT
when Bucknor gave Symonds not out and the world stood still, and then every spectator turned to someone near and said "WTF ?"
those are the decisions we want to be able to challenge.

Concentrate on bat/pad and caught behind where technology can be appreciably more accurate than the human eye.

Leave everything else to the umpire.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 3:21 PM GMT
On the one incorrect referral, which I agree would be better than what we currently have, I feel I can add one enhancement to this for the sake of fairness.

You get one incorrect referral, ie where the 3rd umpire is certain from the replay that you were incorrect and the umpire was correct. Where he doesn't have enough evidence to overturn the umpires decision but also doesn't have conclusive evidence the umpires decision was correct, this does not count as an incorrect referral and you don't lose your one referral.

This would avert certain travesties such as a batsman being given out caught at the wicket where he is certain he didn't hit it, but technology proves inconclusive. It is counter productive to getting the best outcomes if he has to factor in whether technology is likely to prove him correct or not.

I don't favour the referral system being in he hands of players but if it must be then this system should minimise frivolous referrals whilst still giving good scope to get incorrect decisions overturned.
Report mafeking December 8, 2009 3:24 PM GMT
it's nonsense expecting players to be able to judge fractions of an inch when the ball's travelling at 90mph. it's just impossible. the bowler's often not looking when he delivers the ball and the keeper's view is obscured. it's just pure guesswork to a large extent.
Report Braybrooke Big Bollox December 20, 2009 9:11 AM GMT
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539