Rule change: Captain and Batsmen can refer to 3rd umpire...

[LA ICE-E]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/289918.html
This is being tried in the counties and the fielding captain or batsman can refer to the 3rd umpire. Each team has 2 refs per innings. If they get it right the retain the two refs if they don't they'll lose them.

I think there should be negative consequence for referring a correct call and it should be like if the fielding captain gets it wrong they'll lose one of their drinks break and if the batsman gets it wrong the batting team will lose a over. Is that too harsh?

 

[Turbinator]

As if cricket wasn't complicated enough, we've survived well for so many decades now with the rules we have... why keep trying new things. It's working well the way it is tbh. Wrong decisions are a part of cricket, get over it, what goes around comes around.

 

[social]

Similar thing was tried in Aus Open tennis and the crowd really got into it

I dont have a problem with it but:

a. hawkeye technology is not infallible e.g. Warne bowling strauss in 2005 Ashes and Hawk-eye showing ball missing stumps

b. some umpires e.g. Rudi, might have a gripe with having their decisions questioned

Taking away a drinks break etc is not really on as questions then arise as to players' health

 

[Prince EWS]

I hate anything that has a limited use eg. two references. Will just make the game needlessly annoying and frustrating IMO.

 

[Mister Wright]

Cricket's turning into a game show...

Mark Nicholas: Ladies and Gentleman welcome back to Refer or Refrain. Before the break Kallis was hit on the pads and the onfield umprie gave him not out, we now have Ricky Ponting here with us who has a crucial decision. If he decides to refer the decision to the third umpire and gets it wrong he will lose one of his referals.

(Turns to Ricky Ponting)

Now, Ricky this is a tricky situation, the Kallis wicket is a vital one. Now, if you decide to refer the decison, and get it wrong it could really set you back. However, if you refain from referring the decision and you find out later that he was out you will be kicking yourself. We'll give you 10 seconds to decide. First we'll ask the crowd what they think.

(Turns to crowd)

Crowd. Should ricky ponting Refer or Refrain?

Crowd: Refer, Refer, Refer..

(Mark Nicholas turns to camera)

Mark Nicholas: There you have it folks, it's pretty clear what the crowd things.

(Turns to Ricky)

What are you going to do Ricky...

 

[silentstriker]

As if cricket wasn't complicated enough, we've survived well for so many decades now with the rules we have... why keep trying new things. It's working well the way it is tbh.

Haha what? That is ridiculous reasoning. Cricket has changed rules a lot, and the rules now are different from rules 'decades' ago (i.e bouncers, neutral umpires, etc).

Wrong decisions are a part of cricket, get over it, what goes around comes around.

Again, ridiculous reasoning. If I am a new player and I get out a couple times to some crap decisions, my career could be over. It's not going to help me if it 'comes around' cause I won't be playing then.

The idea to have referrals IMO is fantastic, even if the implementation is not perfect (we will have to wait and see on that point). Umpires are NOT a part of the game. They are there to make sure the game is fair, and they are not supposed to influence the result. If it's the call that decided a closely fought test series, I want to make sure the decision is right, and not live with a wrong decision on some dubious hope that it will eventually even out.

Get it right as much as you can. I think this is a step in the right direction, definitely.

 

[Dasa]

Agree with silenstriker here.

 

[Turbinator]

Haha what? That is ridiculous reasoning. Cricket has changed rules a lot, and the rules now are different from rules 'decades' ago (i.e bouncers, neutral umpires, etc).

Again, ridiculous reasoning. If I am a new player and I get out a couple times to some crap decisions, my career could be over. It's not going to help me if it 'comes around' cause I won't be playing then.

The idea to have referrals IMO is fantastic, even if the implementation is not perfect (we will have to wait and see on that point). Umpires are NOT a part of the game. They are there to make sure the game is fair, and they are not supposed to influence the result. If it's the call that decided a closely fought test series, I want to make sure the decision is right, and not live with a wrong decision on some dubious hope that it will eventually even out.

Get it right as much as you can. I think this is a step in the right direction, definitely.

Yeah I know the rules have changed a lot, but really the rules right now (ATM) are just fine, IMO no need to introduce more. The game is fine the way it is.

And just how many players get their careers "ruined" by a few wrong decisions?

 

[pasag]

Big success at the tennis, from a crowd perspective at least. I'd only want to see fielding captains use it though, batsmen would be abit too much imo.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Big success at the tennis, from a crowd perspective at least. I'd only want to see fielding captains use it though, batsmen would be abit too much imo.

Why? the it should be fair to both cause the batsman is the one that gets hurt the most by wrong decisions.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Haha what? That is ridiculous reasoning. Cricket has changed rules a lot, and the rules now are different from rules 'decades' ago (i.e bouncers, neutral umpires, etc).



Again, ridiculous reasoning. If I am a new player and I get out a couple times to some crap decisions, my career could be over. It's not going to help me if it 'comes around' cause I won't be playing then.

The idea to have referrals IMO is fantastic, even if the implementation is not perfect (we will have to wait and see on that point). Umpires are NOT a part of the game. They are there to make sure the game is fair, and they are not supposed to influence the result. If it's the call that decided a closely fought test series, I want to make sure the decision is right, and not live with a wrong decision on some dubious hope that it will eventually even out.

Get it right as much as you can. I think this is a step in the right direction, definitely.

I agree.

 

[pasag]

Why? the it should be fair to both cause the batsman is the one that gets hurt the most by wrong decisions.

It would also be fair if both bowling captains have the same power. Anyways, hypothetically, it's something I'd only want in the hands of captains, not individual batsmen.

 

[Nishant]

dont think that its a bad move TBH! I dont like it when important decisions in the game are not correct and can affect the match itself. Hopefullywith this rule, we dont have to worry abt stuff like that!

 

[adharcric]

Yeah I know the rules have changed a lot, but really the rules right now (ATM) are just fine, IMO no need to introduce more. The game is fine the way it is.

Not really. Completely agree with Dasa and LA-ICE-E.

 

[Ikki]

Good decision. They did something similar in the Australian Open.

 

[Nishant]

Agree with SS...but Turd has a good point in that umpires are part of the game! Rules that completely get rid of umpires is quite harsh...perhaps the rule added could be one that helps the umpires instead of just getting rid of all the power they have.

 

[adharcric]

Agree with SS...but Turd has a good point in that umpires are part of the game! Rules that completely get rid of umpires is quite harsh...perhaps the rule added could be one that helps the umpires instead of just getting rid of all the power they have.

How does this rule get rid of umpires? Besides, umpires are only there to facilitate the game - they are NOT a central part of the game and they should not be worshipped FFS.

 

[Nishant]

How does this rule get rid of umpires? Besides, umpires are only there to facilitate the game - they are NOT a central part of the game and they should not be worshipped FFS.

Umpires will lose the respect of the players, thats 4 sure. But i do agree with the fact that umpires are not a central part of cricket and should not be worshipped. But i do think this rule should be tried out and we can see how it goes TBH...hopefully it works out, cos i dont like wrong decisons as much as the nxt person TBH.

But the point i think Turd was trying to make was that now this rule has been brought out...its natural that if this works, a new rule to abolish umpiring will also be revealed. But, if thats not the case, im definitely in favour of the rule.

 

[Smudge]

Cricket's turning into a game show...

Mark Nicholas: Ladies and Gentleman welcome back to Refer or Refrain. Before the break Kallis was hit on the pads and the onfield umprie gave him not out, we now have Ricky Ponting here with us who has a crucial decision. If he decides to refer the decision to the third umpire and gets it wrong he will lose one of his referals.

(Turns to Ricky Ponting)

Now, Ricky this is a tricky situation, the Kallis wicket is a vital one. Now, if you decide to refer the decison, and get it wrong it could really set you back. However, if you refain from referring the decision and you find out later that he was out you will be kicking yourself. We'll give you 10 seconds to decide. First we'll ask the crowd what they think.

(Turns to crowd)

Crowd. Should ricky ponting Refer or Refrain?

Crowd: Refer, Refer, Refer..

(Mark Nicholas turns to camera)

Mark Nicholas: There you have it folks, it's pretty clear what the crowd things.

(Turns to Ricky)

What are you going to do Ricky...

Replace Mark Nicholas with Andrew O'Keefe and you've got "Appeal Or No Appeal"...

 

[Mister Wright]

Replace Mark Nicholas with Andrew O'Keefe and you've got "Appeal Or No Appeal"...

O'Keefe is too good for channel 9.