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

[Poker Boy]

I don't know if anyone else watched the game in question yesterday, but it is interesting to note the referals had a 0% succsess rate (ie the 3rd umpire agreed with the on field one) and that the first one (Chris Adams given out lbw) was a marginal one - I've got a feeling (though you can't judge after one match) that the 3rd umpire wil back his on field colleagues if the decision is marginal and only if it is blatantly wrong (like the inside edge lbw in the SL-NZ WC SF) will it be reversed. I think they are limiting it to two wrong referrals per team per innings to stop players appealing against it EVERY time (as they said on Sky, some bowlers think its lbw every time the ball hits the pad)

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't know if anyone else watched the game in question yesterday, but it is interesting to note the referals had a 0% succsess rate (ie the 3rd umpire agreed with the on field one) and that the first one (Chris Adams given out lbw) was a marginal one - I've got a feeling (though you can't judge after one match) that the 3rd umpire wil back his on field colleagues if the decision is marginal and only if it is blatantly wrong (like the inside edge lbw in the SL-NZ WC SF) will it be reversed. I think they are limiting it to two wrong referrals per team per innings to stop players appealing against it EVERY time (as they said on Sky, some bowlers think its lbw every time the ball hits the pad)

Do you know if they're allowed to use hawk-eye in making the decision?

 

[marc71178]

I would certainly hope not.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know if anyone else watched the game in question yesterday, but it is interesting to note the referals had a 0% succsess rate (ie the 3rd umpire agreed with the on field one) and that the first one (Chris Adams given out lbw) was a marginal one - I've got a feeling (though you can't judge after one match) that the 3rd umpire wil back his on field colleagues if the decision is marginal and only if it is blatantly wrong (like the inside edge lbw in the SL-NZ WC SF) will it be reversed. I think they are limiting it to two wrong referrals per team per innings to stop players appealing against it EVERY time (as they said on Sky, some bowlers think its lbw every time the ball hits the pad)

I think thats the right way to go about it. In marginal decisions the benefit of the doubt should be given to the on field umpire.

 

[silentstriker]

I would certainly hope not.

There is nothing wrong in using hawkeye, as long as it is limited to figuring out exactly where the ball pitched and hit the pad (was it in line, etc). The predictive qualities of Hawk-Eye should not be used IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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...

I don't know if anyone else watched the game in question yesterday, but it is interesting to note the referals had a 0% succsess rate (ie the 3rd umpire agreed with the on field one) and that the first one (Chris Adams given out lbw) was a marginal one - I've got a feeling (though you can't judge after one match) that the 3rd umpire wil back his on field colleagues if the decision is marginal and only if it is blatantly wrong (like the inside edge lbw in the SL-NZ WC SF) will it be reversed. I think they are limiting it to two wrong referrals per team per innings to stop players appealing against it EVERY time (as they said on Sky, some bowlers think its lbw every time the ball hits the pad)

I saw it. Adams was very unlucky IMHO & he looked like he thought so too. I think the edict for the third umps is that they only over-rule if they can be certian beyond reasonable doubt that the standing ump is wrong.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

I'm a bit dubious about the whole thing really. I like the fact that people are seeking to take cricket forward and I think that's something to be embraced, but I also think that a line needs to be drawn somewhere before the game becomes disjointed and monotonous.

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.

I feel the same way - I think fielding captains would always use referrals for the good of the team, whereas individual batsmen might be less inclined to do so. Could you imagine Pietersen getting into a battle with a bowler and then getting out? He'd probably ask for a referral if his middle stump got taken out of the ground...

There is nothing wrong in using hawkeye, as long as it is limited to figuring out exactly where the ball pitched and hit the pad (was it in line, etc). The predictive qualities of Hawk-Eye should not be used IMO.

I also agree with this - replays are fine for detecting edges and confirming where a ball pitches etc, but I don't like the idea of lbw decisions being given out based on the hypothetical trajectory of the ball.


I guess I'll wait and see how things pan out. Meanwhile, I'll sit firmly on the fence.

 

[Jamee999]

They are NOT allowed to use Hawk Eye.

 

[The Baconator]

They don't actually have that at most of the domestic games anyway I don't think, they probably don't have enough/the right cameras.

I'm a bit meh on the whole idea, I'll see if it works or not, but the thing is, it's only ever going to be used at 1/2 games a week, because those are the ones with the TV cameras.

 

[silentstriker]

They don't actually have that at most of the domestic games anyway I don't think, they probably don't have enough/the right cameras.

I'm a bit meh on the whole idea, I'll see if it works or not, but the thing is, it's only ever going to be used at 1/2 games a week, because those are the ones with the TV cameras.

I am assuming of course that ICC will take notice and implement the idea in international matches if its successful.

 

[Richard]

The right conclusion is probably going to be reached eventually, but Jesus the process that's been used has been so unutterably **** as to beggar belief.

I'm all for getting almost every decision correct, I don't think we'll miss bad decisions when they're gone, but well... as I say, Christ, it could have been done without marginalising Umpires in the centre.

 

[silentstriker]

The right conclusion is probably going to be reached eventually, but Jesus the process that's been used has been so unutterably **** as to beggar belief.

I'm all for getting almost every decision correct, I don't think we'll miss bad decisions when they're gone, but well... as I say, Christ, it could have been done without marginalising Umpires in the centre.

Umpires aren't some sort of demigods that you need to protect, especially at the cost of lower error rate.

 

[Richard]

Umpires as authority figures is about as important as anything in the game. Nothing, and I mean nothing, should undermine that.

Can you really picture 22 players out there in the centre with no figures of authority on the field? It's as ridiculous as a football match with no referee.

 

[STRAIGHT BREAKS]

It worked well when I saw it in operation on Sunday. Didn't take an undue amount of time.

Sounds like a perfect system with the two appeals and only losing one if unsuccessful.

I have no problem with both appeals we saw in that game being rejected. As both the initial umpires decision & the third umpires replay one were fair enough.

It'll really only come into it's own when it eventually does overrule a howler. Which will make for a fairer result.

 

[silentstriker]

Umpires as authority figures is about as important as anything in the game. Nothing, and I mean nothing, should undermine that.

Um, why?

Can you really picture 22 players out there in the centre with no figures of authority on the field? It's as ridiculous as a football match with no referee.

No one said to get rid of the umpires. But they are merely 'managers' of the game, they have no inherent authority. They are only there to keep things fair.

 

[marc71178]

There is nothing wrong in using hawkeye, as long as it is limited to figuring out exactly where the ball pitched and hit the pad (was it in line, etc). The predictive qualities of Hawk-Eye should not be used IMO.

Oh I'd agree there, but equally I'd suggest that umpire earpieces linked to the stump mics and the use of the third umpire for no ball calls would pretty much negate the need for that...

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

O'Keefe is too good for channel 9.

I'll see your O'Keefe and raise you Noel Edmonds.

 

[Richard]

Um, why?

Well... because it's basically an invitation to run wild?

No one said to get rid of the umpires. But they are merely 'managers' of the game, they have no inherent authority. They are only there to keep things fair.

Quite untrue. How many times do we see Umpires "having a quiet word" with players about any number of things, from running on the pitch to an overdose of chat? Very often. The Umpire as an authority figure is essential.

 

[Mister Wright]

I'll see your O'Keefe and raise you Noel Edmonds.

Andrew O'Keefe is the greatest presenter of all time. He's like the Royal Flush of presenters.

 

[Spitfires_Fan]

Chris Adams doesn't rate the referrals system - maybe because the decision against him didn't get overturned?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/6610801.stm