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

[silentstriker]

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

I don't understand how you can go from 'calls can be referred to the third umpire' to 'players will ignore umpires even though the umpires can throw them out of the game'.

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.

So? He is still there to enforce the rules and keep things fair (running on the pitch and going overboard in chat) are against the rules. Umpire does not need to have divine authority to enforce those rules. They are enforced in every sport, and most of them don't have this crazy notion that umpires need to keep power just so they can seem omnipotent. An American football ref can throw a player out of the game, but also can have their calls challenged via the replay booth. What's the big deal?

 

[Richard]

I don't understand how you can go from 'calls can be referred to the third umpire' to 'players will ignore umpires even though the umpires can throw them out of the game'.

So? He is still there to enforce the rules and keep things fair (running on the pitch and going overboard in chat) are against the rules. Umpire does not need to have divine authority to enforce those rules. They are enforced in every sport, and most of them don't have this crazy notion that umpires need to keep power just so they can seem omnipotent. An American football ref can throw a player out of the game, but also can have their calls challenged via the replay booth. What's the big deal?

The deal is that cricket is not American Football - or anything else, FTM. Cricket has always been the way it is, and the role of the Umpire as an authority figure has always been inexorably linked to that of having, as you put it, "divine authority". IMO it'd be much best if the decision was always given by the Umpire on the field, regardless of how much help he has.

 

[silentstriker]

The deal is that cricket is not American Football - or anything else, FTM. Cricket has always been the way it is, and the role of the Umpire as an authority figure has always been inexorably linked to that of having, as you put it, "divine authority".

I realize it is, but I am asking why it is important for it to be that way.

 

[Richard]

For no other reason than that it's a cherished part of the game.

Not to mention, of course, that there should be at least some connection between the game at the international level as played on midden and maiden, where the standing Umpires are the only custodians.

 

[silentstriker]

For no other reason than that it's a cherished part of the game.

It's a part of the game, but I am not sure who 'cherishes' it. I certainly don't see umpires as anything more than facilitators who are there to make sure everything goes smoothly.

Not to mention, of course, that there should be at least some connection between the game at the international level as played on midden and maiden, where the standing Umpires are the only custodians.

Again, why different from any other sport where referees and officials do the same thing that cricket umpires do (enforce the rules, make judgments, keep everyone in line) but don't have this drive to somehow keep power in their hands.

 

[Isura]

I agree with silentstriker. A similar thing was introduced recently into american football and it is a great addition to the game. Cricket is a lot like american football in that regard, where a single decision can change the game (unlike basketball, baseball)

 

[Richard]

It's a part of the game, but I am not sure who 'cherishes' it. I certainly don't see umpires as anything more than facilitators who are there to make sure everything goes smoothly.

You're a man of America, and I don't mean that in a harsh way. It's generally viewed wholly differently over here - especially in the recreational game.

Again, why different from any other sport where referees and officials do the same thing that cricket umpires do (enforce the rules, make judgments, keep everyone in line) but don't have this drive to somehow keep power in their hands.

Because Umpiring in cricket is like law-enforcement in no other sport. In tennis, football, etc. the Umpire\Referee has far, far less to do than in cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Because Umpiring in cricket is like law-enforcement in no other sport. In tennis, football, etc. the Umpire\Referee has far, far less to do than in cricket.

Well I don't see it as much different from American Football. Lot's of decisions that can go either way, players that need to be watched and game needs to be controlled. But no one places undue importance on them. People go to watch the teams compete fairly, and not to admir e umpires and their power.

 

[Mahindinho]

My view on marginalising umpires:

This is BAD. They're an integral part of the game. The umpire-captain relationship, in particular, is something special and, if not unique, certainly a feature of our sport.

My view on the referral system:

This is GOOD. In this age of super slo-mo TV replays, technology should be used to make the right decision. Note that the _right_ decision may not always be the _correct_ one, e.g. batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt if Hawkeye shows a ball to be just shaving a stump.

Hawkeye's predictive abilities certainly shouldn't be used, but there are many useful things that should, e.g. the ability to overlay a set of stumps on a picture and show the lines of off- and leg-stump, to judge where a ball has pitched. Side-on height data would also be incorruptible evidence.

I've heard that it's worked out really well in the tennis, and like the idea of a team having "x referrals". If KP went on the rampage and used up England's allocation needlessly, I'd expect Vaughan to give him a right proper b*llocking when he finally makes it back to the dressing room!

Oh, and Freddie should just give him the mother of all wedgies

 

[Richard]

Well I don't see it as much different from American Football. Lot's of decisions that can go either way, players that need to be watched and game needs to be controlled. But no one places undue importance on them. People go to watch the teams compete fairly, and not to admir e umpires and their power.

Speak for yourself - as you know with my sig, IMO an Umpire is more of a legend of this game than anyone, and the fact that his book was the biggest-selling sports autobiography of all-time suggests I'm not quite the only one there either...

What people go to watch is hardly relevant anyway - authority isn't about spectacle.

 

[Mahindinho]

I didn't see some of SS and Richard's posts before writing my last one, but I'm with Richard on this one.

As long as the referral man (3rd ump?) gives the benefit of the doubt to the on-pitch umpire, that's fine by me. There'll still be so much that only the on-pitch umpires will deal with, e.g. running onto the pitch (thank you, Dilhara), bad light, replacing discoloured balls, and basically making the first decisions in all circumstances.

Look at the way run-outs are adjudicated now. I'll bet the same arguments are being brought out now that were brought out back when the referral system was brought in for those. I think everyone now agrees that they're a good thing.

 

[Swervy]

Speak for yourself - as you know with my sig, IMO an Umpire is more of a legend of this game than anyone, and the fact that his book was the biggest-selling sports autobiography of all-time suggests I'm not quite the only one there either...

bit of a grand statement for Dickie Birds book isnt it?

 

[silentstriker]

Speak for yourself - as you know with my sig, IMO an Umpire is more of a legend of this game than anyone, and the fact that his book was the biggest-selling sports autobiography of all-time suggests I'm not quite the only one there either...

Well see, I suppose this is where I differ. I don't want umpires to become legends. I want them to do their job, and do it well, and be respected for that, but when they become the center of attention...something is wrong.

 

[Nishant]

Well see, I suppose this is where I differ. I don't want umpires to become legends. I want them to do their job, and do it well, and be respected for that, but when they become the center of attention...something is wrong.

true..we dont want them to be legends...but they are part of the game...and we need to accept that.

 

[Richard]

Well see, I suppose this is where I differ. I don't want umpires to become legends. I want them to do their job, and do it well, and be respected for that, but when they become the center of attention...something is wrong.

I don't see why, TBH. I think an Umpire has just as much right as a player to be a legend of the game. You don't have to be the centre-of-attention to achieve that.

 

[Richard]

bit of a grand statement for Dickie Birds book isnt it?

No, it's not, it's statistical fact. Pretty well known statistical fact, at that.

 

[adharcric]

For no other reason than that it's a cherished part of the game.

Poor umpiring is hardly 'cherished'. Let them run the game with authority on the field, but there needs to be a check on their power as well. In the end, this is sport.
The essence of sport is competition and the umpires should only be managing the game and the competition. They should not be able to **** the competition at will.
SS might not be putting it the right way but he is spot on.

 

[Richard]

Where exactly did I say poor Umpiring was cherished (though mistakes - somewhat bizarrely IMO - are by some)? I said the fact that the Umpire's decision is final is cherished, and IMO rightly so. That's the way it's always been. There's no reason not to make that decision as correct as we possibly can, but equally undermining that authority in pursuit of such correctness is a very, very bad idea.

 

[silentstriker]

Where exactly did I say poor Umpiring was cherished (though mistakes - somewhat bizarrely IMO - are by some)? I said the fact that the Umpire's decision is final is cherished, and IMO rightly so. That's the way it's always been. There's no reason not to make that decision as correct as we possibly can, but equally undermining that authority in pursuit of such correctness is a very, very bad idea.

A wrong decision being final does more to hurt an umpires and their image than any referral system ever could.

 

[Richard]

True. Which is all the more reason to avoid such wrong decisions without detracting from the authority.