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

[adharcric]

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

How do you plan to achieve that?

 

[Richard]

I think I've said it before and I'm too to do so again tonight, but rest assured - in due course, it shall be done!

The main emphasis is on subtelty and careful placing of the balance of power - along, of course, with completely maximising everything available (and, vitally, allowing such things to filter down as far as possible, certainly into the domestic game and ideally into that of the richer clubs too - as I say, maintaing a link between the game at the international level and that played on midden and maiden is vital) which can improve the quality of the decision-making. You're never going to get complete riddance of errors (or, perhaps, it might be more accurate to say you're never going to get zero decisions which are debatable) but you can go damn close IMO.

 

[FRAZ]

As Wasim would say that "Keep the game as natural as possible" . I don't agree with this decision cuz it will just eat up the time even more !!!

 

[Richard]

Is time not a worthy sacrifice for the sake of avoiding errors, though?

(And I might add - if you do things my way time would not be wasted at all - and enough time is wasted between deliveries as it is - was gonna throw in a rolleyes there but then thought of poor Gelman, who I think has been traumatised enough in the last day or so)

 

[adharcric]

I think I've said it before and I'm too to do so again tonight, but rest assured - in due course, it shall be done!

The main emphasis is on subtelty and careful placing of the balance of power - along, of course, with completely maximising everything available (and, vitally, allowing such things to filter down as far as possible, certainly into the domestic game and ideally into that of the richer clubs too - as I say, maintaing a link between the game at the international level and that played on midden and maiden is vital) which can improve the quality of the decision-making. You're never going to get complete riddance of errors (or, perhaps, it might be more accurate to say you're never going to get zero decisions which are debatable) but you can go damn close IMO.

Just a little confused right now. Do you mean to say that the ICC should draft in better umpires?

Sure, they can do that ... I still don't see anything wrong with having a few poor decisions challenged (and overturned) to maximize the fairness of the competition.

 

[LA ICE-E]

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)

yeah, you're right and that's good imo.

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

yes but the decisions should be based on that alone and only should be change as poker boy said if it's clearly wrong.

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

Well the ICC took notice of that like in their last meeting but than there was a loud cry from the umpires about being dummies and etc

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.

I agree that umpires are part of the game but if their wrong decision is corrected i don't see what's the problem or why the umpire would feel disrespected. I mean I know that the umpires know that they get some decisions wrong and that's ok because humans makes mistakes so I don't see why they would feel disrespected which is why it wasn't used when it came up in the last icc meeting.

 

[Richard]

It is if the player is allowed to question it that the problem arises.

 

[Richard]

Just a little confused right now. Do you mean to say that the ICC should draft in better umpires?

Well it might be ideal but unfortunately you can only pick what's there and right now there aren't a hell of a lot of good Umpires.

Sure, they can do that ... I still don't see anything wrong with having a few poor decisions challenged (and overturned) to maximize the fairness of the competition.

Even Umpires who make rashes of errors like Daryl Harper do still have an important cog to turn in that they generally retain their authority. That will be compromised if bad decisions can be challenged by the players.

 

[silentstriker]

It is if the player is allowed to question it that the problem arises.

I didn't get an edge and the umpire says I did, of course, I want to question it. If I couldn't question it, I'd just think the umpire was a dolt and wouldn't really have any respect for him anyway.

 

[Richard]

Some people don't bear lifetime grudges, y'know.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So has anyone watched one of these games on Sky or at the ground and seen how this system is working?

 

[STRAIGHT BREAKS]

As Wasim would say that "Keep the game as natural as possible" . I don't agree with this decision cuz it will just eat up the time even more !!!

It doesn't take much time, bowlers take 10 minutes between deliveries anyway, and 20 between overs. That's far more tedious.

Would you prefer that run-outs went back to being judged by the naked eye because of the massive chunk of time it takes up?

 

[Swervy]

So has anyone watched one of these games on Sky or at the ground and seen how this system is working?

I think Sundays game on Sky was the first

 

[Nishant]

I think Sundays game on Sky was the first

yep it was!

 

[SJS]

I think the idea is good.

- The time taken factor is not relevant.
- The umpires-authority-reuced same as above
- The hawk-eye fallibility is a valid point but that should never be allowed to be used for anything but to assess

- where the ball pitched and
- whether the point point of contact was in line with the stumps.​

A limited use of the snickometer (where the issue is not clouded by doubt of other contacts besides bat and ball at the same time) could be very effective and a much better option than the ear pieces.

PS : .......As long as we are keeping the 'benefit of doubt' clause always in mind.

 

[LA ICE-E]

It is if the player is allowed to question it that the problem arises.

Well I kind of see where you're coming from but what's wrong with that? Doesn't the umpires already know that they get some decisions wrong? And this would the "legend umpires" up to a new level if they never get questioned when they could have by the players.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Even Umpires who make rashes of errors like Daryl Harper do still have an important cog to turn in that they generally retain their authority. That will be compromised if bad decisions can be challenged by the players.

Well challenging a wrong decision shouldn't do that because this rule would only be used when the player knows for sure that he isn't out because otherwise it goes with the on field umpires so the players would challenge it unless they know for sure that they are not out. So what's wrong with that? And if there's a problem with the umpire's authority and a player not respecting the umpires well there's the match referees for that to punish the players for that.

 

[Richard]

Well I kind of see where you're coming from but what's wrong with that? Doesn't the umpires already know that they get some decisions wrong? And this would the "legend umpires" up to a new level if they never get questioned when they could have by the players.

Well challenging a wrong decision shouldn't do that because this rule would only be used when the player knows for sure that he isn't out because otherwise it goes with the on field umpires so the players would challenge it unless they know for sure that they are not out. So what's wrong with that? And if there's a problem with the umpire's authority and a player not respecting the umpires well there's the match referees for that to punish the players for that.

The point of all this is that it's never before been allowed for a player to specifically say "that decision was wrong". Everyone knows Umpires make mistakes, but until now if a player questioned a decision they would be punished. That is no longer the case. And for me, it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[slugger]

Ok i read every ones post and i can gather from the debate, that some folk dont wish the ump. role on the game to undermind or the game is fine as is.

one thing id like to point out when tv wasnt part of cricket the ump, had the best sit in the house to make a decision and every one trusted he did. when cricket first made its way onto tv something was picked "up" by the cameras (most importantly replays) that the naked eye (sq. leg ump) could not. this was the run out calls, once tv became part of cricket there was a new umpire, the camera!! run outs to this point is the only time this ump, is utilised. im sure you wouldnt fine many people who would say the run out camera (3rd ump.) have made the wrong decision.

edges, lbw a next in line the camera tech. has improved, from hawk eye, to snicko, and that new one channel 9 had hot spot i think.

furthermore why are the ump. worried about being over turned if they were so inflallible they should be saying "bring it on" .

Ump would also have a true record of their succes rate, wrong decision/ right decision ratio, therefore icc could use this info to have the top ump. in the important games, wc cup finals etc. and even playes/capt. can use this info on make the right decision whether to refer or not.

 

[silentstriker]

Some people don't bear lifetime grudges, y'know.

It's not about bearing a grudge...cricket is a 19th century sport which was created without the benefit of replays and television technologies. Back then, you can completely understand why the umpire was given such powers, but the powers given to umpires are non-existent if every person sitting on a couch can easily see that the umpire is ****e just by pressing the replay button. To further expose umpires to that and not allow players to be able to challenge human error is ludicrous.