Player referrals to be tried

[Dasa]

Such as?

 

[Richard]

Such as the system I've advocated a large number of times - can't remember, unfortunately, where the last time was, and to explain takes about 5 paragraphs, so I'd prefer not type it out again TBH.

As I've said before, though - sometimes you, Dasa, like ss, seem more concerned with taking authority away from Umpires than getting as many correct decisions as possible. Which I find a little odd TSTL. You both even admitted as such, IIRR.

 

[biased indian]

Such as the system I've advocated a large number of times - can't remember, unfortunately, where the last time was, and to explain takes about 5 paragraphs, so I'd prefer not type it out again TBH.

Are sure it will take you lot of time ?????

 

[silentstriker]

As I've said before, though - sometimes you, Dasa, like ss, seem more concerned with taking authority away from Umpires than getting as many correct decisions as possible. Which I find a little odd TSTL. You both even admitted as such, IIRR.

The less authority a bunch of egomaniacal idiots have the better. And the sooner we move away from this antiquated 19th century notion about 'umpire uber alles' or some such nonsense, the better.

That alone will go a long way to improving the number of correct decisions, as people won't interject with 'b...but....the UMPIRE might feel left out' or some other ridiculous notion anytime something is proposed that could improve the accuracy. Who the hell cares about umpires? We need someone to count the overs and hold the hats, so they need to be there. Outside of that, I couldn't care less.

 

[Goughy]

Officials have to control what goes on out there. Lots of things are judgement calls in all sports. Cricket is lightyears ahead of sports like Football and basketball in terms of accuracy of decisions.

Now with keeping the umpire as the sole arbiter of what goes on, Ive no issue with something being used to improve the proccess if possible.

The specific reponsibilities of an Umpire shouldnt be protected and nor should we worry if their involvement is lessened, but they still (in conjunction with the 3rd umpire) are the decision makers and those that control the game on the field.

 

[four_or_six]

Very strange decision... wasn't this a complete farce during the trials in county cricket last season?!

 

[silentstriker]

Very strange decision... wasn't this a complete farce during the trials in county cricket last season?!

What was the implementation like?

 

[four_or_six]

What was the implementation like?

I can't remember exactly... I think basically the fielding captain / batsman was able to appeal, as long as it was immediate (ie. they hadn't seen a replay). Then the third umpire decided on whether to uphold the decision.

Virtually every decision was upheld iirc, partly as the third umpires didn't want to undermine their on-field colleagues. Also, I don't think that many were referred.

I also seem to remember some 'dispute' on the field in a Somerset match between Langer and one of the bowlers because he didn't refer a not-out early in the season. Possibly Caddick... can anyone remember?

 

[silentstriker]

Virtually every decision was upheld iirc, partly as the third umpires didn't want to undermine their on-field colleagues.

If the third umpires are violating their duty to uphold the laws of the game, fire them. It's that simple. There should be reviews of them just like there is of on field umpires. If they view a replay and get it wrong - that should count against them. Umpires don't make the laws - they are there to make sure the laws are enforced.

 

[pasag]

The less authority a bunch of egomaniacal idiots have the better...

Lol at the overreacting again. So extreme.

 

[silentstriker]

Lol at the overreacting again. So extreme.

Haha, can't stand umpires tbh. All of them have too high an opinion of themselves. You get few gems like Dickie or Taufel. But, on the whole, they're all dire. But even if all umpires were as good as Taufel, it still wouldn't be good enough. When the outcome of a whole Test match rests on one decision - you better do everything possible to get it right.

 

[pasag]

BTW, if this gets the green light then there is not that much of a compelling argument against home umpires being reintroduced.

 

[silentstriker]

BTW, if this gets the green light then there is not that much of a compelling argument of home umpires being reintroduced.

I agree. I wouldn't mind that.

 

[Goughy]

You guys are too young

Home umpires are the biggest no-no possible.

 

[pasag]

I don't see why not. Umpires have a crazy workload and if any bias or illusion of bias can be shown up by the players then why shouldn't they be allowed to umpire home Tests.

 

[silentstriker]

You guys are too young

Home umpires are the biggest no-no possible.

You think that if players get the right to appeal, it'll really matter if the umpires are home based?

I can understand accusations of bias, but if you can appeal decisions anyway, not a big deal. If the away side has to consistently appeal for (and succeed) than the home team, then it might be something to look into.

 

[Richard]

You guys are too young

Home umpires are the biggest no-no possible.

I'm not. I agree 100% that home Umpires are a recipe for disaster and I fully understand the reasons why.

And Gelman and ss are a year older than me too

 

[Goughy]

I don't see why not. Umpires have a crazy workload and if any bias or illusion of bias can be shown up by the players then why shouldn't they be allowed to umpire home Tests.

Its not just bias, mistakes etc (though that obviously does play a role).

Its the 2 fold problem of contacts and friend and peers amongst the establishment of one of the sides. There is also a certain level of patronage. Its impossible to not be impacted to a degree one way or another. Even if they are the few that can then that perception will exist.

Technology will not be able to cover everything and the umpires are still in control of the judgement calls. eg Player behaviour, intimidatiory bowling, ball tampering, running on the wicket etc

Most importantly. Its to enable umpires to get out before the **** storm. There will always be a certain amount of controversy.

Now lets take it to near the extreme. Lets assume (rightly or wrongly) that Hair was making what he believed to be an impartial and correct decision in the Oval game.

Now imagine if that was a Pakistani umpire doing exactly same in a game in Pakistan. He then had to live in that Country. His life would be very difficut, if not dangerous.

Old Shep had his confidence ruined by his mistakes being repeatedly shown when giving English players out off no-balls.

Ship 'em in and ship 'em out again. There is no reason for an Umpire to have to live on a day to day basis with controversy in their home Country.

Make your decisions and move on. Tomorrow is another day.

If referals were to happen it would have to be like NFL where there would have to be 100% conclusive proof that a mistake was made in order to reverse the decision. 99% isnt enough.

In cricket, its the 50-50 decisions that are subject to bias and are hard to tell whether its the rub of the greeen or intentional.

 

[Richard]

The less authority a bunch of egomaniacal idiots have the better.

As Gelman said - overreaction IMO. There are the odd few egomaniacal idiots out there (the Ross Emersons) but most of them are fundamentally decent people - heck, I believe there's a fair amount of fundamental decency in Darrell Hair FFS - but it's far from restricted to the likes of Harold and Simon Taufel to be decent eggs.

Give Daryl Harper the right tools and he too will have Tests and Tests at a time go by without a single error. Heck, give you or me (or Gelman) it and there'll be a substantial chance of that.

It's essential that Umpires retain the ability to control play - the ability to tell the players to stop X or Y if things get heated. This part of the Umpire's job is more important than decision-making, which any fool can do if they get the right tools.

 

[silentstriker]

If referals were to happen it would have to be like NFL where there would have to be 100% conclusive proof that a mistake was made in order to reverse the decision. 99% isnt enough.

I agree. Normally, you wouldn't expect to see more than 30-35% of decisions reversed (maybe as low as 15-20%). And that's fine IMO.