Referral System

[Athlai]

Rats.

 

[Redbacks]

They're not doing it in the India series!

Just this one, Aus v SA in SA and England v WI according to Tony Cozier.

So Australia can still rely on a few 'home' town decisions in the home series

Was Flynn playing a shot, looked like the bat was tucked behind the pad IIRC

 

[Richard]

Never liked it, terrible idea IMO and better decisions could be got with a different system.

 

[JimmyGS]

Was Flynn playing a shot

Definitely IMO.

 

[wpdavid]

I also hate that they pick and choose random series to 'test' it in. Either use it in every series for a set period of time, or don't use it at all. Idiots.

I think Collingwood would agree with that.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I think the LBW law has to be amended before the referral system is fully implemented.

 

[Precambrian]

I think the LBW law has to be amended before the referral system is fully implemented.

How?

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

How?

I was talking about the interpretation, regarding doubt and all that jazz.

Like the Flynn dismissal, it would have been not out 90% of the time. However, if we are going to use technology like today, then that sort of interpretation has to be thrown out the window.

It's like when you see a hawkeye replay hitting the top of leg and the commentators saying "good decision" when the batsman was given not out.

 

[four_or_six]

I like the idea of referring, hate the idea of the players having to challenge the umpires. Just let the umpires refer it, same way as the runouts. That works fine.

 

[wpdavid]

I like the idea of referring, hate the idea of the players having to challenge the umpires. Just let the umpires refer it, same way as the runouts. That works fine.

Does that include the 3rd umpire? If so, I can see your point. Otherwise, why would an on-field umpire refer a decision that he thinks was right?

I'm OK with players asking for referrals up to a max of 3 duff calls by them per innings. That way, we avoid the sort of decision that saw off Collingwood today, whilst not giving bowlers licence to refer every decision that doesn't go their way.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What I want to know is if all of the ball has to pitch in line with the stumps, or only the part that touches the ground, or only a section, or what!

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What I want to know is if all of the ball has to pitch in line with the stumps, or only the part that touches the ground, or only a section, or what!

9.1. When using technology to determine where the ball pitched (as per Law 36.1(b)), the TV umpire should refer to the “point” (or centre) of the ball. Therefore if at least 50% of the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump, then no lbw dismissal is possible.

source: http://www.supersport.co.za/cricket/content.aspx?id=15797&print=1 and http://l.yimg.com/t/icccricket/pdfs/umpire-decision-review-system-playing-conditions.pdf

 

[vic_orthdox]

Thanks.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

9.1. When using technology to determine where the ball pitched (as per Law 36.1(b)), the TV umpire should refer to the “point” (or centre) of the ball. Therefore if at least 50% of the ball pitches outside the line of leg stump, then no lbw dismissal is possible.

source: http://www.supersport.co.za/cricket/content.aspx?id=15797&print=1 and http://l.yimg.com/t/icccricket/pdfs/umpire-decision-review-system-playing-conditions.pdf

There it is.

 

[Woodster]

I like the idea of referring, hate the idea of the players having to challenge the umpires. Just let the umpires refer it, same way as the runouts. That works fine.

Yes fully agree. There's something not right at all about the players deciding if the umpire has got it wrong. Something along these lines of the umpire using the third ump if necessary is a better way to go for me. The trap then is the umpire refers nearly everything as he doesn't want to get it wrong, and that may take some time.

Not sure the third ump should have much to do at Dunedin with referrals, as the ball is deviating very little, and there's not too many close calls knocking around just yet (at least in the first two sessions I saw).

 

[NUFAN]

Was more than 50 % of the ball pitching in line with the stumps for the Flynn dismissal?

I think 50% isn't enough, it should be more like 75%.

 

[duffer]

Loved the refferal system tbh. Will make spinners like Mendis (yeah I know he's a freak) every bit as dangerous as a top line quick. Let's get to refining the methodolgy and implementation behind the system and get to a blanket application of the whole thing.

 

[Precambrian]

I was talking about the interpretation, regarding doubt and all that jazz.

Like the Flynn dismissal, it would have been not out 90% of the time. However, if we are going to use technology like today, then that sort of interpretation has to be thrown out the window.

It's like when you see a hawkeye replay hitting the top of leg and the commentators saying "good decision" when the batsman was given not out.

Test cricket has become bat-heavy in the last decade. And if this system can bring some sort of balance, and purchase for bowlers, and that too correctly, and eliminating human errors, I am all for it. Even though the ratio of success of referrals in the Indo-SL series was something like 20:6, I believe that justice prevailed in that series. And most English fans will be aggrieved at the way Collingwood was dismissed today. Such things which get overblown to utter farce like the Sydney test, must be avoided.

 

[aussie]

I'm all for it, especially based on what i saw in the IND/SRI series. But its a bit crazy to see it tried randomly in a test series, i would have much rathered them test it out in ODI's first. The ICC is so wack.

 

[Richard]

Loved the refferal system tbh. Will make spinners like Mendis (yeah I know he's a freak) every bit as dangerous as a top line quick. Let's get to refining the methodolgy and implementation behind the system and get to a blanket application of the whole thing.

Yeah, whatever method you use, the fact is that getting to a situation where 95-98% of decisions are foolproofly, obviously correct (and 0% is obviously incorrect) is going to benefit spinners hugely.

Spinners have been disadvantaged for decades by the fact that the rules in place are not upheld strictly. If we get to a situation where the batsman is always given out when the ball hits his pad without first touching bat, hasn't pitched outside leg and has hit in line with the stumps, spinners are going to have it inestimably better than they did up to about 2004 or 2005.