Who's backing the referral system now?

[silentstriker]

I'd like to see what data you have showing umpires only get 70% of all decisions right.

I have no data. Only the assertion that whatever that number happens to be, it can be bettered by technologies like hot spot, snicko, slow motion and hawk-eye. Though for one series, I'd love to conduct an unofficial tally of all the wrong decisions.

 

[JBH001]

I am against the referral system, wholesale.

It disrupts the flow of the game, and also reduces the onus on the on-field umpire in attempting to make the best possible judgement. Watching the last days play of the NZ vs WI test was at times extremely tedious with endless replay after replay, something that is only likely to be worse with the addition of snicko and hotspot and all the other gadgets. Commentators forever repeating the obvious with every replay, or speculating at the possibilities with extended replays, just made the game even worse as a spectacle for the audience. I imagine the effects on the players in terms of focus and tempo would not have helped either. Leave it up to neutral authorities on the field, suck it up if you get a tough one (it is part of the game, and usually evens out), and get on with the damn game. Worse, the sharing of judgement between player and umpire (which is what the referral system effectively implies) means that there is less of an onus on umpires to give the best possible decision. In other words it is easier for an umpire to give a non-committal decision with the thought that if the player thinks otherwise they can always refer it to someone else to adjudicate. It devolves responsibility on the field, and is conducive to sloppy umpiring.

The silly experiment should be scrapped.

Finally, McCullum's exhibition yesterday was a disgrace. Sure he copped a poor decision from Rudi, but that is no excuse for his petulant carry on after his dismissal and again after the game where he seemed to, again, exchange some words with Rudi. Fair enough you dont want to pull a Sanga and show some class (after the Hobart test last year), but at least shake hands and walk away without mouthing off. After all, its not like McCullum has not in the past appealed for decisions which were not out, or benefited from decisions that were given in his favour. Its just hypocritical and reeks of double standards. I hope he is well fined, or even suspended, for his behaviour.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

As a side note to what I was saying about umpiring mistakes perhaps having positive outcomes - we need only look at Edgbaston 2005. Of course, Kasprowicz had his hand off the bat when he gloved Harmison through to the keeper to give England that famous win. Only technology could have really identified the umpiring error. Had he been given not out, Australia would have gone 2-0 up in the series.

How do you know he wouldn't have been out next ball.

 

[Burgey]

How do you know he wouldn't have been out next ball.

How do you know Harmison wouldn't have bowled 4 wides?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How do you know Harmison wouldn't have bowled 4 wides?

I don't, but I'm not claiming that the decision changed the result.

 

[Top_Cat]

How do you know he wouldn't have been out next ball.

How do you know I didn't just throw up all over my monitor?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How do you know I didn't just throw up all over my monitor?

I don't, but that won't affect the result at Edgbaston either.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't, but that won't affect the result at Edgbaston either.

Good point!

And while we're going on about decisions which might have changed the course of the match, I submit Langer given out on 80-odd when Hawkeye suggested it was just clipping leg-stump (the error in the measurement might have induced enough doubt to give it not-out on referral). The match might have been compltely different had he gone on to a big ton.

Or he could have been so rattled by a close one, he'd have been clean-bowled next ball....

 

[Richard]

Nope. Kasper would have been given out LBW much, much earlier as he should have and it wouldn't have even gotten to that point.

Ahem, I've already mentioned that and I'm not on your ignore-list.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ahem, I've already mentioned that and I'm not on your ignore-list.

Awww, feeling ignored, Richie?

Okay, busted. I don't read every post in a thread before responding.

 

[Richard]

Okay, busted. I don't read every post in a thread before responding.

 

[_Ed_]

Finally, McCullum's exhibition yesterday was a disgrace. Sure he copped a poor decision from Rudi, but that is no excuse for his petulant carry on after his dismissal and again after the game where he seemed to, again, exchange some words with Rudi. Fair enough you dont want to pull a Sanga and show some class (after the Hobart test last year), but at least shake hands and walk away without mouthing off. After all, its not like McCullum has not in the past appealed for decisions which were not out, or benefited from decisions that were given in his favour. Its just hypocritical and reeks of double standards. I hope he is well fined, or even suspended, for his behaviour.

I'll respectfully disagree. I thought he was perfectly entitled to react that way, especially since it put an end to our hopes of winning the match.

You might remember in the tour of Australia before last McCullum received a series of bad decisions, and was praised by even the Australian commentators for the way in which he accepted the umpires' decisions.

 

[howardj]

FFS.

Just because mistakes are made by the 3rd umpire, does not mean that the referral system itself should be dumped. Rather, the 3rd umpire who made the mistake should be. Anyway, the key is to fall back on the principle of the benefit of the doubt when the technology is not conclusive.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'll respectfully disagree. I thought he was perfectly entitled to react that way, especially since it put an end to our hopes of winning the match.

You might remember in the tour of Australia before last McCullum received a series of bad decisions, and was praised by even the Australian commentators for the way in which he accepted the umpires' decisions.

Might be understandable but surely no-one is 'entitled' to bitch at a bad decision. Previous good behaviour is irrelevant to the point, really.

 

[Richard]

As I recall, McCullum is a non-walker. I've mentioned before how NO non-walker EVER has ANY right to bitch about poor decisions IMO.

 

[odeprag]

I don't see what is wrong to take a few seconds out of the game too make sure every decision is made correctly.

 

[Athlai]

As I recall, McCullum is a non-walker. I've mentioned before how NO non-walker EVER has ANY right to bitch about poor decisions IMO.

Well when you didn't hit the ball and you use all the might of technology to prove this and you are still given out I reckon you can rightfully be upset.

It just shows that in its current form the referral system is ****house and it needs to be retuned in order to make mistakes like this entirely a thing of the past. I'm not bothered by Rudi's decision, as human error is acceptable, yet a guy with all the benefit of hindsight couldn't overturn the decision due to pointless and baffling restrictions.

 

[pup11]

Right, cause 95% accuracy is worse than 70% you'd get with an umpire in close decisions like that.

Yeah i know where you are coming from but my point is in case of an inconclusive decision where the 3rd umpire can't even make his mind on what decision to take on the basis of the evidence he has in front of him, then that really sucks, for me the whole point of having such a system in place would be to eradicate any if's and but's, with technology always improving day by day i guess cricket should be able to come up with guidelines helpful enough for the 3rd umpire to make the correct decision almost everytime if such a system is introduced.

 

[aussie]

Still believe it is the right way to go.

But McCullum's shocker, clearly shows it isn't perfected ATM & really should not have been used at test level just yet. They should have trialed it ODI's first them come up with the right formula since it would look pretty foolish if after all these trials in test matches they decide they don't want it.


I think Haydens comments as a player is interesting & very valid though

"To my mind the great part about our game is the umpires have their own fragility," he said. "I think the crowd enjoy the fact that there is speculation about some decisions. I think that would be a very poor ingredient and certainly a flavour loss for the game if we went to the stage where everything was just so mechanical."

You definately don't want it being tooooo mechanical for real. I think teams should just have one referral for that ONE SHOCKING error since (3 seems like overkill). The third also should be allowed to call the front foot no-ball as well.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why don't they just install a voting button in the remotes of people living in the country the test is being played and if the referral decision sucks they can refer the referral to the home viewers? The most correct decisions at the end of the test wins a Samsung home entertainment system, a set of Sidchrome screwdrivers, and a lifetime supply of Aeroplane jelly.

Simple really.