Outline your referral system

[Lillian Thomson]

There hasn't been an experiment as successful as this since Lord Percy attempted to turn base metal into gold and ended up inventing some "green".

 

[SJS]

think the only referal system that is worth having is where the onfield umpires refer to the third umpire for clarification in case of doubt (regarding pitching of ball outside leg stump, point of contact, clean catch, bat pad etc). Let him get the feedback from the off field umpire with the help of TV, replays etc and if it makes his doubt disappear - good, if not the 'benefit of doubt to batsman' remains.

It should be possible for ICC to instruct the ump[ires not to hesitate to refer and that a referal would not be considered as signs of a less competent umpire while a wrong decision where a referal might have helped might be.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nasser grilling Hurst right now. Hurst doing a terrible job of defending Harper.

 

[Richard]

And having to keep correcting Hussain about whether third-Umpire "overrules" on-field Umpire or not.

 

[silentstriker]

Fire the morons who willfully refuse to follow the rules. You only overturn if you're sure. They don't do that. Start fining them for such obvious mistakes. ICC is very fond of fining players their match fees - time to do that to the umpires.

If you see three replays from two angles, and with the hotspot, snicko, hawkeye, and you can't decide, then the onfield decision stands. That's it. If its not obvious, you don't change it. The whole point of the system is to get rid of the crazy obvious calls, not nitpick 50/50 decisions.

This pisses me off so much - I will bet ICC will blame the system and not their implementation of it, and use it as an excuse to abandon the whole thing.

 

[Richard]

It's not remotely surprising that people can't implement a system that makes things so ridiculously needlessly overcomplicated.

If you make the information available BEFORE THE DECISION IS MADE rather than after, it will be infinitely less convoluted with possibilities than it is now.

What's the point in using a complicated system when a simpler one would do a better job?

All of this should've been thought about before. This diabolical system should never, ever have been used.

 

[shivfan]

No system will work, as long as incompetent umpires like Daryl Harper are the ones using it....

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[MendisNuffSaid]

It's pretty remarkable that these umpires still cannot make the right decision even with the assistance of technology. Darly Harper, for example, is mentally instable. How do you apply for the job as an umpire? I'm more curious about this than where the ICC hires them from.

 

[MendisNuffSaid]

Fire the morons who willfully refuse to follow the rules. You only overturn if you're sure. They don't do that. Start fining them for such obvious mistakes. ICC is very fond of fining players their match fees - time to do that to the umpires.

If you see three replays from two angles, and with the hotspot, snicko, hawkeye, and you can't decide, then the onfield decision stands. That's it. If its not obvious, you don't change it. The whole point of the system is to get rid of the crazy obvious calls, not nitpick 50/50 decisions.

This pisses me off so much - I will bet ICC will blame the system and not their implementation of it, and use it as an excuse to abandon the whole thing.

Completely agreed, excellent post!

 

[Sanz]

Fire the morons who willfully refuse to follow the rules. You only overturn if you're sure. They don't do that. Start fining them for such obvious mistakes. ICC is very fond of fining players their match fees - time to do that to the umpires.

If you see three replays from two angles, and with the hotspot, snicko, hawkeye, and you can't decide, then the onfield decision stands. That's it. If its not obvious, you don't change it. The whole point of the system is to get rid of the crazy obvious calls, not nitpick 50/50 decisions.

This pisses me off so much - I will bet ICC will blame the system and not their implementation of it, and use it as an excuse to abandon the whole thing.

That's what many of us have been saying, Technology in the hands of incompetent people is of no use, infact it is dangerous. Can't speak for others, but IMO as long as humans are in charge of looking at the replays and making the decision, we are going to have the same issues of inconsistent and incorrect decisions

 

[silentstriker]

No, if they followed their own rules, there would be very few problems. I don't know if its intentional or they really are this stupid, but the officials don't seem to know the rules - which is ridiculous for an umpire.

 

[Sanz]

That's what I am saying, technology isn't a replacement for incompetence.

 

[Lostman]

No, if they followed their own rules, there would be very few problems. I don't know if its intentional or they really are this stupid, but the officials don't seem to know the rules - which is ridiculous for an umpire.

Just finished watching the highlight, and if anything this is proof that we need a referral system in place.
If these people cant make decisions watching a replay, what does that tell you about their standards, and why should we trust them? I pay to watch the players, not some umpire screwing up. This is one of the reasons I cant stand Bowden. The guy acts like clown and tries to put himself in the center of the game. For all I care R2D2 can be standing by the stumps, as long as all the right decisions are made.

 

[shivfan]

Clearly, some umpires don't know how to use the technology....

The umpires on the misnamed elite panel should be given a test on the use of the system, and graded accordingly, BEFORE they're unleashed on the Test arena to wreak havoc.

 

[kingkallis]

With the referral system, for gloving the ball down legside, it's almost better for the on-field umpire to give it out, even if he's not sure. If the batsman hasn't hit it, then he'll refer it and get it overturned - if he has, then he'll just walk off and both teams keep their referrals in place!

Someone from Germany sent this. Its an interesting idea!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

With the referral system, for gloving the ball down legside, it's almost better for the on-field umpire to give it out, even if he's not sure. If the batsman hasn't hit it, then he'll refer it and get it overturned - if he has, then he'll just walk off and both teams keep their referrals in place!

Someone from Germany sent this. Its an interesting idea!

Alright in theory but replays aren't always conclusive. If it's a faint touch the batsman will stand his ground and take his chance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Alright in theory but replays aren't always conclusive. If it's a faint touch the batsman will stand his ground and take his chance.

And if it's not conclusive then the umpire should give it "not out". However, given that the system does not fully empower the third umpire, if it's inconclusive the original decision should be upheld. Basically it's an onfield system that relies on "benefit of doubt to the batsman" and an off-field system that tends to contradict it.

 

[Richard]

That's what many of us have been saying, Technology in the hands of incompetent people is of no use, infact it is dangerous. Can't speak for others, but IMO as long as humans are in charge of looking at the replays and making the decision, we are going to have the same issues of inconsistent and incorrect decisions

And as I've said before, if humans aren't in charge of looking at replays, then no-one is in charge of it. Thus, having replays at all is pointless.

 

[Richard]

Alright in theory but replays aren't always conclusive. If it's a faint touch the batsman will stand his ground and take his chance.

Snickometers and HotSpots would soon sort that out... if Umpires were actually allowed to use the damn things.

 

[GIMH]

MNS banned hey, itstl

I don't have detailed analysis at this point but I haven't really enjoyed the referral system in its current format.