Outline your referral system

[Richard]

MNS banned hey, itstl

You know, on first glance I thought that said "MSN banned", was like

 

[GIMH]

What did MNS do to get the push anyway? You usually know

 

[Richard]

Nah, not always at all - sometimes there's deleted gold, which I can't see, of course.

And yeah, usually I look, but in this case I haven't... maybe I will now.

Either way it was always clear he was on a decidedly short lease, most of his posts being deliberately inflammatory and meant only to be derisive.

EDIT: yup, seems that way. BTSO what Gelman says it's a perma as well, thank cricket for that.

 

[Nibbles]

I think its simple. Anyone can refer but it must be done instantly, i.e. within a few seconds of the original decision.

The big thing though is this certainty clause at the moment. That would, in my opinion, breed errors. Lets take this absurd decision yesterday, its quite simple, the ball was higher than the bails when it hit the pad so there is no way that it can hit the wickets, and the decision is therefore not-out. It shouldnt be 'oh, mr on-field-umpire, i think its a little high, what do you think', it should be, 'sorry you are a clown, its not out'

Maybe just make it simple. Give them the predictive element. After all, its pretty widely agreed that its damn close to exactly where the ball would go. But either way, if you use the predictive element, not only will you get a decision instantly, but it gives a precedent, i.e. if the ball is hitting the wickets, its out and vice versa.

That way, if an out decision is referred, and hawkeyes predictive path shows that it would miss the stumps, even by nano metres, the decision is reversed. That eliminates any of this doubt factor. The same as the other way, if its given not out but predictive suggests its going to clip the top of off stump, its out. If predictive suggests its missing, it isnt given out. Simple!

As for decisions about whether its been hit or not, if its such a fine edge that it cant be spotted straight away on either snicko or a replay, then it shouldnt be given out. If its called out and referred and you cant say either way on snicko or a replay, then not out is the call!

I dont understand why cricket always insists on making things difficult for themselves. If your going to use technology, use something that gives the decision a set of parameters to decide once and for all!

 

[Richard]

I think its simple.

Maybe just make it simple.

Aye, that'll be it.

 

[adharcric]

I think teams should have just one unsuccessful referral per innings with all technology available used (snikometer, the predictive measure of hawkeye*, hotspot). This way, batsmen would be insane to refer a decision which is out and we can get the best possible decision without clogging up the game any more than necessary.

One's not enough because freak decisions and situations do come up - definitely should allow two unsuccessful referrals per innings.

The undermining of the authority of the Umpire already mentioned before the damn thing was trialled - which some people seem to like the idea of doing but which is a) useless and b) counter-productive

...

It patently isn't helping a great deal

If something isn't working, you figure out what's wrong and fix it. You don't just throw it away, not unless the alternative is good enough (given the number of pathetic decisions made by on-field umpires, it certainly isn't).

I 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.

Interesting idea. How about both - something like official reviews and challenges in the NFL? Obviously, the umpires would have to be smart about when to use official reviews (they already do it for questionable catches and run outs, but when else?).

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.

Exactly.

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.

The system is flawed in some regards but it really isn't that complicated. I don't usually complain about on-field umpiring (even though I'm sure there are far better umpires that aren't in the "elite" panel) because I know how difficult it can be, but the majority of posters on CW could use the current referral system correctly every time IMO.

 

[howardj]

The 3rd Ump should be able to make a decision independent of the on-field umpire's decision, not start with the premise that the on-field umpire's decision must be obviously wrong in order to be overruled.

 

[silentstriker]

The 3rd Ump should be able to make a decision independent of the on-field umpire's decision, not start with the premise that the on-field umpire's decision must be obviously wrong in order to be overruled.

Disagree. Because then you'll get lost in the 50-50 decisions, which aren't the point of the system.

 

[Richard]

If something isn't working, you figure out what's wrong and fix it. You don't just throw it away, not unless the alternative is good enough (given the number of pathetic decisions made by on-field umpires, it certainly isn't).

The alternative is not using on-field Umpires only, but using a system that uses maximum replay-and-technology available. I hated the referrals system idea before it was used and hate it even more now, and hope it's scrapped. If it takes a bit of time to put in the ideal system, I'm happy - I prefer the on-field-only one to the current nonsense.