CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[Black_Warrior]

I was telling a friend the other day that the batsmen in cricket are like men on earth treating the bowlers - the women - like inferior species. Even the pleadings of two women(read bowlers) in the case of cricket is considered the equal to that of a single men and the laws, as always are made and changed by and for men ONLY.

Agree with your basic point but not the example.
Men are quite capable of treating lesser men (less poweful men) like inferior species
Women are quite capable of treating lesser women (less powerful women) like inferior species..

The issue here is that of power and powerlessness.. Throughout cricketing history, batsmen have been given more power, they have the benefit of doubt, they have the power to decide when the light is good (thankfully changed now), pitches are made to suit them, ball is changed to suit them, power play is introduced to suit them.


For example, if the BCB were to introduce something like split innings ODIs, you would see the entire cricketing world including ICC take them to task for daring to change the foundations of the game.

CA, BCCI are two of the most powerful boards and they know it.

So when you give someone so much power (whether its men, women, cricket board, batsmen), 9.5 times out of 10, they will abuse it.

 

[pasag]

Was on the train tonight and there was a copy of the sport section of The Australian, there was an article on the split innings ODI changes and apparently there was talk within CA about having one batsmen have a second chance in the new format but it was ditched because it would "hurt the integrity of the game"

 

[silentstriker]

 

[jondavluc]

Was on the train tonight and there was a copy of the sport section of The Australian, there was an article on the split innings ODI changes and apparently there was talk within CA about having one batsmen having a second chance in the new format but it was ditched because it would "hurt the integrity of the game"

 

[Furball]

The one thing that should change about referrals is that marginal hawkeye decisions which rely on the on-field umpire's call shouldn't cost a side a referral.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The one thing that should change about referrals is that marginal hawkeye decisions which rely on the on-field umpire's call shouldn't cost a side a referral.

Nah, I like that. Hopefully discourages all but the real howlers from being referred.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, I agree with GF. Doesn't sit right with me that a side loses a referral for something that would be given out if the batsmen referred it (if that makes sense).

 

[social]

As someone said earlier, CA is a commercial enterprise

The players have been reported as being in favour of less international odis with more emphasis being placed upon series of significance

That's a totally logical approach but was unlikely to gain favour as less matches produces lower television revenues

So the "compromise" is to change the rules in the hope that it will attract new fans or disaffected ones back to the game without reducing the number of televised matches

 

[BoyBrumby]

Nah, I agree with GF. Doesn't sit right with me that a side loses a referral for something that would be given out if the batsmen referred it (if that makes sense).

That's the point tho; Hawkeye's not 100% & the "umpire's call" recognises this. UDRS should only be for the real howlers, IMHO.

 

[GIMH]

That's the point tho; Hawkeye's not 100% & the "umpire's call" recognises this. UDRS should only be for the real howlers, IMHO.

Aye, no arguments; I'm fine with such calls staying as they are but less so with the referring side losing the referral.

 

[Furball]

That's the point tho; Hawkeye's not 100% & the "umpire's call" recognises this. UDRS should only be for the real howlers, IMHO.

Ball is bowled, raps the batsman on the pads, fielding side appeals and the finger goes up. Batsman thinks "hmm, I got quite a long way forward there and it hit me pretty high", and after consultation with the non-striker calls for the review. Hawkeye shows 2 things: that the batsman got 2.5m down the pitch, and that the ball would probably have shaved the bails - as there's an element of doubt, the decision of the umpire is upheld and the batsman is on his way.

While UDRS didn't overturn the decision, in that circumstance it didn't exactly uphold the decision either: had the finger not initially gone up and the fielding side had called for a review, the batsman wouldn't have been given out on review because of the doubt involved.

In such circumstances I don't think teams should suffer the loss of a review. I accept that the review system is there to remove shocking decisions (such at the LBW Trott got in the 2nd Test where he middled the ball onto his pads), but there has to be some leeway when the technology isn't 100% perfect. Reviews should only be lost when the technology absolutely 100% upholds the umpire's original decision. If there's doubt and the decision comes down to what the on-field umpire originally gave, then the decision isn't exactly being reviewed, and teams shouldn't be charged a review for it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nah, I like that. Hopefully discourages all but the real howlers from being referred.

With this. You shouldn't be referring LBWs tactically if you think you might be on the front foot, it might be shaving the bails, it might be glancing leg - you should be referring the LBW that you middle onto your pad or the caught behind that comes off your arse.

 

[nightprowler10]

With this. You shouldn't be referring LBWs tactically if you think you might be on the front foot, it might be shaving the bails, it might be glancing leg - you should be referring the LBW that you middle onto your pad or the caught behind that comes off your arse.

This.

 

[Jezroy]

With this. You shouldn't be referring LBWs tactically if you think you might be on the front foot, it might be shaving the bails, it might be glancing leg - you should be referring the LBW that you middle onto your pad or the caught behind that comes off your arse.

Firstly, upon quick reading I thought that said shaving the balls.

Secondly, while I agree with you, as long as the players think they can have a punt on things, the picky things which could actually go either way are going to continue. So maybe it is time to try 1 decision per team.

 

[Uppercut]

There'll be a massive controversy before too long where a dead-straight ball hitting middle stump halfway up isn't overturned on referral because the batsman plonked his foot more than 2.5m down the pitch.

But once that high-profile boob is out of the way, it'll just become accepted as part of the game. Rightly so, too.

 

[Streetwise]

Fine the captain and the players involved if it looks like they are abusing the system by appealing for decisions that are obviously right.

Considering the teams having most problems with UDRS are India and Pakistan can you imagine the uproar if either captain was fined for abusing the referalls. This could not happened unless Ponting or Strauss were also fined.

 

[Hurricane]

I understand Sachin Tendulkar's point that split innings will take away the importance of the toss deciding a match.

But I don't understand why it will attract more crowds. I am personally highly annoyed that they want to make this change. Not that I am Australian but I figure if they change it there they could change it for everyone.

Why will split innings attract more crowds. People will still bat conservatively at the end of the first inning and beginning of the second inning. How does this solve the boring middle overs that people are complaining about (that I personally enjoy watching).

My questions are not rhetorical and I would enjoy a response from someone justifying how split innings will attract more crowds just so that I can understand the issue better.

 

[Cruxdude]

I am totally for UDRS. If I remember right the only bug blunder with UDRS on the last Indian tour to Srilanka was a Sehwag LBW decision where hawk eye registered only the impact of the ball on the back leg and not the front one (which was outside leg). Considering that this can be solved with hot spot. I don't see why we shouldn't have UDRS against Australia.

The Srilanka series was more an issue of us being dumb with referrals.

 

[Streetwise]

I understand Sachin Tendulkar's point that split innings will take away the importance of the toss deciding a match.

But I don't understand why it will attract more crowds. I am personally highly annoyed that they want to make this change. Not that I am Australian but I figure if they change it there they could change it for everyone.

Why will split innings attract more crowds. People will still bat conservatively at the end of the first inning and beginning of the second inning. How does this solve the boring middle overs that people are complaining about (that I personally enjoy watching).

My questions are not rhetorical and I would enjoy a response from someone justifying how split innings will attract more crowds just so that I can understand the issue better.

It will open the game up, so many more different situations can occur.

I did hear that the bowlers can bowl 12 overs meaning that only four bowlers will be needed and each team have 12 players in the team so one bowlers does not have to bat.
3 bowlers and WK leaving 7 batsmen, no blocking in the middle overs if you have 7 batsmen.

 

[Matt79]

I am totally for UDRS. If I remember right the only bug blunder with UDRS on the last Indian tour to Srilanka was a Sehwag LBW decision where hawk eye registered only the impact of the ball on the back leg and not the front one (which was outside leg). Considering that this can be solved with hot spot. I don't see why we shouldn't have UDRS against Australia.

The Srilanka series was more an issue of us being dumb with referrals.

I was firmly against the UDRS until I saw it in action. Am a fan now. Ok, there can be mistakes made under it, but less mistakes than the current system. Does it really matter if the new system isn't perfect if it is demonstrably better than the old one?