3rd Umpires

[sean]

Should they make all the decisions? Have your say here!

 

[Cybersmurf]

no i don't think they should, but if there is any doubt they should diffenitly use them

 

[Andre]

no. let the game have its mistakes

 

[marc71178]

Tricky one that, I'd say no, some things gain no benefit from TV replaying.

 

[Dingo]

Well cricket didn't have third umpires in its first 120-odd years and it came through nicely...most other sports don't feel the need for a third umpire (rugby being the main exception but then it's not a real sport ) and I think that cricket should keep the 'third eye' for run-outs and stumpings only.

 

[kezzalee]

i kinda agree with marc71178 'cos the way the rules are at the moment, replayin' the wicket over and over does not change a thing. once a decision has been made, get over it already. replay it once, twice if u hafta, but afta that just leave it be.

altho the third umpire can b a great help with controversial situations, the field umpires should try 2 keep the third umpire as uninvolved as possible 2 preserve the naturalness (for lack of a better word) of the game.

 

[James]

I have to disagree.

If you have the technology available why not use it :I

 

[kezzalee]

because it's makin' the game not like it used 2 b, if u get wat i mean... that's one of the whole point about human umpires: mistakes r made - it's a part of the game's history. y change something like that just because we can??? i know that kinda sounds stupid, but try 2 think traditionally here...

 

[sean]

edited by administrator

 

[Eyes_Only]

As an umpire myself I think it's great to have the Third Umpire there to use if and when it's needed but the contiunal overuse of it undermines the Umpires ability to make his/her own decsions.

I think there should be limits on its use...For example you can only use it on line-ball runouts when there is an obstruction in the line of the Umpire's vision and possibly for LBW decsions.

Other than that, leave it up to the Umps to make the decsions. We are human after all and we do make mistakes. But don't leave it up to the replays to do it for us....after all do you want a TV in the middle as an Ump??

I think not!!

 

[Top_Cat]

I have to disagree.

If you have the technology available why not use it

That depends on if the 'technology' is indeed available. There is *some* technology available for sure but the issue here is whether it is *adequate* technology.

I don't think it's good enough to do disputed catches or LBW's so until it is and can be guaranteed accurate, it'll always just be a novelty.

Having said that, I do like the human aspect of the game when umpire's make mistake because it promotes debate. Also, bad decisions do even out over time with the old adage 'you win some, you lose some'. Life sucks when you didn't hit a ball and were given ou caught behind but sometimes just when you KNOW you nicked one, you'll be given not out and thank your lucky stars.

Mind you, sacrificing accuracy purely in the name of tradition is silly. You'd have to come up with a better argument than that.

 

[MrPerko]

You know, I was trying to think before of a sport where there were more 'debatable' decisions handed down.... but I couldn't really think of any. Most codes of football (I'm talking league, rugby, AFL etc) have some line-ball decisions, but comparitively few to cricket. Soccer's normally pretty clear (apart from off-side decisions). The only possible exception is tennis with line calls (but it's normally the players who try and 'create' a debateable decision, anyway). I'm not exactly sure what point I'm trying to make here, but I think that cricket is probably the most difficult sport in the world to adjudicate. From no-balls (both front-foot and height wise), to lbws (about 10 different factors), to hearing the snicks, to adjudicating on catches, to keeping the score... I'd challenge anyone who said that cricket umpiring was an easy job.


I think that if the third umpire can prove that the batsman was 'not out' when given 'out' within the allocated 2 minutes (I think - someone correct me) before the next batsman is due on the ground - then he should be called back. Alternately, if he was 'out', and wasn't given, then the third umpire has until the end of the over to give him out (would be an interesting situation if you're the batsman and nicked the third ball of the over to the keeper and was given 'not out' - because you know at the end of the over the third umpire will probably give you out... you'd just the smashing the crap out of it!).


I know this probably wouldn't work, but it's something to think about.



However, I do think that there should be some system of calling the front-foot no balls - surely some technology can be used for this to free the umpire up a bit????

 

[Top_Cat]

However, I do think that there should be some system of calling the front-foot no balls - surely some technology can be used for this to free the umpire up a bit????

Yeah I agree but not with the solution. There shouldn't BE a front-foot no-ball rule. It's almost impossible to adjudicate on this and see an LBW or a catch behind without one of them being sacrificed. So revert to the back-foot rule used before this stupid rule and you'll have less no-balls and more accurate umpiring.

I mean, as someone who is a fast bowler I ask, is there really THAT much that a bowler gains if they are even as much as half a foot over the bowling crease? Bear in mind I've bowled two no-balls in my LIFE and one of them was when I slipped on a muddy pitch over the line.

To me, it seems like that umpires are expected to police a rule where the bowlers don't get much of an advantage if they break it, yet it affects the LBW and catch behind decisions quite a lot. It's like arresting drug addicts and letting the drug lords go free; which is the bigger problem here??!?!?

 

[Umpire Money]

U r all weird. There would be no need for third umpires if i umpired all the games. Me being the best umpire in the world.

No seriously. the way they use the 3rd umpire at the moment is ok just not for catches like the other night with Waqar Younis. Darryl Hare was like 3 cm away and he still couldnt see it.
8D 8D

 

[Eyes_Only]

U r all weird. There would be no need for third umpires if i umpired all the games. Me being the best umpire in the world.

No seriously. the way they use the 3rd umpire at the moment is ok just not for catches like the other night with Waqar Younis. Darryl Hare was like 3 cm away and he still couldnt see it.
8D 8D

Just because he was that close, doesn't mean that he saw it...I mean the Umps have so much to look at and watch for....

And besides...they are only human after all!! :P

[Edited on 6/17/02 by Eyes_Only]

 

[Kimbo]

I reckon it should be used for caught behinds. It seems really hard for umps to get it right, and the snickometer is pretty accurate. Umpires often can't hear when crowd noise gets up - or in some cases there is just too manynoises and movements... remember andy flintoff at eden pk... ct behind bowled by andre adams- he missed it by half a foot and andre adams stood there scratching his head as if to say "sorry mate" :P

 

[marc71178]

I think that if the third umpire can prove that the batsman was 'not out' when given 'out' within the allocated 2 minutes (I think - someone correct me) before the next batsman is due on the ground - then he should be called back. Alternately, if he was 'out', and wasn't given, then the third umpire has until the end of the over to give him out (would be an interesting situation if you're the batsman and nicked the third ball of the over to the keeper and was given 'not out' - because you know at the end of the over the third umpire will probably give you out... you'd just the smashing the crap out of it!).

That has to be the most stupid suggestion ever - out is out, it's not, bat on for a bit then leave

I umpired one game in my life, the School first XI vs. the Teachers (including NMK Smith then of England, and Geoff Tedstone, former Gloucester and Warwicks (I think) keeper). I asked if I could do it as a reward for 5 years service with the first XI during which time I scored literally thousands of runs a season

One of the teachers bowled one which the batsman nicked and was caught behind - but was adamant he'd missed the ball and hit the ground. Owing to the strength of the Teachers team, they'd agreed not to appeal for border line decisions, but the situaton overtook them and they appealed - so out he went, after quite a stare.

After the game the Teachers came up and congratulated me on a correct decision, and he had to admit he was out - just goes to show how even in friendly end-of-season games, batsmen are trying to con the officials.

 

[MrPerko]

That has to be the most stupid suggestion ever - out is out, it's not, bat on for a bit then leave

... yeah, it probably was a little stupid.... almost as stupid as the suggestion of giving five runs for a one-bounce four.

 

[marc71178]

Are you going to change your signature, that rocket's fading, it's a five?

 

[Rich2001]

You all say not to have 3rd umpires making the decisions, but I bet you will all come on here and critise the umpires if your team gets a 50/50 decision go agaist them in the next match.

Also just think what it would be like if your team got to the final of the 2003 World Cup and a descision goes the wrong way and it cost your the team the WC how would you feel then?