A leap of faith in technology

[zaremba]

Better idea - just don't make the decision until you've looked at the replay. You don't need to correct a mistake if you don't make one.

I think that system would be unwieldy. In any event it's academic because no-one would buy it.

 

[Richard]

Why and why?

Isn't not making mistakes that much better than making them and correcting them?

 

[_Ed_]

I think umpires would then start to take a "best to be on the safe side" approach and look at the replay for almost everything (which they do to an extent with run outs at present). It would slow the game down immensely and effectively remove umpires from the game altogether.

 

[zaremba]

Why and why?

Isn't not making mistakes that much better than making them and correcting them?

Unwieldy because referrals every time would take up time and distract attention from pitch to sponsored "decision" screen. I think this would cause irritation. If the umpires on the pitch aren't complete cretins, which I accept may be an unrealistic assumption, then they must be able to give instant accurate reactions to the majority of appeals. For instance when they see that the ball clearly pitched outside leg stump / did or didn't hit the bat etc.

No-one would buy it because of widespread concerns about "undermining the umpires" (as well as the concerns I've just articulated above). Personally I'm with WG - the crowd has come to watch the players playing, not the umpires umpiring, and getting decisions correct is the important thing.

What's more, if, as you hope, the 3-referral system falls flat on its face and is withdrawn, it's most unlikely that the reaction would be effectively to extend the use of 3rd umpire decision-making by referring all appeals to the 3rd umpire.

EDIT: I've just re-read your suggestion. Are you actually saying that the on-field umpire should make the decision based on what he sees on the big screen or a little hand-held device (as opposed to a 3rd umpire making the decision)? Either way there are hordes of other difficulties which would be thrown up. But I won't bother trying to list them in case you're not suggesting this.

 

[honestbharani]

I think this is worth a try even at the international level. But as usual, the Indians screwed up their first shot.. I see that Sri Lanka made better use of their shot though....

 

[Ikki]

Broadly speaking, pretty similar to the idea described by Dissector. However, if such small-screens are not available, simply wire-up all four Umpires (and Match-Referee) so they can communicate instantly, and when an appeal goes up, the standing-Umpire can ask the third-Umpire "what'd'you think?" The third-Umpire can then quickly check.

Saves time, means the incorrect decision is virtually eliminated, and retains the authority of the Umpire, which whatever certain Americans might think, would be a massive plus. IOW, far better than the crap we've got now in every way.

This is possibly the best post you have ever made.

 

[silentstriker]

Saves time, means the incorrect decision is virtually eliminated, and retains the authority of the Umpire, which whatever certain Americans might think, would be a massive plus. IOW, far better than the crap we've got now in every way.

Haha, I never got - and I don't think I'll ever get - all this crap about the supposed sacrosanct authority of a couple of fat guys that hold hats.

 

[Richard]

I've explained it to you before, but Umpires do actually have to stop players from getting overheated.

This is that much easier if the Umpire's word is final.

 

[silentstriker]

I've explained it to you before, but Umpires do actually have to stop players from getting overheated.

This is that much easier if the Umpire's word is final.

Umpires in other sports do just fine at that.

 

[Richard]

Unwieldy because referrals every time would take up time and distract attention from pitch to sponsored "decision" screen. I think this would cause irritation. If the umpires on the pitch aren't complete cretins, which I accept may be an unrealistic assumption, then they must be able to give instant accurate reactions to the majority of appeals. For instance when they see that the ball clearly pitched outside leg stump / did or didn't hit the bat etc.

No-one would buy it because of widespread concerns about "undermining the umpires" (as well as the concerns I've just articulated above). Personally I'm with WG - the crowd has come to watch the players playing, not the umpires umpiring, and getting decisions correct is the important thing.

What's more, if, as you hope, the 3-referral system falls flat on its face and is withdrawn, it's most unlikely that the reaction would be effectively to extend the use of 3rd umpire decision-making by referring all appeals to the 3rd umpire.

EDIT: I've just re-read your suggestion. Are you actually saying that the on-field umpire should make the decision based on what he sees on the big screen or a little hand-held device (as opposed to a 3rd umpire making the decision)? Either way there are hordes of other difficulties which would be thrown up. But I won't bother trying to list them in case you're not suggesting this.

I've basically done 2 things this thread - suggested that one idea of someone else wasn't too bad, and then reiterated my own idea.

The best suggestion, for mine, would be to have all Umpires and Referee wired-up, so that the second an appeal went up you could have "looked pretty good to me Tim, what'd'you think?". "Just 5 secs Rudi, let me check it didn't pitch outside leg"... ... ... ... ... "nope, that's fine, and it was obviously hitting, and it was nowhere near his bat". "Okeydokey" Up goes the finger.

You could even have:
Appeal goes up for caught behind, Rudi puts his finger up
"Wow, wow, hang on a sec Rudi, not sure that wasn't thigh-pad"
"Oh OK Tim, have another look for me"
"Yeah, that was thigh-pad Rudi"
Rudi puts his arms over his chest to reverse the decision.

Simple as. Quickest way to do things, no need for a minimum number of anything, and the players still have zero say in what happens.

 

[zaremba]

I've basically done 2 things this thread - suggested that one idea of someone else wasn't too bad, and then reiterated my own idea.

The best suggestion, for mine, would be to have all Umpires and Referee wired-up, so that the second an appeal went up you could have "looked pretty good to me Tim, what'd'you think?". "Just 5 secs Rudi, let me check it didn't pitch outside leg"... ... ... ... ... "nope, that's fine, and it was obviously hitting, and it was nowhere near his bat". "Okeydokey" Up goes the finger.

You could even have:
Appeal goes up for caught behind, Rudi puts his finger up
"Wow, wow, hang on a sec Rudi, not sure that wasn't thigh-pad"
"Oh OK Tim, have another look for me"
"Yeah, that was thigh-pad Rudi"
Rudi puts his arms over his chest to reverse the decision.

Simple as. Quickest way to do things, no need for a minimum number of anything, and the players still have zero say in what happens.

Doesn't sound too bad to me. Let's see how the 3-referral system goes first. It may evolve into your proposal. However the first step is for people to realise that The Sacred Authority Of The On-Field Umpires isn't going to be trampled on by a process which involves getting decisions right.

 

[Dissector]

Incidentally I did a little digging around and and found this Panasonic phone with a resolution of 854X480 which is roughly the same as regular TV. So I don't think it would be problem giving umpires devices with excellent picture quality particularly since the ICC can afford devices which are much better than even the best phones. It wouldn't be much of a problem setting up a wi-fi connection on the ground which could transmit the video in real time. As a bonus you could have free wi-fi for spectators.

 

[Dissector]

Personally I don't mind the referral system; it's a big improvement over the status quo but I wouldn't mind trying a more systematic use of techonolgy a la Richard's example. One of the issues might be how quickly the replays, Hotspot etc. can be set up after the appeal. Also what would the player do after being given out? Would he just stand there waiting to see if the decision is reversed? Anyway let's try it out at first-class games and see what happens.

One thing I would definitely like for the ICC is to create a technology cell which invests money in the technology and makes it even more accurate and speedy.

 

[zaremba]

Incidentally I did a little digging around and and found this Panasonic phone with a resolution of 854X480 which is roughly the same as regular TV. So I don't think it would be problem giving umpires devices with excellent picture quality particularly since the ICC can afford devices which are much better than even the best phones. It wouldn't be much of a problem setting up a wi-fi connection on the ground which could transmit the video in real time. As a bonus you could have free wi-fi for spectators.

How clearly visible is in when you're in the glare of brilliant sunshine?

I think that the sight of Steve Bucknor peering into a tiny portable electronic screen whilst shielding the thing from the sun - in fact the sight of him trying to turn the bloody thing on - would be way too undignified.

I quite like the idea of the spectators being able to tune in though. Mind you there's no reason why you couldn't arrange that under the present 3-referral system.

 

[unccricket]

this referral thing as is will get canned if india have mariginal decisions go against them while in the field because of "inconclusive evidence." unfortunately even that is no guarantee, the only way to certainly cause the death of this trial is if tendulkar has a not out call reversed and given out while on 99 on the fifth day fighting to save the match and india go on to lose.

then you will see the BCCI go up in arms and complain about how the system is flawed and it takes authority from the umpires, slows the game down and causes the fans to get angry. hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Dissector]

How clearly visible is in when you're in the glare of brilliant sunshine?

I think that the sight of Steve Bucknor peering into a tiny portable electronic screen whilst shielding the thing from the sun - in fact the sight of him trying to turn the bloody thing on - would be way too undignified.

I quite like the idea of the spectators being able to tune in though. Mind you there's no reason why you couldn't arrange that under the present 3-referral system.

The point about daylight visibility is a good one; that is probably a bigger constraint than resolution at the moment but there are technologies out there for improving displays in daylight. This is the kind of thing that the technology cell that I suggested would have to investigate.

As for wifi, I don't think it would actually be that useful for the purpose of spectators watching replays at the time of appeal. Hundreds of people downloading videos at the exact same time on their laptops and phones would probably overburden the system. However it would be nice for spectators to be able to to surf the Internet during the rest of the game particularly during breaks,delays etc.

 

[zaremba]

The point about daylight visibility is a good one; that is probably a bigger constraint than resolution at the moment but there are technologies out there for improving displays in daylight. This is the kind of thing that the technology cell that I suggested would have to investigate.

As for wifi, I don't think it would actually be that useful for the purpose of spectators watching replays at the time of appeal. Hundreds of people downloading videos at the exact same time on their laptops and phones would probably overburden the system. However it would be nice for spectators to be able to to surf the Internet during the rest of the game particularly during breaks,delays etc.

Some English grounds have wi-fi already I believe.

 

[Lostman]

Now that the first test with referrals are over what do you guys think about it?

Some really bad decisions were overturned Dravid and Tendulkar
and there were some 50/50 ones as well Sehwag and Dilshan

Overall, I was pretty happy with it. However, I think a few changes are needed. Ball tracking instruments should be used to its fullest limit, and not where the ball pitches/ strikes the batsmen. And also snicko and hotspot must be used.
Basically, I feel it should be a NFL type review system. The third umpire, doesn't need to communicate with the field umpire, he would make the final decision when a challenge is made. If there is no definitive evidence, available to him the on field decision should stand.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Now that the first test with referrals are over what do you guys think about it?

Sky aren't showing this series in the Uk so it's hard to judge.

 

[weldone]

Some really bad decisions were overturned Dravid and Tendulkar
and there were some 50/50 ones as well Sehwag and Dilshan

Didn't see Dilshan's decision...Sehwag's was tricky even for the third umpire...One can be doubtful about whether the ball pitched outside leg or not even after the replay...Sachin was out, the pad-bat wasn't really very easy for the on-field umpire at normal speed; there for once I thought referral system was of use...But Dravid's decision by the on-field umpire was pathetic...If umpires decide to not give 'little close-but-certain' decisions only because referral system is there, then that's not good for the game...At normal speed with naked eyes, Dravid was out...Why should that decision cost Jayawardene one referral is difficult to fathom...