its time to end the review system of umpiring

[TheJediBrah]

We get a different kind of howler these days - ones where the third ump/hawkeye is clearly on drugs

Yes, the "Kumar"

 

[ashley bach]

Davado certainly coming up with some interesting theories of late.
Having casually discussed this subject with mates over the years, I always thought there should be an ''umpires challenge''.
What this means in effect is that the review system stays the same, and the umpire does his best as usual.
But every now and then when it's just too hard to make a decision the umpire can use a challenge.
If it is used, it's basically the umpire saying ''I really don't have a clue''.
There shouldn't be a limit on these, but it should only be used when the umpire really doesn't have a clear opinion.

 

[ashley bach]

@davado Just out of curiosity, why have you got a picture of some dude playing the reverse lap sweep shot?
For some reason I got the feeling this wasn't one of your favourite shots in the book.

 

[Starfighter]

I think this idea of davado's is more applicable generally. For example, we should review his posts and maybe decide they should be deleted.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is so far removed from reality. Look what happened when umpires were given the option to refer every runout/stumping to the 3rd umpire. They basically check every single appeal. The 'bad old days' you refer to were days when technology wasn't even an option. We've never had a situation where an umpire can check their decisions with tech but choose not to.

Umpires are there to facilitate the game. They don't enjoy making wrong decisions, and if they're given the option to use the tech they will use it wherever possible. Right now they're not given that option, and instead we've created an environment where players are encouraged to publicly challenge them. It's crazy. Just let the umpires use the tech available whenever they need it. Whatever time you lose will be saved by not having teams asking for LBW reviews off balls that came off the middle of the bat.

You're probably right about most of what you've written there, so won't challenge that.

However, I think the bolded phenomenon is a culturally valuable exercise, so should not be eliminated for that reason alone.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

This is so far removed from reality. Look what happened when umpires were given the option to refer every runout/stumping to the 3rd umpire. They basically check every single appeal. The 'bad old days' you refer to were days when technology wasn't even an option. We've never had a situation where an umpire can check their decisions with tech but choose not to.

Umpires are there to facilitate the game. They don't enjoy making wrong decisions, and if they're given the option to use the tech they will use it wherever possible. Right now they're not given that option, and instead we've created an environment where players are encouraged to publicly challenge them. It's crazy. Just let the umpires use the tech available whenever they need it. Whatever time you lose will be saved by not having teams asking for LBW reviews off balls that came off the middle of the bat.

Am I the only one who finds this utterly infuriating?

I mean seriously, for all the hand-wringing about slow over rates, there seems to be nowhere near enough discussion about how much the game would be sped up by cutting out the needless waste of time of going upstairs for something that is blatantly obvoius to anyone blessed with the gift of sight.


Stop being lazy ***** and actually use your damn eyes for once

 

[cnerd123]

However, I think the bolded phenomenon is a culturally valuable exercise, so should not be eliminated for that reason alone.

Nah it's horrible. ***** playing grassroots cricket see idiots like Kohli shouting in the stump mic and think that's now acceptable behaviour in a game. Rooking umpires now have to deal with **** from kids and clubbies who feel entitled to the DRS they see on TV and act as though they've been robbed when a borderline decision doesn't go their way. This is a toxic culture and needs to be nipped in the bud. Players should accept the match official's decisions and move on, any disputes to be raised off the field of play. When the umpire has tech to turn to, the decisions will be made better.

Am I the only one who finds this utterly infuriating?

I mean seriously, for all the hand-wringing about slow over rates, there seems to be nowhere near enough discussion about how much the game would be sped up by cutting out the needless waste of time of going upstairs for something that is blatantly obvoius to anyone blessed with the gift of sight.

Stop being lazy ****s and actually use your damn eyes for once

I agree but also tbf I think the reviewing every line call is actually policy of some sort at Test/ODI level. At Associate level where the tech is a bit shakier you still see umpires just not bothering with it for clear decisions. Not sure how it's done at county or sheffield shield tho.

 

[Burgey]

*Rookie

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah it's horrible. ****s playing grassroots cricket see idiots like Kohli shouting in the stump mic and think that's now acceptable behaviour in a game. Rooking umpires now have to deal with **** from kids and clubbies who feel entitled to the DRS they see on TV and act as though they've been robbed when a borderline decision doesn't go their way. This is a toxic culture and needs to be nipped in the bud. Players should accept the match official's decisions and move on, any disputes to be raised off the field of play. When the umpire has tech to turn to, the decisions will be made better.

I'm going to hazard a guess that this is coming from negative personal experience hence why you're not being at all logical about this. Because your suggestion would just be objectively worse than the current system in almost every way.

If you feel it's contributing to worsening player behaviour at lower levels that's unfortunate but the idea that we should go back to having 500% more wrong decisions at top-level cricket than what we are used to for this reason is insanity. There needs to be other solutions to bad behaviour than making the sport worse at the top level.

 

[Prince EWS]

*Rookie

Dennis Quaid. Good movie.

 

[Spark]

Removing the review system wouldn't lower the salience of bad decisions and umpiring mistakes, it would massively, massively raise them. People would be way, way, way more angry at umpiring if they knew that the constant and sometimes egregious mistakes couldn't be fixed. As it stands we have multiple shockers in the average Test match that everyone forgets about almost immediately because they're fixed within two minutes.

People still remember awful umpiring decisions pre-DRS to this day. How you can argue that doesn't have a much greater impact on umpiring perception than ten extra minutes a day fixing them and moving on is beyond me.

 

[cnerd123]

no one's saying remove reviews or tech though? The dumb part is making player's umpire their own game, when instead you can have a system where the match officials can just use the tech as and when it's needed. It really wouldn't slow the game down any further, especially once you have specialized TV umpires to do the reviews.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I know you're ignoring me brah but this has all been addressed already:

This would still be worse than what we have now. You would either have virtually every single decision going to review, or if the umpire was more reluctant to use it then you would still get wrong decisions made that don't get reviewed. It's a fallacy to assume that every wrong decision an umpire makes is one that they are not confident about.

Which is exactly what the issue would be . . . nearly every appeal being reviewed and the game grinding to a halt. Or the alternative is if they use it less to avoid this, they make incorrect decisions that can't be challenged and changed because they choose not to review it. The whole point of leaving it in the players hands to "challenge" is to avoid this, and it's a way better system right now than if you just left it entirely up to the umpires as you are proposing.

with your proposal 1 of 2 things will happen:
1) It monumentally slows down the game
2) We get an equally monumental increase in bad decisions

Or very possibly both will happen. There is no benefit to what you're suggesting

 

[Starfighter]

The big problem is the amount of time. If they could do everything in the time it takes for an average fast bowler (not Shannon Gabriel) to walk back to their mark, there's be no issue with sending a lot more decisions upstairs.

 

[Bolo.]

You guys overcomplicate things. If we just got rid of DRS and neutral umpires, it would work fine. Just make sure we play quality umpires like Bucknor and Hair, and there won't be anything to fight about.

 

[Daemon]

reminder that cnerd thinks the an auto no-ball detection system is impossible to develop with mankinds current technological advances

 

[cnerd123]

reminder that cnerd thinks the an auto no-ball detection system is impossible to develop with mankinds current technological advances

it would be easier to develop that than for you to make a good post tbf

 

[trundler]

As far as I'm aware the third umpire having to check for no balls hasn't overwhelmed all of them into having nervous breakdowns, unlike previous suggestions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

reminder that cnerd thinks the an auto no-ball detection system is impossible to develop with mankinds current technological advances

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he doesn't actually think all these things but sees himself as an umpire and wants to encourage circumstances that makes them as important as possible

 

[Daemon]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he doesn't actually think all these things but sees himself as an umpire and wants to encourage circumstances that makes them as important as possible

That’s not a benefit, it’s worse to be that than just plain wrong