• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Referral System claims its first victim

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The fact that the ICC, despite citing fatigue and excessive travel, as significant concerns hasn't extended the elite panel further than the current number. The fact that they've passed over others in favour of the current crop. The fact that they've cited difficulties in getting enough good enough candidates for the role.
In any case, if they're struggling to find capable candidates the fact that the referral system makes the quality of the umpire so, so much less relevant can only possibly be a good thing.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
One thing that I think is untenable is the suggestion that the umpires have the sole right of referral. If this is the case, then we have the case where they will end up referring everything, because the level of scrutiny will become ridiculous when they do make an error. And if they are supposed to be sure about their decision making, and confident in it, and then be proven wrong without the ability of a player to help correct that, I think would be a bigger problem than ones created by the current system.
Good point. A balance needs to be struck, and the present system with its limited numbers of referrals gets it about right. If a bowler gets unlucky later in an innings (a la Bollinger on the 4th day) and has no referrals left, he has only himself, his team-mates or his captain to blame. Which is something that the umpire in question can remind both himself and the fielding team of when they start to grumble, curse or otherwise pressurise him.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
on the occasions they have implemented it, the 'correct decision' rate has been 97% as opposed to 92% without, (under the definition of reasonable doubt).
I don't know where you've got that statistic from, but it's pretty impressive.

As the system beds down over the coming years I'd expect it to get better and better.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
The fact that the ICC, despite citing fatigue and excessive travel, as significant concerns hasn't extended the elite panel further than the current number. The fact that they've passed over others in favour of the current crop. The fact that they've cited difficulties in getting enough good enough candidates for the role.
With a working referral system the risk of bias (or perceived bias) affecting decisions from home town umpires is massively reduced. Which means we could have home-town umpires standing once again. Which would eliminate the problems of fatigue and excessive travel which, as you rightly point out, are the major disincentives to umpires from applying to be on the Elite Panel.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
This is probably close to my objection. The umpires, whether we like to admit it, perform a difficult job where one of the key requirements is the confidence to make a decision. Such confidence can easily be damaged. That confidence has been increasingly put under pressure by improved technology used in television coverage, eg super slo-mo, hawk eye, hotspot, that demonstrate in forensic detail when umpires get it wrong or not. Couple this, and the resultant media abuse and you have a problem.

My objection to this system is that a) if it succreds in raising standards it does so marginally and b) it doesn't relieve that pressure on umpires by giving them the option to ask for assistance, rather it creates an adversarial situation where players can openly call an umpires judgement into question, face to face, and inevitably sometimes be proven right. That's what I was getting at when I said the ICC had hung their representatives out to dry.

There's a problem with how things stand and this system will make it worse for many umpires rather than better IMO.
The referrals this test have backed up the umpires, and although Australia couldn't challenge the Hauritz delivery to Bravo, the replays showed it was another excellent decision.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
I don't like the referral limit in the current system. Should be unlimited, imo. If a captain decides to waste time by referring every damn appeal, a panel of umpires should take action against excessive appealing after the match. Ban a few fools for a few tests and the players will know when to appeal and when not to appeal. Perfect solution. Either that or limited appeals per session in tests. Like 5 per session.
 

cowboysfan

U19 Debutant
the referral system is still in its infancy and some teams have completely mucked it up when using it(india,pwnting and even the windies).the system is there to wmpower players to overturn obviuos errors.unfortunately the players are either terrible judges or more likely they are hoping the decisions will be overturn without any evidence on the field.the good news is that the system is working and i think teams will get smarter about its use .
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I don't like the referral limit in the current system. Should be unlimited, imo. If a captain decides to waste time by referring every damn appeal, a panel of umpires should take action against excessive appealing after the match. Ban a few fools for a few tests and the players will know when to appeal and when not to appeal. Perfect solution. Either that or limited appeals per session in tests. Like 5 per session.
Hasn't helped things like overrates or sledging. Letting players decide how many is too much is a bad idea. Just like it's a bad idea to let umpires do it (because then it'll become like run outs where every single decision is referred, and some howlers may not be where only the batsman might know he didn't hit it).


Two works well because the system is supposed to get rid of absolute howlers, like the one Sangakarra had at Hobart, when he was on 192 and SL were trying to save the Test. Marginal decisions will exist in any sport, and especially in cricket, and it's not designed to get rid of those (nor can any technology available now). Save your referrals for the absolute crazy howlers, and if you don't, you get what you deserve when you run out of appeals.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Example: This (7:55) would be a good time to use a referral. Or something like this where you can see why the umpire gave it not out in real time (even though its still a bad decision), as it swung so much so late (maybe the umpire thought it was an edge), but it was clear as day on replay.

So you use them for those things. You don't use them for maybe faint edges and marginal LBWs that may or may not have been too high unless the match depends on it and you have to do it (and in that case, that's the risk you take).
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
aS it stands, the system certainly doesn't eliminate wrong decisions. Bollinger had an lbw turned down today that was out (precipitating a dickhead display from the twit) but couldn't refer the decision because the two referrals had already been used up.
This has always been my objection to the review system. I'm all for the use of technology, but a limit of two reviews means the system won't be completely evenly applied. Unlimited appeals would be too open to abuse, but having to see another wrong decision stand when the technology to rectify it is available strikes me as against natural justice somehow.

A limit of two is (I imagine) set to discourage frivalous reviews, but equally you'd hope that the captain is only referring those decisions he genuinely thinks are wrong anyway. More reviews per innings? Leave it to the umps? Dunno. Two not enough for my money tho.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Remember it's two wrong reviews, not two total.
Well, durr. :p

My point was that the captain would (or at least should) only request reviews when he believes errors have been made. With only two wrong reviews allowed he has to perform a mental calculation as to how wrong an umpire's decision was. Without a second viewing it's always going to be a tightrope.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
This has always been my objection to the review system. I'm all for the use of technology, but a limit of two reviews means the system won't be completely evenly applied. Unlimited appeals would be too open to abuse, but having to see another wrong decision stand when the technology to rectify it is available strikes me as against natural justice somehow.

A limit of two is (I imagine) set to discourage frivalous reviews, but equally you'd hope that the captain is only referring those decisions he genuinely thinks are wrong anyway. More reviews per innings? Leave it to the umps? Dunno. Two not enough for my money tho.
Three maybe? I'm not overly bothered.

I have no respect for the argument that it holds the game up, which really adds up to "sorry, Kumar, we know that you're on 192 and battling to save the Test, and you've just had a dreadful decision, but we need to keep things moving or the game will become too dull". And I'm afraid that, to the extent that I understand such logic, I completely and utterly disagree with it.

However an unlimited number of referrals would indeed become cumbersome. So, make reviews a precious commodity and teams will learn to become realistic about when to kick up a fuss and when not to (about bloody time if you ask me).
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Three maybe? I'm not overly bothered.

I have no respect for the argument that it holds the game up, which really adds up to "sorry, Kumar, we know that you're on 192 and battling to save the Test, and you've just had a dreadful decision, but we need to keep things moving or the game will become too dull". And I'm afraid that, to the extent that I understand such logic, I completely and utterly disagree with it.

However an unlimited number of referrals would indeed become cumbersome. So, make reviews a precious commodity and teams will learn to become realistic about when to kick up a fuss and when not to (about bloody time if you ask me).
Three would be better, but any finite number is always potentially going to leave the Doug Bollingers of the world chuntering at the injustice of the bowlers' lot after their skipper has frittered his allocation for the innings away.

I don't pretend to have an easy answer and some use of technology to rectify mistakes is better than none. I suppose another possibility is to leave the appeals to the dressing room who would've had a better view of things than those on the field?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Well, durr. :p

My point was that the captain would (or at least should) only request reviews when he believes errors have been made. With only two wrong reviews allowed he has to perform a mental calculation as to how wrong an umpire's decision was. Without a second viewing it's always going to be a tightrope.
Going by what Ponting did, I'm not sure. He might have thought it was out, but he had to know it was a faint edge if anything, and to me you should almost never refer those.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Going by what Ponting did, I'm not sure. He might have thought it was out, but he had to know it was a faint edge if anything, and to me you should almost never refer those.
But the captain has to rely on his bowler or keeper surely. Say the keeper says he's not sure, but the bowler is adamant the batsman hit it. The captain has no idea, so what does he do? This is the quandry that lies ahead for international captains now. Makes for an interesting talking point - the issue becomes not so much whether the umpire got it right, as to whether the referral was a good one.

We need to keep in mind the players are going on their reactions to instantaneous events - they're now in the same boat as the on field umpires, which one might hope in time would lead to them having a greater appreciation of the job those guys do.
 
Hasn't helped things like overrates or sledging. Letting players decide how many is too much is a bad idea. Just like it's a bad idea to let umpires do it (because then it'll become like run outs where every single decision is referred, and some howlers may not be where only the batsman might know he didn't hit it).


Two works well because the system is supposed to get rid of absolute howlers, like the one Sangakarra had at Hobart, when he was on 192 and SL were trying to save the Test. Marginal decisions will exist in any sport, and especially in cricket, and it's not designed to get rid of those (nor can any technology available now). Save your referrals for the absolute crazy howlers, and if you don't, you get what you deserve when you run out of appeals.
Funny that no one has realised that Sanga would have been out on around 40 runs had the review system been available to the Australians.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Well, Ponting would have used his up on the first two balls, so probably not.

But if that happened, that would be fine too. Either way, a more fair solution for everyone involved.
 

Top