Referral System claims its first victim

[pasag]

Agree with what someone said earlier that one of the best things about the system is that it takes pressure off the umpires. The onus is now on the players to get rid of the bad decisions by referring them. If they didn't refer a bad decision then it's their fault, if they didn't have any left then it's also their fault for using them all up frivolously.

Two or three is fine as well. Anything more would be too much.

I'd also like to see video referrals for boundaries cut down, or cut out all together. Way too much time wasted for one run. Have a quick look, make a ruiling. Shouldn't be taking 2-3 mins.

 

[Uppercut]

Agree with what someone said earlier that one of the best things about the system is that it takes pressure off the umpires. The onus is now on the players to get rid of the bad decisions by referring them. If they didn't refer a bad decision then it's their fault, if they didn't have any left then it's also their fault for using them all up frivolously.

Two or three is fine as well. Anything more would be too much.

I'd also like to see video referrals for boundaries cut down, or cut out all together. Way too much time wasted for one run. Have a quick look, make a ruiling. Shouldn't be taking 2-3 mins.

Yeah, agree with that. Grinds my gears that the bowling captain then has to take a fine for the over rate when they can piss away the session like that.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd also like to see video referrals for boundaries cut down, or cut out all together. Way too much time wasted for one run. Have a quick look, make a ruiling. Shouldn't be taking 2-3 mins.

Yes, I agree. A few runs is not worth a delay, 2-3 minutes should be the outer limit for all referrals anyway, but inexcusable for a boundary.

 

[Shri]

Will cause more grievance if a match is decided by one run after such a thing happens imo.

 

[Redbacks]

Kerry O'Keefe was ranting on the radio after the match that the system is too complex.

Both Gayle and Ponting commented that they weren't totally wrapped with the system either, but they both did atleast mention that getting used to the system will be the hard part, after a while captains will get a better strategy for using them. Just like the powerplay in ODI cricket.

 

[Athlai]

New Zealand and Pakistan both used the system far better than WI and Australia. Ponting was terrible! Using it for marginal LBWs, clearly hasn't adjusted to it yet.

 

[pasag]

New Zealand and Pakistan both used the system far better than WI and Australia. Ponting was terrible! Using it for marginal LBWs, clearly hasn't adjusted to it yet.

Ponting was superb in SA, just had a bad day here.

 

[Matt79]

Think it does prove that for any protestations to the contrary, players usually have no better idea than umpires as to whether an appeal is out - batsmen and edges being the obvious exception.

 

[Redbacks]

I though Rauf made the correct decision to give him out.

I guess I'm alone. The edge of Chander's bat was hidden from hotspot thus this piece of information can't be used to make a logical conclusion out/not out (if the original decision was out and challenged therefore surely the umpire would have to give it out). From Rauf's other view he could visually see a deviation and the fact that Chander's looks around to the slips IIRC. The view from behind gives an indication of a change in rotation of the ball.

Players will now work out that if they get a faint edge, they should hide the bat, and if they are certain they didn't hit it: do everything they can to get the edge facing directly at the camera.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not a fan, can't really imagine I ever will be. It's nice from time to time to have an incorrect decision overturned, but far too often something appears inconclusive and stays with the umpire's verdict anyway, even if it was just as likely to be wrong as right, and when you add frivolous wasted referrals to that, it just feels like a lot of wasted time for no significant reward. Benefit of the doubt is part of the game and it's fine the way it was, IMO.

Plus it feels pretty hollow when a video referral system is in place, and the fielding team can refer something that isn't out and waste everyone's time, and then be unable to refer something that should be given out later because they used up their chances, as with the Nash LBW yesterday. Obviously it's Ponting's fault for wasting the referrals, but the system isn't really doing it's job if poor decisions remain because the fielding team incorrectly challenged the umpire's call when they got something right.

If a video referral system is to remain in place, it should be at the umpire's discretion IMO, as in, they can refer and get the same benefit they get now from technology whenever they are unsure. The system right now is too focused on allowing one side to get a second look at something when they might feel aggrieved and not enough on actually correcting mistakes, and the looming danger of wasting time leads to poor decisions standing anyway, because it's at the discretion of the teams in the middle and not an impartial judge.

 

[Matt79]

People are up in arms because the 3rd ump is only meant to overturn decisions on review when conclusive evidence is available - that clearly was not the case in that instance. Otherwise, they're meant to give it back to the onfield umpire.

 

[slugger]

new zealand and pakistan used the system well, both teams had a fair and good idea when to refer and if not most of the time the teams made the right decision, only peter fulton second guessed himself and missed out on reversing his decision in his favour,

look out australia known how to use the system well could be crucial against pakistan and nz..

 

[Uppercut]

People are up in arms because the 3rd ump is only meant to overturn decisions on review when conclusive evidence is available - that clearly was not the case in that instance. Otherwise, they're meant to give it back to the onfield umpire.

Yeah, don't blame the system for the umpire failing to apply it correctly though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Plus it feels pretty hollow when a video referral system is in place, and the fielding team can refer something that isn't out and waste everyone's time, and then be unable to refer something that should be given out later because they used up their chances, as with the Nash LBW yesterday. Obviously it's Ponting's fault for wasting the referrals, but the system isn't really doing it's job if poor decisions remain because the fielding team incorrectly challenged the umpire's call when they got something right.

Yeah, I agree with this wholeheartedly and it's always been a obviouls pitfall, to my mind, even before it actually happened.

That said, I do believe this system is superior to having no video review system at all. It has its faults (many of which could, IMO, be solved by just having all referrals at the umpire's discretion) but those faults are less than those that exist without it.

 

[Johnners]

Not a fan, can't really imagine I ever will be. It's nice from time to time to have an incorrect decision overturned, but far too often something appears inconclusive and stays with the umpire's verdict anyway, even if it was just as likely to be wrong as right, and when you add frivolous wasted referrals to that, it just feels like a lot of wasted time for no significant reward. Benefit of the doubt is part of the game and it's fine the way it was, IMO.

Plus it feels pretty hollow when a video referral system is in place, and the fielding team can refer something that isn't out and waste everyone's time, and then be unable to refer something that should be given out later because they used up their chances, as with the Nash LBW yesterday. Obviously it's Ponting's fault for wasting the referrals, but the system isn't really doing it's job if poor decisions remain because the fielding team incorrectly challenged the umpire's call when they got something right.

If a video referral system is to remain in place, it should be at the umpire's discretion IMO, as in, they can refer and get the same benefit they get now from technology whenever they are unsure. The system right now is too focused on allowing one side to get a second look at something when they might feel aggrieved and not enough on actually correcting mistakes, and the looming danger of wasting time leads to poor decisions standing anyway, because it's at the discretion of the teams in the middle and not an impartial judge.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

 

[zaremba]

If a video referral system is to remain in place, it should be at the umpire's discretion IMO, as in, they can refer and get the same benefit they get now from technology whenever they are unsure.

I disagree pretty fundemantally with this.

While this would deal with the situation where the umpire isn't sure, it wouldn't address the situation where the umpire simply makes a mistake. The whole beauty of the new system is that it allows mistakes to be corrected. It's not designed to help umpires who can't make up their minds.

If an umpire gives a batsman out, he must first be sure that it is out. Therefore a decision which would previously have been given out (wrongly) should, in theory, never be referred by the umpire.

That's the theory; but the likely practical outcome would be that decisions would be referred far too often by the on-field umpires out of a sense of excessive caution. And on the other hand when an umpire failed to refer a (wrong) decision, the criticism he would face would be even more intense than normal.

 

[Prince EWS]

While this would deal with the situation where the umpire isn't sure, it wouldn't address the situation where the umpire simply makes a mistake.

If an umpire gives a batsman out, he must first be sure that it is out. Therefore a decision which would previously have been given out (wrongly) would, in theory, never be referred by the umpire. That's the theory; the likely practical outcome would be that decisions would be referred far too often by the on-field umpires out of a sense of excessive caution. And on the other hand when an umpire failed to refer a (wrong) decision, the criticism he would face would be even more intense than normal.

The whole beauty of the new system is that it allows mistakes to be corrected. It's not designed to help umpires who can't make up their minds.

Umpires would eventually start referring everything that was even close though, like they do with run-outs. While people will no doubt whinge about how much time this would waste, I personally wouldn't blink an eye if we lost five overs a day should it mean we eliminated the vast majority of umpiring mistakes.

 

[Uppercut]

Prefer the referral system tbh. Makes much more sense.

 

[zaremba]

Umpires would eventually start referring everything that was even close though, like they do with run-outs. While people will no doubt whinge about how much time this would waste, I personally wouldn't blink an eye if we lost five overs a day should it mean we eliminated the vast majority of umpiring mistakes.

Agree that this would be the likely outcome - see the edit to my post above. I think this would be seen as a very negative development by most people. Perhaps it could be attempted after a few years of getting the current system right.

Another predictable development (under the system that's just begun) is that teams will start to have a dedicated TV-watcher in the dressing room whose job it will be to signal to the players in the middle whether to refer a decision or not.

 

[Matt79]

Give them a flag to throw like in the NFL. I'm not being facetious. The only thing would be that there should be a time limit on it so teams don't just wait for a couple of replays, or we'll get theough 45 overs a day.