Referral System

[roseboy64]

In the Stanford Super Series we saw the umpires refer plenty of things to the 3rd umpire that they normally would have had to make a call on one way another.

Liked that one. Worked quite well.

 

[Atreyu]

The thing I like about the referral system is that the human element is still involved. The umpires can't choose when to go to the third umpire

 

[slugger]

yeah i agree.. for far to long players have heaped this all on the umpire there was a time when players walked.. which helped umpires somewhat.. but now the referral system puts some of the burden on to the players... gayle request for the refferral was a fine decission he felt his appreal was corrrect.. and it was confirmed.. isnt it funny when vettori appealed and didnt get the decission in his favor but took it no further...

 

[Manee]

The current referral system plus a one minute (or however long) time limit for the third umpire seems like the best system to me.

 

[Uppercut]

Yea, so they can refer every appeal like they do with run outs. No thanks.

Limiting it to two or three per innings allows teams to reverse bad decisions while still being cautious about using too many for calls that they aren't sure about. Anything that lessens the influence of an umpire over the game of cricket, I'd generally be for. Umpires shouldn't be there to do anything but to count overs, hold hats and enforce rules. Ridiculous that they have so much power over the results, but until the last couple decades, it was a necessary evil. Now it's just a drag on the game.

Umpires deciding games instead of the player in this modern age of multi million dollar players and billion dollar TV contracts is ridiculous. If the governing body weren't such a spineless bunch of luddites, we would have had this long time ago.

Yeah, this is my line of thought too. I hate commentators and ex-players saying things like, "it would undermine the authority of the umpires" and "the umpires would lose respect." There's more important things than that FFS. A cricket match is being played.

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't think some people understand how important it is for the Umpires to have authority over the players. Important, that is, to a cricket match. Some people seem keen on taking this away just for the sake of it, even if it won't improve decision accuracy.

There are quicker, more accurate means of decision-making than this referral nonsense. I seriously hope it's scrapped, whatever the reason is, and the best possible system (which I have suggested before and which I might do again in feature-article form sometime soon) is put in place at some point not too far down the line.

The only thing I hate is people saying "we shouldn't have something that's going to get 99% of decisions right because it's not 100% foolproof. Because something that gets 70-90% right is much better".

 

[Precambrian]

Really hate it when the third umpire gets it wrong. Whom to appeal to then?

 

[Richard]

Why, The High Court Of Supreme Law, of course.

 

[Flem274*]

These sorts of systems will help spinners a great deal I think. How many LBWs/fine catches do you see given not out that were actualy out? Of course its not the fault of the umpire as it would be bloody hard to tell with 90% of them, but the likes of Mendis, Vettori, Panesar etc are going to love this system.

Andrew Symonds probably won't like it at all.

 

[Burgey]

The Ramdin(?) dismissal yesterday.

Not out IMO, and I think Koertzen thought so too, but is it not the case, that if the ball has pitched in line and struck in line, the third umpire cannot overrule? That would, to me at least, explain why the original dismissal was confirmed, when it really did look like the ball was missing leg.

 

[Flem274*]

The Ramdin(?) dismissal yesterday.

Not out IMO, and I think Koertzen thought so too, but is it not the case, that if the ball has pitched in line and struck in line, the third umpire cannot overrule? That would, to me at least, explain why the original dismissal was confirmed, when it really did look like the ball was missing leg.

There will still be mistakes, hopefully less shockers though.

 

[Jigga988]

There will still be mistakes, hopefully less shockers though.

This case was really interesting. I was watching at the time and there was a number of things going on.

Firstly, i and i think the majority of people thought the decision was not-out. As did i think Rudi Koertzen, this was made evident by the way he was shaking his head when watching.

I think the decision could've been made due to two reasons, firstly, there was suspicions of there being a problem with the 3rd ump getting his messege across to the actual ump. This just meant that the umpire had to stick with his first decision.

The other reason that the decision not-out could've been made is because the decision it self was marginal, i think if this was the first decision of the match Rudi would have said not-out but because of the fact that Rudi had already gone different to the umpire a couple of times before and the umpire was making his debut, he didnt want to go against him again. I think Rudi knew it shouldnt have been given out but was scared to go against his fellow umpire. If this is the case then what is the point of the referral system.

 

[Flem274*]

This case was really interesting. I was watching at the time and there was a number of things going on.

Firstly, i and i think the majority of people thought the decision was not-out. As did i think Rudi Koertzen, this was made evident by the way he was shaking his head when watching.

I think the decision could've been made due to two reasons, firstly, there was suspicions of there being a problem with the 3rd ump getting his messege across to the actual ump. This just meant that the umpire had to stick with his first decision.

The other reason that the decision not-out could've been made is because the decision it self was marginal, i think if this was the first decision of the match Rudi would have said not-out but because of the fact that Rudi had already gone different to the umpire a couple of times before and the umpire was making his debut, he didnt want to go against him again. I think Rudi knew it shouldnt have been given out but was scared to go against his fellow umpire. If this is the case then what is the point of the referral system.

I don't think Koertzen would shelter the debut umpire.

I just reckon Koertzen genuinely didn't know and let the on field umpire make his own descision. Even with that marginal descision (and one of Mills's LBW shouts where it was ruled too high), the umpiring in this match has been quite good, even if its been a bit painful (poor Flynn).

 

[Burgey]

I don't think Koertzen would shelter the debut umpire.

I just reckon Koertzen genuinely didn't know and let the on field umpire make his own descision. Even with that marginal descision (and one of Mills's LBW shouts where it was ruled too high), the umpiring in this match has been quite good, even if its been a bit painful (poor Flynn).

Guess this is what I'm trying to get at. If we take that example, and the on field umpire gives it out and the batsman refers it, once the 3rd umpire sees it pitched in line and hit in line, CAN he overrule it, even if he thinks it's missing, or is he bound to say that the requirements of where it pitches and hits the batsman are satisfied, therefore I can't over rule the on field bloke, even though I think it's missing?

Or something like that. Love simplicity

 

[duffer]

These sorts of systems will help spinners a great deal I think. How many LBWs/fine catches do you see given not out that were actualy out? Of course its not the fault of the umpire as it would be bloody hard to tell with 90% of them, but the likes of Mendis, Vettori, Panesar etc are going to love this system.

Andrew Symonds probably won't like it at all.

Lollipops

 

[Polo23]

How anyone can be for the review system when Ramdin was given out like that is beyond me. If they are going to give LBW's like that then I want nothing to do with it.

 

[Uppercut]

How anyone can be for the review system when Ramdin was given out like that is beyond me. If they are going to give LBW's like that then I want nothing to do with it.

He would have been given out without the referral system though?

 

[99*]

He would have been given out without the referral system though?

That's the important thing, Ramdin was given out and he refered it. That would mean the third umpire has to find a reason to overturn it and with what he was given could he say without a doubt that it was missing?

If the decision had of been not out and Vettori refered it I think it would have stayed not out as well, for the same reason, there was to much doubt (either way) to say for certain if it was going on to hit or not.

This kind of thing happens all the time in the NFL fwiw.

 

[Uppercut]

That's the important thing, Ramdin was given out and he refered it. That would mean the third umpire has to find a reason to overturn it and with what he was given could he say without a doubt that it was missing?

If the decision had of been not out and Vettori refered it I think it would have stayed not out as well, for the same reason, there was to much doubt (either way) to say for certain if it was going on to hit or not.

This kind of thing happens all the time in the NFL fwiw.

Yeah, it's the same in rugby union. It depends on the wording, if the referee thinks the ball's been grounded he'll ask "is there any reason why i should not give the try?" If he thinks it was held up he might ask something like, "is there conclusive evidence that the ball was rounded?" or even, if he doesn't know, "was the ball grounded?"

It's fine if the role of the third umpire is only to reverse decisions he can conclusively say were wrong, as long as that's made clear to the teams involved. I don't know whether it was. According to O'Brien's blog, it went down like a lead balloon in the NZ changing room.

 

[Nutter]

I'm fine with the referral system.