Should the New Technology/3rd Umpire referrals trialled in the Super Series continued

[JASON]

I personally feel the trial of 3rd Umpire referrals in the Super series was a great concept and eliminated lot of doubt about dubious decisions (although some decisions by the 3rd Ump were somewhat inexplicable). The 3rd Umpire has better ability to judge close decisions (LBWs) with the aid of TV replays than the not so sharp or sometimes aging eye of a Rudi Koertzen .
Time consuming it may be , but I feel it should be persevered with.

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/222301.html

What do other members of the forum think ?

 

[greg]

Well I'm dubious. What i certainly don't like is the idea of the third umpire giving people not out, when they were probably out (as I think happened with one LBW). The technology should not incorporate benefit of the doubt, not least because it often creates doubt where there should have been little.

I also think using the technology has had a relatively easy start. That problems arose with that (it has been suggested that the umpires became keener to give their own decisions after the time taken and the dubious nature of a couple of the decisions earlier in the match) is not a good omen to what would happen on the subcontinent.

Although bear in mind that i am only going from generally second hand accounts.

 

[cameeel]

No, I don't think so. As Koertzen has said, it pretty much removes the main role the umpire has, technology is great for run-outs, but no balls and LBW decisions should remain to be decided the ump behind the stumps.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16953091^11088,00.html

I agree with him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I am in favour of technlogy where it will turn a doubtful decision into a cut and dry one at least 90% of the time. Examples are run-outs, stumpings and no balls. I am not in favour of technology when it slows the game down and eliminates the umpiring decision without actually significantly reducing the number of doubtful decisions.

The Super Test had two decisions which were clearly wrong and were not referred. It also had two decisions that I personally thought were decided incorrectly by the third umpire (Clarke's first innings dismissal and Inzy's first innings non-dismissal to Warne).

Just like the last time replays for non-conclusive decisions was implemented, in the 2002 Champions Trophy, it sometimes made a decision easier, and sometimes it created doubt or was simply inconclusive. You will also notice that throughout the Super Series, the majority of the time the umpire would shake or nod their head, and then go to the third umpire to confirm, so clearly most of those decisions would have been given the same way anyway.

I don't think it worked.

 

[parttimer]

I think it was quite apt how Rudi made a complete howler of a decision just after making his comments. I was impressed with how it ran overall, the time it took to reach a decision was not too long and the accuracy of the decisions weren't too bad imo. Onward and upward.

 

[Slow Love™]

I liked it, and thought it worked well and should be continued - with a few provisos that I made in the other thread discussing the subject.

 

[marc71178]

I'd still like to see minimal technology that won't delay the game, but will aid the umpires a great deal (ie no balls to the 3rd umpire and earpiece's tying them to the stump mic)

 

[parttimer]

The stump mike didn't appear a useful or effective tool to me. There were a number of instances where it should have been useful or used correctly, and wasn't. Watsons' dismissal (what else is it for?), and obviously the Boucher one.

 

[Zinzan]

I'm definately for it, particularly as a NZ supporter who honestly feels we've had a rough time in the last few years with tradional umpires (particularly against Aust) - mind you, all supporters probably think that of their teams

Not only are the decision more likely to be correct....but I actually reckon the delays for the decisions add to the excitement of the match.....And they can work on speeding it up.

 

[cameeel]

I liked it, and thought it worked well and should be continued - with a few provisos that I made in the other thread discussing the subject.

Such as some kind of restrictions on the number of times it was used, there was quite a few obvious decisions that were referred, taking up 2/3 minutes each time

 

[marc71178]

The stump mike didn't appear a useful or effective tool to me. There were a number of instances where it should have been useful or used correctly, and wasn't. Watsons' dismissal (what else is it for?), and obviously the Boucher one.

Was the stump mike in use in the Super series then?

I thought it was only in one of the CTs, and Bowden lead a call for them to be given them all the time.

 

[open365]

I really approve of technology for decisions,but i still voted no to stop all the debating.

i hate it.all the pundits do is say the same flawed argument over and over again and site inappropriate cases as evidence for or against.

 

[neal]

I think 3rd umpire should only be used for more obvious decisions like catches.Since the batsmen know that they will be given out anyway eventually batsmen may start to walk even before they are given out and the fielders also will not appeal if it hasnt hit the bat.

LBW's are more subjective decisions and shouldnt be referred.If the main umpire and 3rd umpire have different opinions then it will take a long time to arrive at a decision.The only thing maybe the umpire can ask is if there was any bat involved.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Really don't like it.

If this becomes the case, the Test umpires you will want will not be the best decision makers; but the best player/situation managers.

 

[chris.hinton]

I agree with Neil

 

[twctopcat]

It should only be used if they have the super slow-mo camera. Otherwise the replays confuse as much as inform.