The future of umpiring?

[Lillian Thomson]

Nope, disagree. Doesn't work like that in other sports.

It's a slightly mystifying notion that the officials - either referees or umpires or whatever they're known as in the sport in question - don't have authority in other sports. They have total authority, that's why the players are forced to abide by their decisions how ever poor that decision might be.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm getting tired of this 'facts as opinions' BS, it is not as though other people don't do it, and yet it is Richard he is the target. Some people should look to get over themselves.

With the greatest of respect, Craig, who else does it? Short of the occasional outright troll I can't think of anyone.

Wrong.

Ok then. Perhaps you'd care to explain how you seemed to think this:

Of course it is. This is not the issue at stake, though - all which has been rallied between the two of us so far this thread relates to catches.

When I'd already twice mentioned Cook's decision, which was an LBW:

Clearly, with the "foreshortening" problem that cameras have, catches are a seperate issue and I suspect the reason why the ruling was changed, but for line decisions (like Cook's today) the tv footage would've been able to show conclusively that not out was the correct decision.

Not always, no. If it was, Harper wouldn't have got Cook's decision wrong when the camera, however much further away it was, was able to show he was mistaken.

I'm genuinely interested.

 

[silentstriker]

It's a slightly mystifying notion that the officials - either referees or umpires or whatever they're known as in the sport in question - don't have authority in other sports. They have total authority, that's why the players are forced to abide by their decisions how ever poor that decision might be.

That's not what I mean. We give undue importance to the umpire than they do in other sports. Whatever changes we make to the sport, someone brings us some crap about eroding the 'authority of the umpires'. Who cares? I've never heard that argument in any other sport. The umpires are there to make sure the game is fair and to hold people's hats. If you could play the game fairly without them, you would - they aren't an integral part of the sport.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's not what I mean. We give undue importance to the umpire than they do in other sports. Whatever changes we make to the sport, someone brings us some crap about eroding the 'authority of the umpires'. Who cares? I've never heard that argument in any other sport. The umpires are there to make sure the game is fair and to hold people's hats. If you could play the game fairly without them, you would - they aren't an integral part of the sport.

I don't know if you've ever watched any Rugby union, but in that sport the referees' word is usually final. It may only be enlightened self-interest (as back-chat can mean the ref moves play ten metres down the pitch from where the oiginal offence is), but the refs' authority is pretty much absolute. Recourse to the TMO doesn't seem to have eroded this either.

I take your point about how it would be nice to be able to play cricket (or indeed any sport IMHO) without the need for officialdom, but that is very much a utopian dream.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know if you've ever watched any Rugby union, but in that sport the referees' word is usually final. It may only be enlightened self-interest (as back-chat can mean the ref moves play ten metres down the pitch from where the oiginal offence is), but the refs' authority is pretty much absolute. Recourse to the TMO doesn't seem to have eroded this either.

I take your point about how it would be nice to be able to play cricket (or indeed any sport IMHO) without the need for officialdom, but that is very much a utopian dream.

The umpires have authority because a neutral party needs to be there to make decision on the field. My beef is that when we make a change, we always ask if it will 'undermine the umpire'. They don't have any right to authority. They need as much authority as needed to make sure the game goes smoothly. They are not part of the game, or the sport.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The umpires have authority because a neutral party needs to be there to make decision on the field. My beef is that when we make a change, we always ask if it will 'undermine the umpire'. They don't have any right to authority. They need as much authority as needed to make sure the game goes smoothly. They are not part of the game, or the sport.

Well, I'd say they are, as all umpires seem to have their own foibles (like Dickie Bird being a notorious not-outer on LBWs and Darrell Hair being prepared to give the pad-then-bat decisions that few ebefore him would), but whether they should be is another question.

I'd agree that undermining the umpire shouldn't be a concern in itself, but moreover I don't necessarily think that greater recourse to tv replays would weaken their authority unduly. I'd hope that an umpire who was able to use the best technology available would have enough about him to use it.

 

[Smudge]

I don't know if you've ever watched any Rugby union, but in that sport the referees' word is usually final.

Unless Matt Dawson is playing...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Unless Matt Dawson is playing...

Think it was his superior debating abilities that got him the gig ahead of Bracken tbh.

 

[Richard]

Ok then. Perhaps you'd care to explain how you seemed to think this: When I'd already twice mentioned Cook's decision, which was an LBW:

I'm genuinely interested.

None of my comments related to the Cook lbw, purely to the Pietersen "catch".

 

[slugger]

now some poor saps gotta go through the pages to quote your "cook LBW" comment.. then wait for your rebuttal of how you explain the words Cook and LBW appearing in your post..

 

[Richard]

If they have done at any point, it won't be in reference to the how-cameras-can-help question.