Umpire appeals?

[marc71178]

Currently about 5% of decisions are wrong.

I still feel the best way to add a little bit of technology without slowing the game at all is give the third umpire no balls, and the umpires earpieces linked to the stump mics...

By concentrating on one end, they will be much more able to judge pitching issues as well as listening for nicks.

 

[honestbharani]

I always feel that giving a batsman out when he is not out is a very bad thing, worse than giving a batsman not out when he is out. I suppose it is because of the benefit of doubt thing. So, given that, I like the idea that the batting team is the one that gets these appealing rights, instead of the bowling team. I think it is something that should be trialled. IT is not as bad as is being made out to be.

 

[luckyeddie]

Currently about 5% of decisions are wrong.

I still feel the best way to add a little bit of technology without slowing the game at all is give the third umpire no balls, and the umpires earpieces linked to the stump mics...

By concentrating on one end, they will be much more able to judge pitching issues as well as listening for nicks.

I appreciate that desperate needs require desperate measures, but I beg you to reconsider.

There are few enough international standard umpires as it is, but eliminating much of that trait from the gene pool by castrating one umpire in three is not the answer.

 

[crickhowell]

If it does happen it will become a purely tactical thing, are people going to appeal a bad desicion going in Chris Martins favour when he's batting? They'll just use them to prove if someone like Ricky Ponting is out/not out.

 

[howardj]

Very good move.

It's weird how we can endure delays with respect to comparitively minor things such as moving the sight-screen; changing the ball; replays for boundaries; conferences between captains and bowlers; slow over-rates in general....yet, as soon as there may be a small delay for something of enormous significance (namely, whether a batsman is out or not) suddenly this delay is just too much to bear.

Give me a break.

 

[benchmark00]

I appreciate that desperate needs require desperate measures, but I beg you to reconsider.

There are few enough international standard umpires as it is, but eliminating much of that trait from the gene pool by castrating one umpire in three is not the answer.

Hahaha, that actually made me laugh.

 

[Matt79]

I don't mind this idea, but I think the rules governing it should be quite severe, to limit it to situations where a team feels its genuinely been dudded in a circumstance that has the potential to affect the games outcomes. I'd suggest each team may appeal one decision when batting and one decision when bowling, per game, not innings and I think only captains should be able to appeal a decision - not the batsman or bowler in question. The criteria for overturning a decision has to be that the decision is clearly wrong - ie if the 3rd umpire is at all uncertain, they should defer to original decision.

Only being able to do so once will deter teams from using it unless they think its a clear mistake - you'd hate to waste it on the offchance of getting a decision overturned, and then have a hideous decision made against you and be powerless to do anything.

Captains would no doubt apply some strategic thinking about what to appeal or not, but that's doesn't make it a bad idea - losing your number 11 to a wrong call when you've got 450 on the board in the first innings isn't as big a deal as losing your star batsman at 4/90 chasing a fourth innings total - and this option should only be exercised in drastic circumstances.

I think it would significantly improve the relationship between umpires and players, provided one umpire didn't make a succession of decisions that were overturned on appeal - but then, that umpire would surely have to be in difficulties to retain their place on the panel. I believe it would improve relations because:
a) providing somebody with a method within the rules to properly ask for confirmation of a decision does not have to diminish the umpire's authority - the existing rules requiring respect towards umpires would remain in place, and its within the rules - hence you are not in fact seeking to get the umpire to do something improperly (this is a slightly circular point, but I think, if you follow it through, it does make sense), and
b) the option of the appeal should quell a lot of the dissent that currently occurs. Think about the dummy spits some umpires endure. If the play really feels wronged, they, through their captain, should appeal. If they don't think its worth using the appeal, get on with it. It gives the umpire a neat answer to challenges they get - "You think I'm wrong, go on, appeal it!".

If doubts exist, as they appear to, regarding hawkeye, then don't let the third umpire use it - slow mo replays, particularly with the highlighted 'strike zone' show all you really need anyway.

Giving the third umpire the responsibility to call no-balls, and the umpires earpieces for stump mike are two sensible suggestions that would assist the officiating umpires to get it right.

The old saying about things working out in the long run is a good one, and I don't think this is a change the ICC NEED to make, but I think it is one they CAN make that should improve the game. They can bring it in as a trial and if it doesn't, like the supersubs, it can always be abandoned at the end of the trial period. Changing the rules of the game does require care, but the rules have never been set in stone, and lots of the changes over the years have improved the game.

 

[pasag]

Couldn't agree more. Very good post.

 

[luckyeddie]

Hahaha, that actually made me laugh.

I try

 

[dinu23]

http://www.cricketweb.net/article.php?CategoryIDAuto=1&NewsIDAuto=1763

Does anyone else feel themselves slipping slowly away from international cricket?

hey, how about changing this thread so members can vote.

 

[howardj]

More details on how it will work

 

[Matt79]

Three per one day innings is way too many, it'll guarantee at least two challenges per innings - and that will get tired very quickly. You'd hope the use of challenges will be covered by the same time wasting rules as the rest of the game.

I'm unimpressed the "powerplay" is being retained - apart from an awful name that smacks of 'Big Brother', its a generally pointless addition to the game...

 

[straw man]

I am fully in favour of expanding the information available to make better umpiring decisions possible during a game, as nothing annoys me more than the result of a match being taken out of the players hands by poor decisions.

I am however worried that the ICC won't implement the changes properly and that will end up serving as fuel for all the anti-technology whingers out there. After all, as previously mentioned, this is the same sporting body that brought us the super-sub rule.

Looking at the way its going to be implemented
- I do think 3 per innings is a few too many... especially in one dayers. You would have to be extremely unlucky to need three decisions overturned both while batting AND bowling. Maybe 3 per team total in an ODI would be better, to restrict delays.
- I can't believe they've neutered the third umpire by disallowing hawkeye and snickometer. I suppose I can understand it for hawkeye given the amount of debate on it and I personally can't be sure how accurate the current system is at present (However I'm absolutely sure that a very accurate and well tested system which acknowledges its limitations could be developed by a team with a half-decent understanding of physics, though it might require some investment from the ICC). Snicko on the other hand is so much simpler and is usually accurate for differentiating between bat and pad etc. Its also usually very quick. Certainly a lot quicker and more accurate than watching 500 different grainy closeup slow motion replays of the ball passing by the bat from 6 different angles while the senile third umpire who can't operate the equipment properly peers over his glasses to try to detect whether there is a millimetre gap between bat and ball or not. (Okay... not all umpires are like that... possibly a little unfair on some of them). That will be what causes delays and undermines the whole system. In my opinion it should never take more than a minute or two to look at the data, decide if there's enough info to make a decision, and make a decision. Hawkeye (or a better version) and Snicko could assist with this. No one is asking the third umpire to base their decisions purely on these tools.

Lastly, I did not realise before how much control it seems the TV producer has over what the third umpire can view. Clearly something should be done to ensure impartiality on that front.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Surely they'd have to have a TV production type guy up in the 3rd umpire's box giving him everything that he needs/wants to make a decision if his role is to be so much more integral to the game as what it will be if more power is put into his hands.

 

[luckyeddie]

Surely they'd have to have a TV production type guy up in the 3rd umpire's box giving him everything that he needs/wants to make a decision if his role is to be so much more integral to the game as what it will be if more power is put into his hands.

Third umpires wear boxes?

You learn something new every day.

 

[Smudge]

Third umpires wear boxes?

You learn something new every day.

Maybe he's suggesting the third umpire should be a woman?

 

[luckyeddie]

Maybe he's suggesting the third umpire should be a woman?

Jack slated me for using that emoticon. Suggested that it was below me.

I ignored him, the Giles clone.

Sorry, I can't think of anything to say that will add one jot to the discussion other than abuse, but, hey, it's never stopped me before.

 

[silentstriker]

Do it like they do in American football.

Each side gets two appeals per game. It has to come from the coach (or in cricket's case, the captain). The third umpire can only overturn the decision on the field if there in indisputable evidence to do so. If there is any doubt, then the decision made on the field stands.

If both your appeals get overturned (i.e you win both your appeals), you get a third one. Otherwise, its just the two per game.

If you use up your appeals, and then a horrendous decision is made against you....too bad, you should have saved the appeals.

 

[parttimer]

It's about time. I'm not a believer in 'all decisions even themselves out'. As an avid watcher and player of most sports over the years, I'm convinced 1 bad decision can change any game. How often do we say about teams "they despartely need a wicket NOW", or "one or two wickets now and everything changes". Cricket is a game of situations, the timing of the fall of wicket can be the most crucial part. So, even if poor decisions evened themselves out numberically, they will likely not be of equal importance and one team will always get the short end of the stick

 

[Top_Cat]

If umpires were programmers and bad decisions bugs, the soution to allow a certain number of appeals per day would be considered a work-around and a particularly kludgy one at that.

I say, take all decisions that can be made automatically away from the field umpires (no-balls, for example), use the third umpire for all stumpings/run-outs (this is basically the case as it is, even in cases where the batsman appears plainly out) and leave the on-field umpires to concentrate on where the ball is going, not whether 1mm of the rear of a bowler's boot is behind the popping crease. If they are able to concentrate on just watching the ball, surely they'd be better able to judge LBW's and dispute catches (and when the technology is more accurate, make that one for the 3rd umpire too). Forget tradition on this one; it's a professional sport and decision-making should reflect this. If we have the facilities to make decisions more accurate, it's non-sensical to allow the current situation to continue.

As an aside, I think umpires are pillored far too often these days. I don't think we've seen a decline in umpiring standards at all; I think we're just seeing all of the decisions umpires have ALWAYS gotten wrong with a greater frequency than we were aware of. I remember no fewer bad decisions in 1991 (probably more, if anything; anyone remember how cheesed off the Indians were after the 1991 away series against Australia?) as there was in 2001. Back then, there was no 3rd umpire or any of the super slow-mo cameras we see today so a lot of bad decisions slipped under the radar (I mean, there wasn't anything that could be done about them - once the umpire made his decision, that was the end of it) and for that reason, I maintain that the apparent decline in umpiring standards is an illusion.

I do distinctly remember it was stated before 3rd umpires that there would be less debate about decisions, and better technology would settle long-held debates, etc. If anything, there are MORE arguments and I firmly believe the above idea is the culprit. Ignorance was bliss, eh!