Who's backing the referral system now?

[Jono]

People guilty of the Nirvana fallacy. Comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. The referal system will never eliminate mistakes or bad decisions. What we hope it will do (tweaking may be required) is to reduce bad decisions and create consistency in umpire decisions across the globe.

To suggest (Im not saying anyone is doing this) that it is a bad system as it isnt 100% is unrealistic.

Bingo.

And Chaminda is right. If Sri Lanka didn't have the opportunity to use the referral system, they would not have defeated India 2-1 this year in the test series which they clearly deserved to win.

Keep the system IMO.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

A bit of an over-reaction.

The system should definitely be kept, it just needs to be improved.
That's why it's a trial, hopefully they will look seriously at the problems that have arisen and address them appropriately.

The big problem with the McCullum dismissal was that Benson didn't have enough evidence to over turn the decision of the on-field umpire. So what we are seeing is decisions being referred but not enough technology is being used to be able to overturn decisions in the tight situations.

If Rudi had given McCullum not out, and had Windies referred then the decision wouldn't have been overturned either. Clearly this is a problem, as you aren't actually acheiving anything from the system and doing nothing to prevent bad calls.

If anything, I think the McCullum decision has highlighted even more the need for the referral system, but an improved one where snicko and hotspot can be used. Currently, the 3rd umpire isn't been given enough evidence to do any good, and that needs to change.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah needs snicko and hotspot to be of much use for anything but the most shocking of decisions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I still don't see any arguments for referrals that aren't just arguments for using technology more, other than SS's petulant generalisation that "Umpires are too full of themselves and their own importance.", which may be true of some, but certainly isn't of all.

I personally would hope that, were they able to recourse to tv replays to assist them in their decision making, umpires would do exact that.

 

[Uppercut]

Let's throw it out because it's not 100% accurate. Because our umpires currently are.

People argue about McCullum, but he was given out anyway. So in that case, a bad decision stood. But if all bad decisions stand, except 1-2, that alone makes it worthwhile as that's 1-2 less bad decisions. I don't understand the argument. It'll never be 100%, same as no umpire will be.

Yeah, what's with the NZer hostility towards the referral system now? It didn't give McCullum out, it just failed to correct a bad decision that had already been made. It's a trial system, things like this were always going to crop up and have to be tinkered with.

 

[Uppercut]

I still don't see any arguments for referrals that aren't just arguments for using technology more, other than SS's petulant generalisation that "Umpires are too full of themselves and their own importance.", which may be true of some, but certainly isn't of all.

I personally would hope that, were they able to recourse to tv replays to assist them in their decision making, umpires would do exact that.

But if that's the case, the fear is that umpires will check the TV replays constantly, same as they do for run-outs. So when to check? Why not let the team on the end of the decision decide? The fact that the third umpire here appeared to be sleeping with Rudi doesn't make the whole system flawed.

I also don't get the "doesn't get everything right, therefore shouldn't be used" argument. Surely 95% correct decisions>>>80% correct decisions.

 

[silentstriker]

I still don't see any arguments for referrals that aren't just arguments for using technology more, other than SS's petulant generalisation that "Umpires are too full of themselves and their own importance.", which may be true of some, but certainly isn't of all.

I personally would hope that, were they able to recourse to tv replays to assist them in their decision making, umpires would do exact that.

The problem is that if you allow the umpires to make those decisions, you'll either get some shockers that all the players in the slip cordon know or the batsman knows but the umpire thinks he was right, or you'll get them referring every single decision no matter how obvious like they do with run outs these days. Either way doesn't work well IMO.

As for my petulance, it's really aimed at fans/administrators who place umpires on such a high pedestal. The game is 11vs11, not 11vs11 and two blokes whose decisions end up overriding the match and deciding the outcome. If you could count on everyone being honest and impartial, you wouldn't need umpires. They aren't part of the game, regardless of what Bowden thinks he is doing with his embarrassing antics.

If it leads to a better system, I've no problem with trying it though. However, in this instance, I don't see how it would have helped. The umpire on the ground made the wrong decision. If he was sure, it would have stood. If he wasn't, he would have referred it and it still would have stood. No net benefit. By putting it into the hands of the cricketer, you make players in charge of their own destiny. If some idiot captain loses his challenges early and receives a shocker, that's on him. It works really well in the NFL, and there is no reason it can't here.

As for legislating dissent - I don't see what the problem is with that? Why is that a bad thing to ask for a revision of an obvious mistake. You'd do that in any other real life situation, for example if you got unfairly charged with a credit card bill. You wouldn't leave that decision up to the credit card company, even if they were neutral and generally wanted to act in good faith. It's not wrong to challenge something that you feel is wrong. Obviously, it's a sport so real life analogies don't go too far, but my issue is exactly what you are implying in your post. That umpires somehow have higher authority. Before TV, they needed such authority as we had no other choice. Now, twenty million people on TV can immediately see how much of a moron an umpire is 20 seconds later. You can't keep imposing rules that were created in the 19th century just because it made sense then.

Oh, and not using every single piece of available technology is a farce. That's the whole point of a review FFS. As others have pointed out, India would not have lost the series in Sri Lanka if it weren't for the review system. A series that India definitely deserved to lose. When two people have that much power over a game, and they aren't players, there is something seriously wrong with the sport.

 

[Benaud]

personally i'd like to see all umpires scrapped and like to see cricket played on a system of honesty.

if the batsman knows he nicked it then he goes. sportsmanship is beautiful. if the bowler knows he bowled a front foot no ball then he should call it etc etc.

who else thinks this has legs? i think it would really make a change for the best.

 

[Neil Pickup]

personally i'd like to see all umpires scrapped and like to see cricket played on a system of honesty.

if the batsman knows he nicked it then he goes. sportsmanship is beautiful. if the bowler knows he bowled a front foot no ball then he should call it etc etc.

who else thinks this has legs? i think it would really make a change for the best.

How the hell is a bowler supposed to know if he's bowled a front foot no ball?

 

[silentstriker]

Well, if my partner at the other end is bowled, I'd kindly remind the bowler that his foot was over the line.

 

[Benaud]

Well, if my partner at the other end is bowled, I'd kindly remind the bowler that his foot was over the line.

yeh but that isnt good sportsmanship. u missed my point completely.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As for legislating dissent - I don't see what the problem is with that? Why is that a bad thing to ask for a revision of an obvious mistake. You'd do that in any other real life situation, for example if you got unfairly charged with a credit card bill. You wouldn't leave that decision up to the credit card company, even if they were neutral and generally wanted to act in good faith. It's not wrong to challenge something that you feel is wrong. Obviously, it's a sport so real life analogies don't go too far, but my issue is exactly what you are implying in your post. That umpires somehow have higher authority. Before TV, they needed such authority as we had no other choice. Now, twenty million people on TV can immediately see how much of a moron an umpire is 20 seconds later. You can't keep imposing rules that were created in the 19th century just because it made sense then.

Well, the obvious counter argument is that other team sports don't see the need to do it, so why should the sport whose very name used to be synonymous with fair play have to enshrine it?

Obviously cricket has to move on or die, but I think we're in serious danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, the obvious counter argument is that other team sports don't see the need to do it, so why should the sport whose very name used to be synonymous with fair play have to enshrine it?

Obviously cricket has to move on or die, but I think we're in serious danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

But other sports do. NFL does, and it's the most popular sport in the US, by far. I don't see how umpire's authority makes any contribution to the sport of cricket, except in a negative manner when they decide a series instead of the players.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But other sports do. NFL does, and it's the most popular sport in the US, by far. I don't see how umpire's authority makes any contribution to the sport of cricket, except in a negative manner when they decide a series instead of the players.

Sorry, by "team sports" I mean proper ones like football or rugby. Seriously tho, the latter uses TMOs but hasn't felt the need to give the teams the right of appeal. Any decision that's even slightly questionable gets referred for clarification, which is what I'd like to see adpopted (or at least trialled) in cricket. This system also has the advantage of not having an arbitrarily imposed limit on the number of referrals too; a shocker with no referrals left is still a shocker, but if the umpire wasn't sure himself he could "go upstiars" for another look.

And surely the umpires are just there to apply the laws of the sport? If they have no authority in so doing it'd be a case of whoever shouted the loudest carrying the day.

 

[Richard]

Umpires are too full of themselves and their own importance.

Apart from what you'd like to believe, do you have any evidence that actually suggests this is the case?

 

[silentstriker]

Apart from what you'd like to believe, do you have any evidence that actually suggests this is the case?

 

[Richard]

I also don't get the "doesn't get everything right, therefore shouldn't be used" argument. Surely 95% correct decisions>>>80% correct decisions.

Yeah that's a belief-defyingly ignorant attitude and I've never got it at all.

 

[Richard]

So one Umpire is a showpony - so?

 

[Richard]

personally i'd like to see all umpires scrapped and like to see cricket played on a system of honesty.

if the batsman knows he nicked it then he goes. sportsmanship is beautiful. if the bowler knows he bowled a front foot no ball then he should call it etc etc.

who else thinks this has legs? i think it would really make a change for the best.

I think there's something called "free-for-all" that would be spectacularly activated if that were attempted to be brought in.

 

[silentstriker]

Sorry, by "team sports" I mean proper ones like football or rugby. Seriously tho, the latter uses TMOs but hasn't felt the need to give the teams the right of appeal. Any decision that's even slightly questionable gets referred for clarification, which is what I'd like to see adpopted (or at least trialled) in cricket. This system also has the advantage of not having an arbitrarily imposed limit on the number of referrals too; a shocker with no referrals left is still a shocker, but if the umpire wasn't sure himself he could "go upstiars" for another look.

But the issue, as mentioned, is that it would become like run outs, where every decision is referred. On the other end, sometimes the batsman or the slip fielders are in a much better position to judge something than the umpire, so he may honestly believe something and choose not to refer it. It doesn't make sense to exclude people who might have the best idea of what actually happened from the process. I mean, a batsman knows more often than not if he nicked it, it seems ludicrous to not give him an option to prove it.

And surely the umpires are just there to apply the laws of the sport? If they have no authority in so doing it'd be a case of whoever shouted the loudest carrying the day.

I don't see how. Again, refs in the NFL are also there to apply the laws, and they do it just fine, even with referrals. In baseball, there aren't referrals for strikes or balls, and yet managers get into shouting matches with baseball umps all the time. The two things are utterly unrelated.

It's a big leap of faith, which is unsupported by evidence, to say that if you are allowed to refer a shocker, that it'll become a shouting match. Umpires can still impose penalties, kick a player out, etc. As can the match referee after the day's play or after the game.