Who's backing the referral system now?

[silentstriker]

So one Umpire is a showpony - so?

So, he isn't part of the game and thinks he is. The fact that his bosses haven't told him to knock it out and get on with the game is very telling.

Also,

 

[Richard]

So, he isn't part of the game and thinks he is. The fact that his bosses haven't told him to knock it out and get on with the game is very telling.

Yeah - so, as I say - one guy is like that. Believe it or not, Bowden isn't the only Umpire in history or at the current time.

Also,

Darrell Hair isn't neccessarily a showpony or someone who likes attention. I think he's basically a George W Bush of cricket - someone who sees himself as a bit of a crusader who can right all that is wrong but picks completely and totally the wrong way to go about things and as a result makes lots of enemies that he could do with not making.

 

[TheEpic]

Hate it.

Human error is part of what makes sport so enjoyable.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

I really don't agree that fielders in the slips are better positioned to judge on nicks or anything else than the umpire, but regardless they have a vested interest in the decision, don't they? If we could trust human nature we'd hardly need umpires at all, would we? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest we'll get frivalous referrals made with the intent of "getting away with one". No, far better to leave the decisions to the officials and the cricket to the players.

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.

I wasn't talking about referrals specifically, rather answering your contention that you "don't see how umpire's authority makes any contribution to the sport of cricket". Without authority and a measure of respect for this authority I don't think they could umpire &, more broadly, we'd have anarchy.

 

[Uppercut]

I wasn't talking about referrals specifically, rather answering your contention that you "don't see how umpire's authority makes any contribution to the sport of cricket". Without authority and a measure of respect for this authority I don't think they could umpire &, more broadly, we'd have anarchy.

What do you actually mean by, "we'd have anarchy"... would all the cricketers join the Socialist party and spend their time throwing bricks through Starbucks windows? It sounds a bit Daily Mail to me, tbh.

 

[silentstriker]

I really don't agree that fielders in the slips are better positioned to judge on nicks or anything else than the umpire, but regardless they have a vested interest in the decision, don't they? If we could trust human nature we'd hardly need umpires at all, would we? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest we'll get frivalous referrals made with the intent of "getting away with one".

That's why we give them limited number of appeals and the umpire still decides in the booth! They have a vested interest, so does the batsman, so they'll appeal when they think they're right, but not so much as to lose obvious ones. They don't have unlimited appeals, so they can't make frivolous appeals. It's the perfect balance.

I wasn't talking about referrals specifically, rather answering your contention that you "don't see how umpire's authority makes any contribution to the sport of cricket". Without authority and a measure of respect for this authority I don't think they could umpire &, more broadly, we'd have anarchy.

I was referring to some sort of absolute authority. As far as I know, no other sport places such an importance on referees. In every other sport, they manage the game without being elevated so some God-like status over the game. As far as I know, most people don't care or know who the referees are for the match. That's how it should be. Imagine that, people talking about the players.

 

[silentstriker]

Hate it.

Human error is part of what makes sport so enjoyable.

Human error as in the players. If wrong decisions make it so enjoyable, we should just flip a coin on every appeal.

 

[Richard]

Hate it.

Human error is part of what makes sport so enjoyable.

Heh, not for me it's not. I generally enjoy cricket more the fewer errors there are. Also I think that once error-making is out of the way those who have no memory of it will look back and think "how on EARTH did they cope when errors like that were made??"

What's more, players have a) far more scope to make error than Umpires and b) far more available to them to improve them and cut-out the errors they make. This is not right. Both players and Umpires should be able to use everything available to get the errors they make down to the minimum possible.

 

[Richard]

What do you actually mean by, "we'd have anarchy"... would all the cricketers join the Socialist party and spend their time throwing bricks through Starbucks windows? It sounds a bit Daily Mail to me, tbh.

No, they'd just be getting up to Harbhajan-Symonds-esque stuff much more often. As well as stuff which is less bad but still eminently unacceptable. I don't know how much football you've played, but if you can, think back to the days when you were 8-9-10 and played football on the school playground\field with no referee, then first started playing proper organised stuff with a proper referee and linesmen. The difference is incalculable. The idea of playing cricket (or any sport) without an authoritarian figure on the field is laughable.

Fully aware, BTW, that ignore-lists will mean Dale Brumby is quite likely to post something that says virtually exactly the same thing as this post very soon.

 

[susudear]

Easy

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

put sensors along the line.

 

[Uppercut]

No, they'd just be getting up to Harbhajan-Symonds-esque stuff much more often. As well as stuff which is less bad but still eminently unacceptable. I don't know how much football you've played, but if you can, think back to the days when you were 8-9-10 and played football on the school playground\field with no referee, then first started playing proper organised stuff with a proper referee and linesmen. The difference is incalculable. The idea of playing cricket (or any sport) without an authoritarian figure on the field is laughable.

Not very convincing itbt. The umpires don't lose the ability to fine players their match fees or ban them for misdemeanours just because they start to admit they've made a mistake on second viewing and change their decision accordingly. I'd have infinitely more respect for an umpire who got 95% of decisions right with the help of referrals than for one who got 80% right and wouldn't look at the evidence when everyone knew he was wrong.

 

[Richard]

I for one am not suggesting in the slightest that people should not look at maximum evidence - I've been in favour for a good few years of maximum aides to decision-making being used. I just want it used at levels below Test\ODI as well and think that for that to happen things need to be done carefully.

I also want to see the Umpires doing it themselves, not players making challenges. I want to see a situation where a wrong decision isn't even made because all evidence is considered before the decision rather than after it. And don't tell me it'd mean things took forever, because it wouldn't if done in the right way.

 

[TheEpic]

Human error as in the players. If wrong decisions make it so enjoyable, we should just flip a coin on every appeal.

Why bother having umpires at all then? Why not just refer every appeal to a man sitting beside a computer screen?

Obviously I expect the majority of decisions to be correct as it is the job of umpires to correctly decide whether or not a batsman is out. However, no umpire is ever going to get every decision correct, and incorrect decisions often serve, rightly or wrongly, to increase tension and excitement and result in far more interesting matches. Indeed, the umpires interpretation of close calls is part of the joy of the game.

We cannot expect umpires to be correct 100% of the time. The referral system serves to eliminate any umpiring error. So why don't we just dispense with them altogether?

 

[silentstriker]

We cannot expect umpires to be correct 100% of the time. The referral system serves to eliminate any umpiring error. So why don't we just dispense with them altogether?

That doesn't make sense. Since the referral system isn't 100% either, you will still have that tension. I've no idea why you'd want tension from false decisions, but whatever floats your boat, you'd still have that as nothing is 100%. Unless you want the frequency of wrong decisions to increase, in which case we could just pick incompetent umpires. Surely we'd have a lot more tension then? At what number of wrong decisions does it become farce vs. added tension?

If it was workable to eliminate them, I would most certainly be the first in line to get rid of the whole bunch. There'd be the problem of someone holding the hats and the sweater though, and counting deliveries and other such minutia. The day they become glorified hat holders is the day I'll be a very happy man. Unfortunately, I do think they are needed in some ways right now, to make sure rules are enforced (e.g, something on the field doesn't get out of hand, making sure other things are going smoothly). If they aren't, I've no problem with getting rid of them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What do you actually mean by, "we'd have anarchy"... would all the cricketers join the Socialist party and spend their time throwing bricks through Starbucks windows? It sounds a bit Daily Mail to me, tbh.

You know what I mean. I could as easily have said "we'd have Wayne Rooney screaming into the referee's face" or the cricketing equivalent thereof.

 

[TheEpic]

As a side note to what I was saying about umpiring mistakes perhaps having positive outcomes - we need only look at Edgbaston 2005. Of course, Kasprowicz had his hand off the bat when he gloved Harmison through to the keeper to give England that famous win. Only technology could have really identified the umpiring error. Had he been given not out, Australia would have gone 2-0 up in the series and the concluding 3 matches would probably not have been the spectacles that they were which resulted in one of the most exciting series in living memory.

How many times in a football match has a previously insipid affair been livened up by a dodgy penalty call or a dubious sending off?

So in my opinion, yes technology has a role, but not in the crucial decisions which form the foundation on which a sport is played. To partially remove the decision making ability of the umpire, is IMO, to neuter him completely.

 

[silentstriker]

You know what I mean. I could as easily have said "we'd have Wayne Rooney screaming into the referee's face" or the cricketing equivalent thereof.

So? If the umpires have the right to eject players, he'd be ejected.

 

[silentstriker]

As a side note to what I was saying about umpiring mistakes perhaps having positive outcomes - we need only look at Edgbaston 2005. Of course, Kasprowicz had his hand off the bat when he gloved Harmison through to the keeper to give England that famous win. Only technology could have really identified the umpiring error. Had he been given not out, Australia would have gone 2-0 up in the series and the concluding 3 matches would probably not have been the spectacles that they were which resulted in one of the most exciting series in living memory.

How many times in a football match has a previously insipid affair been livened up by a dodgy penalty call or a dubious sending off?

So in my opinion, yes technology has a role, but not in the crucial decisions which form the foundation on which a sport is played.

So as an Umpire, I should make the wrong call if that wrong call will make the game more exciting? The players should create the tension, not ****ty umpiring.

To partially remove the decision making ability of the umpire, is IMO, to neuter him completely.

I doubt that, but let's hope so.

 

[Richard]

Why bother having umpires at all then? Why not just refer every appeal to a man sitting beside a computer screen?

Why not have both? Who actually aid, rather than run counter to, each other.

Obviously I expect the majority of decisions to be correct as it is the job of umpires to correctly decide whether or not a batsman is out. However, no umpire is ever going to get every decision correct, and incorrect decisions often serve, rightly or wrongly, to increase tension and excitement and result in far more interesting matches.

Dunno about often. Sometimes they make things more interesting, sometimes they make it less. Either way, there's a broad sense of injustice there and personally injustice is something I simply detest and want EVERYTHING in life to make maximum effort to cut-out or cut-down on to the maximum extent possible.

 

[Uppercut]

You know what I mean. I could as easily have said "we'd have Wayne Rooney screaming into the referee's face" or the cricketing equivalent thereof.

Wayne Rooney should be booked several times in nearly every game he plays. The problem with his bull**** has nothing to do with the debate on technology, which if anything increases respect for the umpires because they can get the right decision more often. Or at least makes the lack of respect more acceptable, because the umpires involved in the McCullum incident deserve ****-all respect.