Who's backing the referral system now?

[Richard]

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.

Nah. Had Umpiring errors been avoided that morning Kasprowicz wouldn't have lasted more than a single delivery. Bowden's mistake in giving him out merely cancelled-out his earlier mistake of not giving him lbw 1st ball. Well, no actually it didn't, because Harmison who'd bowled utter crap all game got the last wicket and Flintoff who'd done more than anyone could possibly expect to win the game for England didn't get it, and thus there was still some amount of "wrong" there but at least England weren't deprived of a victory by an Umpiring mistake.

That match'd still have been a rank thriller though, even if Kasprowicz had been given lbw 1st ball when he should have been. Obviously we don't know how much would've been different for the rest of the series my bet is that the series would still have been damn good to whatever extent. However, what's past is past and we're not talking about changing that, we're talking about changing the future. And if an Umpiring mistake which is avoided would've caused a thrilling series and we end-up only getting a good one because the mistake was avoided, no-one will be any the wiser about what would've happened because you can't know what would've happened if something had been different. And ignorance is bliss, so we'd not have known what we were missing, same way we don't know what we're missing given that in 100 years' time we're all likely to be dead and quality of life might be infinitely better in that day.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Don't agree, sorry. Game slipping away, three appeals left, best batsman egdes which is taken low but apparently cleanly; you can't see any way they'd be a referral to instill doubt where before there was none?

Earlier this year we had Mickey Arthur sending Hashim Amla back onto the pitch in the Headingley test (a referral by proxy if ever there was); it looked gone for all the world, but the replay induced that sliver of doubt.

 

[TheEpic]

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?

The main aim should be to improve umpiring standards so that blatant errors are reduced significantly. There's no excitement created from endless replays of a decision where every tiny aspect of a possible dismissal is endlessly scrutinised. The skills of the umpire to make split second decisions is a crucial aspect of cricket, and to describe them as glorified hat-stands is an insult to those who perform a difficult job.

Obviously we will never agree on this as I unashamedly enjoy the occasional mistake as I do genuinely believe it adds to the drama and spectacle of Test cricket.

But there you go.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't agree, sorry. Game slipping away, three appeals left, best batsman egdes which is taken low but apparently cleanly; you can't see any way they'd be a referral to instill doubt where before there was none?

Earlier this year we had Mickey Arthur sending Hashim Amla back onto the pitch in the Headingley test (a referral by proxy if ever there was); it looked gone for all the world, but the replay induced that sliver of doubt.

As luck would have it, there were about three similar catches that series that were obviously held but had to be referred. In that situation it should just have been a case of, "i can't tell, go with what you thought happened" instead of "i can't tell, give him not out".

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

I wasn't debating the use of technology tho, as I said:

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.

Rather the respect for the officials' authority, which Rooney's actions show very little of.

 

[Uppercut]

The main aim should be to improve umpiring standards so that blatant errors are reduced significantly. There's no excitement created from endless replays of a decision where every tiny aspect of a possible dismissal is endlessly scrutinised. The skills of the umpire to make split second decisions is a crucial aspect of cricket, and to describe them as glorified hat-stands is an insult to those who perform a difficult job.

Obviously we will never agree on this as I unashamedly enjoy the occasional mistake as I do genuinely believe it adds to the drama and spectacle of Test cricket.

But there you go.

I see where you're coming from actually. Watching for the umpire's finger on a tight lbw shout will never quite hold the same level of excitement ever again if technology is introduced. Still, pros outweigh cons IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

I wasn't debating the use of technology tho, as I said:



Rather the respect for the officials' authority, which Rooney's actions show very little of.

Ah fair enough, i would argue that technology would increase respect for the umpire's decision more often than not, simply because they'd get more right.

 

[Richard]

As luck would have it, there were about three similar catches that series that were obviously held but had to be referred. In that situation it should just have been a case of, "i can't tell, go with what you thought happened" instead of "i can't tell, give him not out".

Ind33d. Shame this hasn't happened more often over the past decade. Too often the latter attitude has been taken when the former should've been.

EG, Michael Vaughan Adelaide 2002/03. Just think - Vaughan doesn't score that innings, his only innings' of note come in dead Tests, he's traduced as someone who can only score when "the pressure's off", he doesn't get the ODI captaincy... who knows, maybe England's ODI side would've been a bit better (not much, obviously) for the last 5 years.

As I allude to above, the consequences of one action can end-up connecting to things that seemingly have absolutely nothing to do with.

 

[Jamee999]

Manan Shah - wants cricket to become a giant angle-shooting contest, imo.

 

[neutralguy]

Having 2 referrals per team in test match and using technologies like "hotspot" and "snicko" is the way to go.then iam for it.

 

[Goughy]

Ive just worked it out. Im a ****ing genius.

All appeals are referred and all 'not outs' after referral are followed by a 'free hit'.

Appeals slow the game but ensure accuracy. What is needed is a way to reduce silly appeals whilst making sure the correct decisions are made.

Voila

Monty to be bowling 10 ball overs under this system.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, I love it.

 

[pup11]

I am all for the referral system and i don't really buy this "referral system disrespects the umpire' authority" crap, but having said that if such a system is approved of by the ICC then it should provide 100% accuracy in decision making, otherwise its pretty much a worthless exercise, i think out of all the technology there in the game atm the Hot spot is the only 100% accurate guideline out there, all the rest of the guidelines time and again can prove to inconclusive, so when the referral system is brought in, i think it should also be made sure that the 3rd umpire has plenty of foolproof helping guidelines to make sure the correct decision is made everytime.

 

[Penguinissimo]

EG, Michael Vaughan Adelaide 2002/03. Just think - Vaughan doesn't score that innings, his only innings' of note come in dead Tests, he's traduced as someone who can only score when "the pressure's off", he doesn't get the ODI captaincy... who knows, maybe England's ODI side would've been a bit better (not much, obviously) for the last 5 years.

As I allude to above, the consequences of one action can end-up connecting to things that seemingly have absolutely nothing to do with.

Eg Graeme Smith is given out off Panesar in the third Test last summer. England go on to win the game, Michael Vaughan remains in situ as England captain, the brave new world of KP has to wait until after the Ashes...

I like hypothetical games like that.

 

[Uppercut]

Eg Graeme Smith is given out off Panesar in the third Test last summer. England go on to win the game, Michael Vaughan remains in situ as England captain, the brave new world of KP has to wait until after the Ashes...

I like hypothetical games like that.

The funny thing about that one was that England didn't even appeal. Even with the referral system he still would have stayed in

 

[Richard]

I am all for the referral system and i don't really buy this "referral system disrespects the umpire' authority" crap, but having said that if such a system is approved of by the ICC then it should provide 100% accuracy in decision making, otherwise its pretty much a worthless exercise, i think out of all the technology there in the game atm the Hot spot is the only 100% accurate guideline out there, all the rest of the guidelines time and again can prove to inconclusive, so when the referral system is brought in, i think it should also be made sure that the 3rd umpire has plenty of foolproof helping guidelines to make sure the correct decision is made everytime.

Snicko may prove inconclusive occasionally (that's what it is - very occasionally) but it'd still be a huge help 95% or more of the time, same as HotSpot. And what it cannot do (where what the predictive part of HawkEye could in theory do) is make a decision more likely to be wrong than right.

And as I've said before, I don't think anything should have to be 100% accurate to be used to aid the decision-making process. 98.6397% is better than 75-80% or so, whatever it is the best Umpires get right (out of the NON-OBVIOUS ones). And then you have to worry about the likes of Daryl Harper, who must get 60% right at best.

 

[silentstriker]

but having said that if such a system is approved of by the ICC then it should provide 100% accuracy in decision making, otherwise its pretty much a worthless exercise

Right, cause 95% accuracy is worse than 70% you'd get with an umpire in close decisions like that.

 

[99*]

I found it laughable what happened to McCullum. And it begs the question, where does common sense come into this, what batsman is going to use this challenge system if he knows he is out caught? Surely the fact he challenged in the first place would tell the umpire something.

 

[99*]

Right, cause 95% accuracy is worse than 70% you'd get with an umpire in close decisions like that.

I'd like to see what data you have showing umpires only get 70% of all decisions right.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Nope. Kasper would have been given out LBW much, much earlier as he should have and it wouldn't have even gotten to that point.

That said, when a match is only close due to a poor decision, it's tempting to say that makes it a poor match but, well, that makes it more like life. Sometimes you ride the wave of luck, win some, lose some, etc. People identify with sport because it's a metaphor for life. Eliminating mistakes isn't possible in life so when you do it in sport, there's inevitably a disconnect. People get emotional about sport. It's not rocket surgery.

Myself, I see no logical argument against the use of all tech available, even stuff like Hawkeye because I don't think it's as inaccurate as people portray it, the accusations of error being more a product of professional modesty by the inventors than anything else. But I understand why people feel like the game (and it is still a game, ultimately) is gradually losing what engender's an emotional connection.

The use of tech, in my view, should not be automated, though. The best analogy I can think of is that of a pilot. Yes there is auto-pilot, ILS, VOR, computerised navigations, etc. but the control of the plane is still with the pilot in command. The tech gives them every available tool to land the plane safely (and no, planes do not essentially fly themselves) but there's still a person doing the job in the end to make sure that the inevitable 'does not compute' moments are handled. All tools should be, in my opinion, available to all umpires but there should be a person monitoring them at least.

That said, if some stuff can be automated (like I suspect front-foot no-balls soon will), again, there's no reason not to.