Who's backing the referral system now?

[howardj]

I think Haydens comments as a player is interesting & very valid though


.

Violently disagree with Hayden.

What's romantic about an incorrect decision? Can't remember the last time I sat on my couch thinking: "That's an awful decision, but heck it's great that he made it, because I love the human element".

 

[Richard]

Well when you didn't hit the ball and you use all the might of technology to prove this and you are still given out I reckon you can rightfully be upset.

Nah, not IMO. A bad decision is a bad decision wherever it originates from, none of this referrals nonsense changes the fact that a non-walker deserves every bad out decision that comes their way.

It just shows that in its current form the referral system is ****house and it needs to be retuned in order to make mistakes like this entirely a thing of the past. I'm not bothered by Rudi's decision, as human error is acceptable, yet a guy with all the benefit of hindsight couldn't overturn the decision due to pointless and baffling restrictions.

Again though it's not the current referral system it's the current amount of evidence available to third-Umpires.

 

[Richard]

Violently disagree with Hayden.

What's romantic about an incorrect decision? Can't remember the last time I sat on my couch thinking: "That's an awful decision, but heck it's great that he made it, because I love the human element".

Yeah, Umpiring errors are something that we think (well, some of us do) are all fine and dandy when the time is between games, but whenever one happens when a game's actually in play, we deplore it.

 

[susudear]

Hayden talk

Hayden can do all the talking, till he gets the boot.

surprised as he had his matt share of bad decisions.

maybe he knows he's near the end, and can get away blaiming umps.

 

[Harry Harrison]

After that absolutely rubbish decision to dismiss McCullum, and destroy the very real opportunity NZ had to win the game, who is backing this completely bull**** referral system?

Not only did technology (and the umpires..surprise surprise, Koertzen with ANOTHER ridiculous decision) not work, but there have been LBW's throughout the series that have been given out, when they have looked to miss leg stump, and others given not out, when they have looked like clipping leg.

Terrible system...get rid of it while cricket still has some dignity!

this system has minimised the chances of wrong decisions. i fully back this system.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hayden can do all the talking, till he gets the boot.

surprised as he had his matt share of bad decisions.

maybe he knows he's near the end, and can get away blaiming umps.

Once again your brilliant analytical mind has hit the nail on the head...

 

[aussie]

Violently disagree with Hayden.

What's romantic about an incorrect decision? Can't remember the last time I sat on my couch thinking: "That's an awful decision, but heck it's great that he made it, because I love the human element".

Well yes, i was more highlighting his inner point of the game becoming "too mechanical". Since the refferal system given a few LBW's that usually doesn't happen changes the game greatly.

Very similar to change in the LBW law after 1957 (i think), especifically after Peter May's 285. Batsmen will have to play differently no doubt.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm sure it's probably been said already, but if you're debating the use of the referral system against the use of no technology at all, the McCullum decision is completely irrelevant as the result would have been the same either way - the decision wasn't overturned, just upheld.

I'm not a huge fan of this particular way of going about it, myself, but the referral system is infinitely better than just letting the on-field umpires make all the decisions.