Who's backing the referral system now?

[Polo23]

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!

 

[_Ed_]

I was a supporter of it initially, but not now. Admittedly the change is largely due to the one that went against NZ, but it got to the point where I didn't like it regardless of which side it helped/harmed anyway.

 

[Natman20]

I liked the use of it up till that McCullum decision and still think it's a goer. I just think that the particular decision should have been not out with the benefit to the batsman rather than to the ground umpire.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Its important to remember that he would have been given out anyway, regardless of the referral system. I don't buy into this "Koertsen gave him out 'cos he knew NZ still had referrals up their sleeve" crap. It was just a poor decision really.

It is silly not to use all the technology available if that technology can categorically prove it out/not out. I'm happy with the principle of sticking with the on-field umpire's decision unless the evidence is sufficient to prove things one way or the other, but when the TV channel can show that the umpires have been given insufficient, appropriate information then it just makes the system look ********.

 

[Sanz]

Never backed it, It is BS. As long as it is the human in charge of taking the decision, there is no use of technology.

Neutral umpires are the best.

 

[chaminda_00]

Sri Lanka would have never won that series against India without it imo. There going to decision go either way, but it minmise the poor decisions by a fair bit. The only problem is the time it takes up. But if it means there only a couple, rather then a handful of poor decisions per innings, then it good thing for me.

 

[Bahnz]

The theory behind the referral system, that it should only be used to find clear cut umpiring mistakes, is perfectly sound. The problem in the McCullum case, was that Koertzen took it too far. I mean c'mon Rudi! No noise, no deviation, no great elation from the fielding side and McCullum clearly shocked by the decision. Use your brain, man!

 

[susudear]

McCullim was not out

What a pathetic decision. Mcullum was nowhere near the ball and the third ump pressed thew rong button.

Hate this referal system.

 

[Jamee999]

Good idea, but it hasn't quite been put implemented well yet. Give it time...

 

[Somerset]

I think the referral system has merit, and we have to allow technology into the game, sooner rather than later. I suppose this series was beneficial because it highlighted exactly what should not continue with the system. I'd make the following changes:
a) allow hawkeye predictive path and use that to base LBW decisions - if hawkeye says its hitting, give it out, if hawkeye says its missing, not out. That way there can be no bias from any umpire, and we'll have more consistency with LBW referrals.
b) use hotspot for situations like the McCullum dismissal - absolutely crazy that the third umpire has not been able to use this fantastic piece of technology.
c) limit each side to two referrals per innings so teams should only refer decisions that they know are incorrect, rather than hope are incorrect.

 

[Atreyu]

I'm undesided on the referral system so far. Its got potential but it needs changing.

Somersets list is a pretty solid indication on my thoughts too

 

[sanga1337]

There's nothing wrong with the referral system, its just that some umpires are absolutely hopeless at using it and reaching the right conclusion even with replays.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If referrals are still coming up with the wrong decision, surely they lose their mandate? I haven't seen today's yet, but the consensus seems universal.

I've personally never liked the idea of teams having the right of referral, as it seems tantamount to legislated dissent and is unlikely to be evenly applied, but still advocate using technology at the behest of the standing umpires. Use of TMOs in both rugby codes has improved decisions without the need for teams to challenge the referees' decisions. If the technology is available, what's the argument for not using it?

 

[Goughy]

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.

 

[duffer]

If referrals are still coming up with the wrong decision, surely they lose their mandate?

Not really, I'm in favour of anything which results in less incorrect decisions which does happen with referrals. Nothing is ever going to be foolproof so it's a bit much for everyone to expect it to be that way.

EDIT: Or what Goughy said above.

 

[Bahnz]

a) allow hawkeye predictive path and use that to base LBW decisions - if hawkeye says its hitting, give it out, if hawkeye says its missing, not out. That way there can be no bias from any umpire, and we'll have more consistency with LBW referrals.
b) use hotspot for situations like the McCullum dismissal - absolutely crazy that the third umpire has not been able to use this fantastic piece of technology.
c) limit each side to two referrals per innings so teams should only refer decisions that they know are incorrect, rather than hope are incorrect.

I don't agree with point a. Hawkeye is purely hypothetical, and could bias umpiring decisions towards giving batsmen out for 50:50 calls, which I generally think that people don't want. But agree whole heartedly with the other two.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not really, I'm in favour of anything which results in less incorrect decisions which does happen with referrals. Nothing is ever going to be foolproof so it's a bit much for everyone to expect it to be that way.

EDIT: Or what Goughy said above.

The pedant in me feels compelled to point out that it's probably the technology, rather than the referrals per se that is responsible for the improved (presumably) decision making.

I'd like to see a trial where the umpires can refer decisions, to see if team referrals actually make any difference themselves. My guess, with a limit on their number and the obvious prerogative to protect the better players, would be not.

 

[Richard]

I think the referral system has merit, and we have to allow technology into the game, sooner rather than later. I suppose this series was beneficial because it highlighted exactly what should not continue with the system. I'd make the following changes:
a) allow hawkeye predictive path and use that to base LBW decisions - if hawkeye says its hitting, give it out, if hawkeye says its missing, not out. That way there can be no bias from any umpire, and we'll have more consistency with LBW referrals.
b) use hotspot for situations like the McCullum dismissal - absolutely crazy that the third umpire has not been able to use this fantastic piece of technology.
c) limit each side to two referrals per innings so teams should only refer decisions that they know are incorrect, rather than hope are incorrect.

I don't agree with point a. Hawkeye is purely hypothetical, and could bias umpiring decisions towards giving batsmen out for 50:50 calls, which I generally think that people don't want. But agree whole heartedly with the other two.

I'm not a fan of referrals as such but I am a fan of every decision using TV replays where neccessary.

In this, it's utterly baffling that HotSpot and Snicko aren't allowed to be used. They are not predictive elements, they are a revelation of facts, exactly the same as the red mat and the revelation aspect of HawkEye.

I don't object to the use of HawkEye's predictive element being barred when TV replays are being consulted. It's not a revelation of fact, it's a prediction of probability.

However I cannot see what logic is used to refuse to allow HotSpot and Snicko.

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm backing it, for the main reason that it's swiftly going to sort out the dominance of bat over ball.. It's up to the humans to use it correctly..

 

[silentstriker]

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.

But I know that if I were a batsman, or a bowler, and I had to put my faith in some old blind bat vs. an old blind bat with slow-mo, hot-spot and hawk-eye, I'd go for the latter. Umpires are too full of themselves and their own importance.