The referral system

Top Contributors
Re: ICC showing their incompetence again. Disgraceful.

mas cambios;376463 said:
Why will there be controversy? Because of the perception that the English team is filled with South Africans?

Don't be soft. Yes, there will talking points and the odd dodgy decision here and there. This is true of every series. Umpires are human and as such fallible.

Do you think the referral system would really bring an end to contentious umpiring decisions? Of course it won't.



I think both teams will soldier on without it.
Click to expand...

The odd dodgy decision?

You wouldn't be a lawyer would you?

The last Ashes series was marred by shithouse umpiring - not just the odd dodgy decision.

Who remembers that non-LBW decision on Strauss at the start of the 4th test on the first ball of the much. How the **** was that not out?

This system would remove howlers like that, and as we saw in the soccer match between France and Ireland, we have long gone past the time when dodgy decisions (as you so eloquently put it) are part of the game.

What happens if England are chasing 280 odd batting last and are 1 for 150, when Strauss smashes one onto his pad and is given out LBW? Then England crumbles and loses by 20 runs?

There would be uproar, led by the likes of Ian Botham - who were strangely quiet when England were benefitting from incorrect decisions during the ashes.

Hell, some clown on the BBC tried to justfiy the shit umpiring by saying that England got some shockers in 06/07.

Time for cricket to get with the times, and bring this system in.

The positives outweigh the negatives.

The ICC should provide funding to those boards that can't afford it, conversely boards that are loaded should show some initiative and be proactive in implementign the required technology.

On that aspect I applaud Cricket Australia.

Now we may have a few delays during the summer with this system, but we are likely to not have the series marred by shit decisions. Those that are clearly wrong.
 
Re: ICC showing their incompetence again. Disgraceful.

Yet the series in South Africa showed decisions which are clearly wrong still slip through

BTW do you write a log book of every decision you feel goes against Australia? Dont suppose you record those that favour them, then again it would be alot of work and be 100 times the size, but I love the way you talk as if Australia is now going to be unbeatable because they will never get wrong decisions against them again, atleast it should stop Shane Watson ever getting a test match century

Oh and the guy on the BBC was right, England was absolutely screwed in 06/07
 
Re: ICC showing their incompetence again. Disgraceful.

Every team that plays has equal positive and negative decisions against them.

Just think how many poor decisions there were in days gone by when there wasn't the technology to find them?

We are only just noticing how many are made, which are really close anyway and only found after 14 million replays, because we have the technology to.

Changing that is changing the game itself and the human errors of the EXTREMELY highly trained umpires is bad for the game.
 
Mod's Note

LtD, your anti-Pommie schtick is getting old. If you could make an effort to leave it out of at least every second post it would be much appreciated. There's plenty to discuss on this topic without having to derail it into yet another crack at the Auld Enemy.

kthnxbai.
 
Re: ICC showing their incompetence again. Disgraceful.

eddiesmith;376470 said:
Yet the series in South Africa showed decisions which are clearly wrong still slip through

BTW do you write a log book of every decision you feel goes against Australia? Dont suppose you record those that favour them, then again it would be alot of work and be 100 times the size, but I love the way you talk as if Australia is now going to be unbeatable because they will never get wrong decisions against them again, atleast it should stop Shane Watson ever getting a test match century

Oh and the guy on the BBC was right, England was absolutely screwed in 06/07
Click to expand...

Oh **** off you idiot.
 
Re: Mod's Note

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of the referral system. Cricket has been a game for years where team's get good decisions and also bad ones mixed inbetween. For the most part the umpires do a good job and almost every single umpire on the elite panel would have a correctness percentage in the high 90's.

However, the only reason why this sort of issue is being brought up is the increase in the technology used in the game. We've got replays, slow motion replays, super slow-mo replays, snicko, stump cam, hot spot, hawkeye and everything else under the sun. These types of devices are picking up what you could call borderline or wrong decisions but these only highlight the incident and put it under the microscope which brings them under more scrutiny. 15, maybe even 10 years ago this issue wouldn't be one and if it weren't for the advances in technology used by cricketing broadcasters around the world we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Bad decisions are always going to be a part of the game, we've all been on the receiving end of one and the team we support is always going to get them as the umpires are only human, they can't be right 100% of the time.

I don't believe the system is going to solve much, we've seen it used and sometimes the wrong decision is still made, I think we just need to man up and live with it. For the last 130 years, we have lived with the umpire's decision, why should we change that now?
 
Re: Mod's Note

Ljp86;376516 said:
To be honest, I'm not really a fan of the referral system. Cricket has been a game for years where team's get good decisions and also bad ones mixed inbetween. For the most part the umpires do a good job and almost every single umpire on the elite panel would have a correctness percentage in the high 90's.

However, the only reason why this sort of issue is being brought up is the increase in the technology used in the game. We've got replays, slow motion replays, super slow-mo replays, snicko, stump cam, hot spot, hawkeye and everything else under the sun. These types of devices are picking up what you could call borderline or wrong decisions but these only highlight the incident and put it under the microscope which brings them under more scrutiny. 15, maybe even 10 years ago this issue wouldn't be one and if it weren't for the advances in technology used by cricketing broadcasters around the world we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Bad decisions are always going to be a part of the game, we've all been on the receiving end of one and the team we support is always going to get them as the umpires are only human, they can't be right 100% of the time.

I don't believe the system is going to solve much, we've seen it used and sometimes the wrong decision is still made, I think we just need to man up and live with it. For the last 130 years, we have lived with the umpire's decision, why should we change that now?
Click to expand...

Bringing out the old 'tradtion' argument.

Well it's a weak one to be honest.

People forget that the referral system has only been 'trialled' so far in a few test matchs. The term 'trail' suggests to most people of average intelligence that the system still has a few flaws that need to be worked out.

That is still a work in progress, and no doubt when this system is used this summer there may be a few instances when the wrong decision is made, but cricket must persist. In time this system will remove a lot of bad decisions, in turn removing angst between players, and in turn providing us with a better spectacle.

Cricket has to move with the times, its time now at the elite level to bring this system in.

I'm all for it.
 
Re: Mod's Note

The whole problem with technology is it is making decisions which are correct appear to be wrong giving people the wrong impression that too many mistakes are made, hawkeye is the perfect example, some people take Hawkeye as 100% accurate and complain any time a decision is made different to what hawkeye thinks

The only way to perfectly judge an LBW is from the position of the standing umpire. The only thing technology can truly help with is where it pitched, yet when they used the referall system it was LBWs that teams kept sending upstairs

IMO they should remove LBW from the referall system except for 2 cases. 1. An umpire may go upstairs to check where it pitched if he thinks it is out. 2. A batsman may refer if he thinks he edged it however even that one is a tough one as TV cant always tell if there is an inside edge
 
Re: Mod's Note

Well if the referall system is brought in, cross my fingers it's not, then the LBW rule has to change.

If you have the technology to slow it down as they do, and they think you can judge it very closely, which I think they can 90% of the time (an arguable stance though) then some of the laws have to change. The pitching and hitting in line law doesn't have to stand. They were introduced to ensure that the umpire can make an informed and correct decision. If you have technology, you can work out if it is going to hit from just about anywhere on the pitch, to hitting the batsman anywhere on the line.

If that is the case, then the amount of cameras on the batsman has to be at least doubled, with more high speed cameras to record the extreme slow-mos. This is the only way to get an extremely accurate decision... but it would triple the costs.

Is it worth it?
 
Re: Mod's Note

What a load of codswallop.

The LBW rule will not be using hawkeye other then tracking the flight path of the ball before it strikes the pad, no predictive element will be used. Only the flight path of the ball from the bowles hand until it strikes the batsmen.

IF the ball strikes the batsmen outside the line of the stumps then we will be able to tell.

THe same applies if the ball pitches outside leg.

The pros far outweight the negatives.

I read an article on the times uk site today about a study that was done in soccer detailing the impact of the home crowd on the refs.

Basically it found that the home side got the rub of the green with the refs generally.

I have no doubt that the same would apply to cricket, and I have no doubt its why teams like South Africa and India, especially the latter, are against this system at the moment.

Lets bring this damn thing in, I cant wait for it to be used this summer.
 
Re: Mod's Note

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;376589 said:
I read an article on the times uk site today about a study that was done in soccer detailing the impact of the home crowd on the refs.

Basically it found that the home side got the rub of the green with the refs generally.

I have no doubt that the same would apply to cricket, and I have no doubt its why teams like South Africa and India, especially the latter, are against this system at the moment.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the article so I'm commenting blind here. However, can the same rules that apply to fans at a football match be applied to cricket? Generally, there will be more supporters at football in a smaller, enclosed space. They also tend to be very vocal and organised.

Now, from my experiences of watching live cricket this isn't always true of cricket. Attendance tends to be lower, spread out over a wider area - the demographic will also be different. Abuse is not directed at the umpires in the same way that it is at a referee. Fans also tend to be less vocal and generally only a small section organised (barmy army for example).

I can certainly see the extrapolation of the data from football to cricket and it makes perfect sense that a home crowd would have some effect. I just question how much of an effect as I feel it would be less than at an average football match.
 
Re: Mod's Note

Umpires are still predicting what might happen based on Hawkeyes plotting on a TV screen, leave the LBWs to the umpire in the middle, you can never get it right from TV anyway so may as well leave it to the man in the middle

As for effect of of crowds, I agree with mas that its not the same in cricket, in fact teams who are very intimidating and organised with their appeals get the rub of the green, Australia truly mastered it in the last 10 or so years
 
Re: Mod's Note

I think the home side does get a lot of the benifits of umpiring, simply because an umpire trusts them more to know what they are playing at on their home grounds. For example Katich or Langer wouldn't get in by bounce, etc. It isn't by much, umpires are still fair, but they expect the home side to know what's happening more to make a different decision.

I still maintain my stance that if LBWs are going to be decided by technology, then they has to be a lot more of it, you can't predict accurately what is going to happen with the way things are, but if the amount of cameras were doubled, then maybe. The amount of cameras they have now, a bloody lot, cannot allow the same view for every different batsman, because obviously they move, therefore consistency cannot be involved in the decision making. Consistency is the one thing everyone asks for out of an umpire.

Just one question LtD, and I know you like the referal system, and I respect that, but is there anything really wrong with the game now? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Re: Mod's Note

I wouldn't say there is anything fundamentally wrong with the umpiring Boris - however today is different to the past. Today we have the technology, the slow mo cameras and the like.

Lets use this advancement in technology and make our game better.

The problem is that we have the access to this technology, everyone has it but the umpires. Therefore when OBVIOUS mistakes are made it frustates everyone, because we all know its clearly wrong, but the result stands.

Then you get the situation where one team excuses bad decisions by saying "we are due a few".

As I said earlier, one BBC commentator excuses the shafting we got in the 2nd test by saying Strauss copped a few (more then a few) in Australia in 06/07. Now that attitude is spoken purely from a person who just wants England to win, rather then what is best for the game.

We had guys being dismissed off no-balls in the last ashes series. We can cleary fix that with the referral system.

We had guys clearly missing the ball and being given out caught behind. We can clearly fix that with the referral system.

Same with knicks onto the pad and LBW's.

The same applies with the ball pitching outside leg.

All the above qualify as OBVIOUSLY wrong decisions. And the same applies to those appeals given not out when they are clearly out.

Bringing this referral system may make the umpiries role slightly less important, some may say it will turn them into ball counters. I couldn't care less, the game isn't about the umpires or their silly theatrics.

The game is about the players and the fans, getting the right decisions keeps the players happy, but more importantly it keeps the fans happy and gives us a better product in the sense that we feel we are seeing a fair contest.

This system won't get everything right, there will be mistakes, especially in the early stages.

But we need to push through that and realise that in time, we are likely to see better quality cricket, without the angst that has entered into the game in the past when bad decisions have been made.
 
Re: Mod's Note

mas cambios;376596 said:
I haven't read the article so I'm commenting blind here. However, can the same rules that apply to fans at a football match be applied to cricket? Generally, there will be more supporters at football in a smaller, enclosed space. They also tend to be very vocal and organised.

Now, from my experiences of watching live cricket this isn't always true of cricket. Attendance tends to be lower, spread out over a wider area - the demographic will also be different. Abuse is not directed at the umpires in the same way that it is at a referee. Fans also tend to be less vocal and generally only a small section organised (barmy army for example).

I can certainly see the extrapolation of the data from football to cricket and it makes perfect sense that a home crowd would have some effect. I just question how much of an effect as I feel it would be less than at an average football match.
Click to expand...

Cant see why the same rules can't apply.

Some of the appeals in the 2005 Ashes were almost biblical when the English crowd got behind Flintoff. Even when balls were pitching clearly outside leg, the roar was unbelievable, and there is no doubt that type of stuff gets to the umpires.

I remember that one Katich got that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen, pitching outside leg and going over the top by a good foot or more. When the crowd roars intime with the appeal then the umps wouldn't be human if that didn't eventually start affecting their judgement.
 
Re: Mod's Note

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;376608 said:
Cant see why the same rules can't apply.

Some of the appeals in the 2005 Ashes were almost biblical when the English crowd got behind Flintoff. Even when balls were pitching clearly outside leg, the roar was unbelievable, and there is no doubt that type of stuff gets to the umpires.

I remember that one Katich got that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen, pitching outside leg and going over the top by a good foot or more. When the crowd roars intime with the appeal then the umps wouldn't be human if that didn't eventually start affecting their judgement.
Click to expand...

You make a good point but it can also go the other way. Umpires start to turn down appeals because of the 'pressure' of the crowd.

As I said, I agree that the crowd has to play some part but I just think that it is not going to be to the same degree as a football crowd. It's also worth remembering that very few test matches are played out to full houses. One day and 20twenty matches, yes, but test cricket is often poorly attended outside of England and Australia.
 
Re: Mod's Note

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;376607 said:
I wouldn't say there is anything fundamentally wrong with the umpiring Boris - however today is different to the past. Today we have the technology, the slow mo cameras and the like.

Lets use this advancement in technology and make our game better.

The problem is that we have the access to this technology, everyone has it but the umpires. Therefore when OBVIOUS mistakes are made it frustates everyone, because we all know its clearly wrong, but the result stands.

Then you get the situation where one team excuses bad decisions by saying "we are due a few".

As I said earlier, one BBC commentator excuses the shafting we got in the 2nd test by saying Strauss copped a few (more then a few) in Australia in 06/07. Now that attitude is spoken purely from a person who just wants England to win, rather then what is best for the game.

We had guys being dismissed off no-balls in the last ashes series. We can cleary fix that with the referral system.

We had guys clearly missing the ball and being given out caught behind. We can clearly fix that with the referral system.

Same with knicks onto the pad and LBW's.

The same applies with the ball pitching outside leg.

All the above qualify as OBVIOUSLY wrong decisions. And the same applies to those appeals given not out when they are clearly out.

Bringing this referral system may make the umpiries role slightly less important, some may say it will turn them into ball counters. I couldn't care less, the game isn't about the umpires or their silly theatrics.

The game is about the players and the fans, getting the right decisions keeps the players happy, but more importantly it keeps the fans happy and gives us a better product in the sense that we feel we are seeing a fair contest.

This system won't get everything right, there will be mistakes, especially in the early stages.

But we need to push through that and realise that in time, we are likely to see better quality cricket, without the angst that has entered into the game in the past when bad decisions have been made.
Click to expand...

Good argument there, I would probably suggest you should have posted that first up...

The points you raise there are valid.

I don't agree that you can obviously see knicks onto pads. If the referal system is brought in I would like to see it do everything but LBWs, it seems to be the only thing a lot of people have against it.

I agree with the no-ball ruling, that every delivery is monitored for a no-ball, but then it takes out the "NO!" that the umpire yells. I remember Hayden used to pick up on the yell and hand movement after a spin bowler already bowls and has time to adjust for a big swing. That is only one player I have seen though.

If it were to be done for some rules and not others there may be a call for it to not be used at all as well.

I think only umpires should refer though. The batsman shouldn't have a choice. Although I would like to see the umpires approach the batsman if they think it is wrong.

This leads to another thing though: batsmen losing respect for the umpire. He is the only person on the field safe from sledging and whatnot, and now a batsman has the power to overrule him. Makes the most powerful man on the field seem a little inadequate.

All in all I don't mind if the umpire calls upstairs and asks if he knicked a catch through to the keeper, but not for everything.
 
Re: Mod's Note

If they brought it in for no balls then it shouldnt be only by the man upstairs, they just let the umpire on the field know if they missed one
 
Re: Mod's Note

eddiesmith;376722 said:
If they brought it in for no balls then it shouldnt be only by the man upstairs, they just let the umpire on the field know if they missed one
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

This is a great way to do it, yes, because it means that the umpire is still making the calls unless its impossible for him to do so.

But then again, there would be large interruptions to play if there is a no ball, because all of a sudden there is a call from the cricket gods and the ball would have to be rebowled.

I think umpiring isn't as clear cut as the rules seem to be. Umpiring is often done on if it looks out. If a batsman gets caught in front off anything, then generally its good bowling that has gotten him into strife in the first place. This means the bowler has outsmarted the batsman. The bowler wins, the batsman is out. Then the replay shows that there was the finest of edges, or hawkeye says its going down leg. That doesn't matter, the batsman was bamboozled by a good delivery and outsmarted on every front. He looked out and so he should be out.

Going the other way if the batsman has made his century and played across his pads and simply just missed it because of laziness or tiredness or whatever, not the bowlers fault, the batsman would probably get the benefit of the doubt.

That's the way I see umpiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top