The referral system

Top Contributors
Re: The referral system

I think what would solve this problem is finding a list of factual pros and factual cons of the system. No inferring or opinionated points, but just pros and cons.

How bout the pros first, and remember to keep them something that everyone will agree is factual?
 
Re: The referral system

Pretty ridiculous referral against Cook from South Africa tonight, I guess players will learn how to use them wisely eventually.
 
Re: The referral system

The big issue I have with the referral system at the moment is the time it takes for the team to make the decision about asking for the review. South Africas usage of it is nothing short of a comedy.. and the ICC should set a limit to ensure that this does not stop the flow of the game. I like the fact that the decisions from the umpires are getting better but the mid pitch conferences is unattractive fir the viewing public. I suspect that in future we could be having the "XYZ Undertakers" review adverts running while we waite for the decision. :)
 
Re: The referral system

hattrick;382286 said:
The big issue I have with the referral system at the moment is the time it takes for the team to make the decision about asking for the review. South Africas usage of it is nothing short of a comedy.. and the ICC should set a limit to ensure that this does not stop the flow of the game. I like the fact that the decisions from the umpires are getting better but the mid pitch conferences is unattractive fir the viewing public. I suspect that in future we could be having the "XYZ Undertakers" review adverts running while we waite for the decision. :)
Click to expand...

Hahaha don't say that or with the way comercialism is the ICC might like the idea of mid pitch conferences to make the decision... solely for the advertising chances. :D
 
Re: The referral system

I don't believe that an initial not-out decision should be overturned when the referral shows that its very tight - like an lbw shout that is shown by technology to just flick the bail or the edge of the stump. In such a case the umpire, IMO, made the correct call - even though technically he was wrong.

Also, with regards to the referral process, the first step is to confirm that it wasn't a no-ball - presumably if it is shown that it was a no-ball, is this then added to the score?
 
Re: The referral system

Stupid system which entirely relies on the inaccurate Hawkeye and leaves no room for interpretation or ability to overrule an obviously incorrect Hawkeye decision
 
Re: The referral system

As a non-fan of this system, I do have to say the way it has been used in the Hobart Test has been very good.

This is mainly, though, because it is showing just how good the umpires really are. They haven't made a single mistake all series and the technology has become mostly redundant. The times where the decision has been over turned are times when they perhaps shouldn't have been, because there were only millimetres in it that nobody human could work out.

On another note Hawkeye has a 75% innacurracy. Which is 3/4 of the ball width in any direction that is shown. From the middle of off stump to the middle of middle stump is one ball width, and the same from middle to leg. That means that is if Hawkeye predicts it just clipping the stumps, in real life it could have either hit them much more (as in 3/4 more) or missed the stumps by another 3 centimetres.

The strange things is that the third umpire takes that into account - for the pitching of the ball only. The ball has to have at least 3/4 of the ball, preferably more, both pitching within the line of the stumps, and at least that much hitting in line with the stumps. That means if the pads are flicked only just inside the line the umpire won't include it. BUT this doesn't apply for hitting the wickets. If the ball only just, and we are talking millimetres, not 3/4 of the ball diametre, clips the stumps it is out. So the third umpire takes the 3/4 rule into consideration for everything but the actual hitting of the stumps. And isn't that the most important part?
 
Re: The referral system

Actually for all the decisions, it goes back to the original umpires verdict for those close ones

So if the umpire gives it out and Hawkeye has it clipping, it stands yet if the umpire had said not out and the bowling team referred it, it would still be not out

So no, it doesnt change for any of them, they all take into account its inaccuracy and stick with the umpires call if its close
 
Re: The referral system

eddiesmith;384678 said:
Actually for all the decisions, it goes back to the original umpires verdict for those close ones

So if the umpire gives it out and Hawkeye has it clipping, it stands yet if the umpire had said not out and the bowling team referred it, it would still be not out

So no, it doesnt change for any of them, they all take into account its inaccuracy and stick with the umpires call if its close
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

But it does make me not agree with it more, because I have seen on numerous times that Hawkeye has it just clipping and it has been given out.

I can't believe they also use it in tennis down to the millimetre. This system will never be that accurate.
 
Re: The referral system

I dont agree with the system at all, I reckon its stupid that it overturns the umpires decision when its missing by 1mm on an inaccurate system

Plus that Akmal decision today, how Hawkeye had that hitting the stumps I dont know, of course had the umpire made the correct decision and said not out the referall would have upheld that as well

Thats the other annoying thing, most of the time it will just say it agrees with whatever decision the umpire made, out or not out, Hawkeye could go both ways on the same ball

As for tennis, I like it there, in that it is just showing what actually happened rather than the more inaccurate prediction stuff that cricket now uses. But judging by the shape of the ball I wonder if any Hawkeye inaccuracy is factored into that because it seems an odd shape it leaves
 
Re: The referral system

I really can't understand the objection towards this system. I really can't. I said earlier a few weeks back that there will be teething problems with this system, and there have been, as we saw in South Africa with snickgate.

But in time this system will be the best thing that happened to the game since Packer in my opinion. We will get most decisions right, and the game will move forward without angst and player unrest.

Look at that decision against Ponting today, no way an umpire could give that out, but with technology we can prove conclusively that the ball brushed the glove. Great example of this system right there.

I love the referral system to be honest, the umpires will also in time appreciate it.

10 years ago we didn't have this technology in the television broadcast. Therefore the public really didn't know if a player nicked it or not, then snicko came in, followed by hotspot. All of a sudden that aspect changed.

Same with LBW's, we had the tramtracks that came in to show us where the ball pitched, then we had hawkeye.

Times have changed and this will be a watershed moment in the game.
 
Re: The referral system

eddiesmith;384689 said:
I dont agree with the system at all, I reckon its stupid that it overturns the umpires decision when its missing by 1mm on an inaccurate system

Plus that Akmal decision today, how Hawkeye had that hitting the stumps I dont know, of course had the umpire made the correct decision and said not out the referall would have upheld that as well

Thats the other annoying thing, most of the time it will just say it agrees with whatever decision the umpire made, out or not out, Hawkeye could go both ways on the same ball

As for tennis, I like it there, in that it is just showing what actually happened rather than the more inaccurate prediction stuff that cricket now uses. But judging by the shape of the ball I wonder if any Hawkeye inaccuracy is factored into that because it seems an odd shape it leaves
Click to expand...

Even with the tennis idea, it is still not as accurate as they use it for. You can see that they measure it '4 mm out' or whatever. This sort of accuracy isn't possible.

Hawkeye runs from the pictures provided from the cameras. Cameras don't have unlimited frames per second. Sure they can be close, but to be that exact would mean a very fast frame rate and a great amount of zoom on the actual area of impact, which you simply can't do because a camera man can't know exactly where a ball is going to land to zoom in on it, let alone follow it. The ball shape is correct though, if you see a tennis ball in super slow motion you see it is an oval shape and besides the momentum of the ball leaves that oval imprint on the ground.

It would be good to have an expert on Hawkeye actually explain it all. I have the feeling it is more accurate than we expect.
 
Re: The referral system

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;384702 said:
I really can't understand the objection towards this system. I really can't. I said earlier a few weeks back that there will be teething problems with this system, and there have been, as we saw in South Africa with snickgate.

But in time this system will be the best thing that happened to the game since Packer in my opinion. We will get most decisions right, and the game will move forward without angst and player unrest.

Look at that decision against Ponting today, no way an umpire could give that out, but with technology we can prove conclusively that the ball brushed the glove. Great example of this system right there.

I love the referral system to be honest, the umpires will also in time appreciate it.

10 years ago we didn't have this technology in the television broadcast. Therefore the public really didn't know if a player nicked it or not, then snicko came in, followed by hotspot. All of a sudden that aspect changed.

Same with LBW's, we had the tramtracks that came in to show us where the ball pitched, then we had hawkeye.

Times have changed and this will be a watershed moment in the game.
Click to expand...

You make a completely legit point, LtD.

At the moment the only thing keeping me from siding with you is personal opinion.

I don't like players being able to review and challenge like they can.
 
Re: The referral system

My problem has never been with the referall system idea, its with the way the ICC have implemented it by not having full technology at all matches and putting 100% faith in an inaccurate system like Hawkeye
 
Re: The referral system

Same with me.

I don't like the control thatthe players have.

But in a couple of years time this will probably be a commonplace system, and really I think it will be a benifit to the game.

We can already see a change in people's thoughts.

I guess since Test cricket is so old things do have to change and keep changing just to bring new things into the game to keep it spiced up a bit.
 
Re: The referral system

It is illogical to expect this system to be perfect when it is so new, but as time goes on kinks will be sorted out.

It just makes sense to me, if a player nicks a ball and is given not out then the viewer is exposed to various technology that can show that the batsmen hit the ball yet the decision of 'not out' still stands.

10 years ago we didn't have that technology, so no-one really knew if the batsmen hit it, and in some ways that added to the folklore of the game.

Like Langer in 1999 when he nicked that ball, but was given not out. '

As TV has incorperated more technology it is unreasonable to expect umpires to have to go up against this technology and to have their decisions run through these gadgets to see if they are right.

It really is a no-brainer to me.

What would happen if during the next ashes series if the series is 2-2 at Sydney and Australia need 150 to win on the last day and Ponting is given out LBW after smashing a ball into his pad?
 
Re: The referral system

A thread on the referral system in the International forum is not the place to banter about the Australian domestic competition results.

Please take it elsewhere.
 
Re: The referral system

A few observations on the referral system after watching the two test series in Australia:

1. the stated intention of the system - to remove the "howlers" was completely defeated as referrals were overwhelmingly called on what proved to be good umpiring decisions - but were more often than not overturned simply because the technology could "disprove" the umpire. This nevertheless didn't change the fact that the original decisions were, in principle, correct.

2. I became sick to death of the commentators moaning about players taking too long to refer - ignoring the glaring fact that no one had even bothered to lay down any rules about a) who should make the signal for the referral (the captain? the bowler?) and b) any sort of time-limit to make a decision to refer or not. Not to mention that it was completely unfair to expect the fielding team to make an instantaneous decision given that it will always require some level of consultation between the bowler, the captain and anyone else with a valid view-point such as the wicketkeeper.

3. One thing that this experiment demonstrated more than anything else IMO is the fact that the vast majority of times the umpires make damn good decisions - and that the technology actually rarely gives a definitive answer. Especially in light of the fact that the third umpire didn't even have use of some of the technology - such as snikko.
 
Re: The referral system

Well I think my conclusion on this all is that referals eventually will be a good way to go, allowing players a bigger responsibility (hopefully bringing back in spirit of the game since people's conscience seems to fail them these days) and umpires exact precision.

But I don't think that time is yet. I don't think we have sufficient technology just yet to come to definitive conclusions that someone could argue against. When at least 50% of the population of cricket viewers come to the conclusion they actually like it, then it is time.

The technology just isn't here, especially when the older technology is better - such as snicko and the imposing of stumps on the screen in front of the batsman and placing a blue strip down the pitch with replays playing over top of it. When there is something definitively better than that, then referrals can come into use full time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top