3RD umpire decisions

[mal]

Enough has been spoken of the referral system
2 appeals per team is stupid
Every decision should be individually processed so all batters/bowlers get equal opportunities
This way greedy batsman like Gayle dont get to hog all the referrals and deprive latter batters on the 2 appeal system
However to stop a cluttering of appeals a system needs to be devised

Its so simple that simpletons should find it simply easy instead of a simplistic system

LBW
Umpires decision to stand
The only refferal process is for bat contact b4 pad contact
So snicko/hotspot would be the tech used
The umpires will get 75-80% of LBWs correct that hit the pad directly
Stiff shit with the other 20% of decisions that could or should have been not out
The batter in a batsmans world accepts some responsibilty of getting out by missing the ball
[We are having ridicoluos referrals for the sake of it]
By only having the snicko/hotspot appeal process it will lessen the amount of appeals that might be asked for

CAUGHTS TO WICKETKEEPER/BAT PADS
If hotspot or sniko does not show an edge, its NOT OUT
If the technology didnt work, stiff shit

RUN OUTS STUMPINGS
Working well

REFERRALS SHOWING IF ITS A NO BALL OR NOT
Forget it
If the umpire didnt spot it, dont waste time over it
It just wastes unnessessary time for a 1 in a 100 to 1000 decision


SUMMARY
It is suiting some players and not others
For example if this was in Don Bradman or REBs eras
The opposition skipper will instruct his bowlers to only use the appeals against The Don , for obvious reasons
If the Don was given out, he would appeal on the off chance he might continue his innings for obvious reasons
This is preducidal against less credentialled team-mates
Todays system is unfair as it does not make all players equal in the process

[mighty_tiger_79]

i heard a stat that before these referrals umps were running at a 90% strike rate of correct decisions....

the way the referral system operated yesterday was a disgrace

i just think go back to the umps decision and leave technology out of it

[mighty_tiger_79]

from cricinfo in the last over before lunch

Dharmen has a suggestion: "They need to make a simple tweak to the referral system. Remove the silly 2 challenge rule and make it a 3rd umpire decision for any not too obvious decisions (like how it is for runouts). There is no need for a batting or bowling side quota or referral"

[locky801]

Get rid of it altogether and the third umpire, cricket survived over 100 years without the crap and will survive another 100 without it

[MAY-Z]

i think the system is working ok having 2 per tema is ine as the idea of the is to remove the decisions that are obviously wrong. once pplayers get the hang of it it will work much better, so far this summer there hasnt been any real howlers from the umpires so all the refered decisions have been on 50/50 type decisions which brings more scrutiny on the decisons made

[Adelaide Hawk]

from cricinfo in the last over before lunch

Dharmen has a suggestion: "They need to make a simple tweak to the referral system. Remove the silly 2 challenge rule and make it a 3rd umpire decision for any not too obvious decisions (like how it is for runouts). There is no need for a batting or bowling side quota or referral"

I agree totally. The referral system is doing nothing but hold up the game and encourage players to make ridiculous challenges to correct umpiring decisions. It's a blight on the game.

When you hear players like Gayle saying he referred to the umpire simply because it was important to the team that he stays in the middle, makes you realise what a joke the system is.

[Hondo]

from cricinfo in the last over before lunch

Dharmen has a suggestion: "They need to make a simple tweak to the referral system. Remove the silly 2 challenge rule and make it a 3rd umpire decision for any not too obvious decisions (like how it is for runouts). There is no need for a batting or bowling side quota or referral"

I agree with this too and I agree with most of Mal's opening post.

I feel the goal needs to be to remove as many wrong decisions as possible. I don't see any point in doing what was done 50 years ago just for the sake of doing what was done 50 years ago. I don't think we should feel we have to rely on split second decisions made by umpires on the field who don't get the benefit of seeing a replay.

It's like they are bringing the technology in tiny steps so as not to offend the purists but are making it worse by doing so. I'd send certain decisions straight off to the "panel" including the umpires on the field and the 3rd umpire. Let them work it out together and get the decision right. I think I'd leave the LBWs with the on field call except I'd allow an over-rule for an obvious error.

The technology is there so don't be afraid to use it. Just use it properly.

[Hondo]

When you hear players like Gayle saying he referred to the umpire simply because it was important to the team that he stays in the middle, makes you realise what a joke the system is.

I agree it's a joke however I can see why Gayle does it

As Mal said, if Don Bradman was in your side you'd do whatever you could to keep him out there and you'd question every decision automatically. No point using the referral to save your number 8 batsman ... use it on your gun player every time.

As I think you say, it's not Gayle at fault - it's the system.

[Adelaide Hawk]

When you hear players like Gayle saying he referred to the umpire simply because it was important to the team that he stays in the middle, makes you realise what a joke the system is.

I agree it's a joke however I can see why Gayle does it

As Mal said, if Don Bradman was in your side you'd do whatever you could to keep him out there and you'd question every decision automatically. No point using the referral to save your number 8 batsman ... use it on your gun player every time.

As I think you say, it's not Gayle at fault - it's the system.

I understand that, but if Bradman is back and across and hasn't nicked the ball, there is no way he would survive a referral, so there's no point. They've brought in a system to assist the players, and they are abusing it. I guess I expected nothing more.

[Hondo]

I agree they are abusing it

But if I was my teams' best batsman I think I would abuse it to. Even if the decision seemed obvious I'd still test it because you never know what might show up on the replay. My team will be better off for me being out in the middle, even at the cost of one the allowed referrals.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I agree they are abusing it

But if I was my teams' best batsman I think I would abuse it to. Even if the decision seemed obvious I'd still test it because you never know what might show up on the replay. My team will be better off for me being out in the middle, even at the cost of one the allowed referrals.

I don't think we are in disagreement here, just looking at it from different angles. The way the system is structured, if a batsman is out, and the replay is going to prove it, then no referral is going to save you, top batsman or not, so I just don't see the point.

Today, the Windies used up both referrals, then had one with Roach who was possibly not out. Roach couldn't appeal because they'd used up their quota. Had he stuck around with Nash they could have taken the score past 500, and a completely different complexion on the game.


I just can't see the point in querying an LBW unless you've nicked it onto the pad. The reason it had hit you on the pad is you haven't picked up the line of the ball, so how you can judge if it is a correct call or not is beyond me. Besides .. we've all played with batsmen who are NEVER out, haven't we

[MightyEagles]

Right decisions without referal = about 90 %
Right decisions with referal = about 97 %

[mal]

Individual benefits
0-100%
The players benefits are unequal
The guys batting 11 are by probability at a greater disadvantage
Too often the 2 referrals will be used b4 the lower order/tail has a hit
Too often only needs to be once

[MAY-Z]

Individual benefits
0-100%
The players benefits are unequal
The guys batting 11 are by probability at a greater disadvantage
Too often the 2 referrals will be used b4 the lower order/tail has a hit
Too often only needs to be once

mal the referall system is only a couple of matches old, teams will soon work out which decisions are worth challenging. your comment about too often only needs to be once is just stupid if you are suggesting to get rid of the referal systems - how about decisions like strauss at adelaide a couple of years ago changing the results of matches and of course india at sydney - surely matchs being influenced by errors once is too many

[mal]

MAY-Z
My apologies
I should have maid it clearer
What I meant to say wuz
If 2 referrals are used up, and a lower in the order batter misses out on a referral, then once is too often
If It aint fair for all batters it aint fair at all

[MAY-Z]

MAY-Z
My apologies
I should have maid it clearer
What I meant to say wuz
If 2 referrals are used up, and a lower in the order batter misses out on a referral, then once is too often
If It aint fair for all batters it aint fair at all

but you cant have unlimited referals we would get through about 80 overs a day if we did, once teams get used to the system it will only be used for howler decisions which would be unlikely to occur more than twice in an innings

[mal]

IF it aint unlimited dont bother in the first place
EXAMPLE
WATTO
PUNTER
both use a referral each, and the quota is extinct

In comes Nathan Hauritz edges the ball onto his pad and is given out
The kids fishing at the River Torrens heard the edge, but the ump made a boo boo
Nathan has no right if appeal

As I said if it aint for all make it for **** all

[MAY-Z]

IF it aint unlimited dont bother in the first place
EXAMPLE
WATTO
PUNTER
both use a referral each, and the quota is extinct

In comes Nathan Hauritz edges the ball onto his pad and is given out
The kids fishing at the River Torrens heard the edge, but the ump made a boo boo
Nathan has no right if appeal

As I said if it aint for all make it for **** all

fine lets have every decision bing able to challenged and lets sit down and watch 30 overs a day. peopel are still learning to use it properley so stop having a go at it

[Adelaide Hawk]

The whole idea of the rule is to eliminate the shockers but we are not seeing that. What we are seeing is players calling for a referal because the umpire "just may" have slightly made an error.

I've played enough cricket to know two things:
1. The batsman never thinks he's out
2. The bowler always thinks it's out.

Whilst these two ingredients exist, and they always will, then we will continue to see meaningless referals that achieve nothing more than to slow down an already pedestrian over rate. The game doesn't need this.

We already have 2 umpires in the middle, a video (or 3rd) umpire, and a match referee. With all those taking part, do we really need players umpiring as well?

Idea: Why not just leave the game alone, let the umpires make the decisions, the bowlers do the bowling, the batsmen do the batting, and if the umpires make a really poor call, surely the two umpires sitting in the stands could signal down to the umpires in the middle they have made an error ... or is that too easy?

[RoosterMarty]

I like your last point AH but it can get a bit tricky I guess if it is an edge and the ump says not out.

Do the umps upstairs signal to the umps on the ground to halt play for a moment as they may have seen something? That could work but it might get a bit complicated, it would definitely work for players who are shown the finger though and is probably the best solution. Seeing a referral for a decision which is clearly not out is just ridiculous, I was following on baggygreen earlier today so haven't seen the footage myself but one of the referrals when the aussies were batting was for an LBW despite the fact the ball pitched a foot outside leg stump.

I guess the players will soon wise to it and not waste their limited referrals unless they are fairly certain they have a chance to reverse the decision.