Referral rule needs close scrutiny
It's too early to say whether the new referral rule being trialled in the Friends Provident Trophy will be a success.
The next games where this rule will be applied are Worcestershire v Nottinghamshire on Sunday and Durham's home match against Lancashire on Bank Holiday Monday.
But it was certainly intriguing to be at Taunton for the first televised game of the season and to see how and when it might be implemented, what the results would be, and whether it benefited anybody at all.
However only three referrals were made that day (none successful) and it was not enough to even begin to draw a verdict, despite Chris Adams' initial protestations.
It warrants close scrutiny though, because the trial is at the behest of the ICC, and if it works could be introduced to one-day internationals.
Here's a quick explanation: each side can question a decision of the on-field umpire as many times as they like in an innings, until they've had two unsuccessful referrals, then that's it for that innings.
The referral has to be made by either the batsman involved in the dismissal (no conferring with the dressing-room allowed) or the captain of the fielding side.
They have to do so immediately, or as the regulation stipulates, "without undue delay" after the initial decision has been made.
The TV umpire then takes a look at replays and radios his decision back down to his colleague on the field.
There were a few teething troubles at Taunton. I had no TV in my commentary box so I was watching proceedings with no more privilege than those in the crowd.
The first thing that struck me was that it was not terribly clear that Sussex captain Adams, batting at the time, was indeed referring his wicket.
The regulation states he must do so 'verbally' to the umpire, but a signal, visible to the crowd wouldn’t go amiss - raising one arm in the air for instance.
It looked a little messy as Adams wandered about the field, the Somerset fielders came out of their celebratory huddle looking a touch bemused, and the umpires stood together to wait for the final verdict, almost in a show of solidarity.
Unfortunately all this was accompanied by a quizzical silence, with no information on the big screen, and the crowd began a slow hand clap.
Thankfully this was put right later in the afternoon and the waiting period was accompanied by the usual Jaws-type music and big screen graphics as for any third umpire dismissal.
Sadly we never saw the replays of any of the dismissals, despite the fact that the TV umpire concurred with his colleague on all of them.
Of course, questioning the umpire's decision goes against the very spirit of the game.
But others will say technology has been in the game for many years now, so it is about time we use it officially.
That's OK, except that Sky don’t use Hawkeye or the snickometer until much later in the competition, so the technology, for now, is limited to fixed cameras and the naked eye.
Don’t expect too many TV umpires to overrule their colleagues.
There are a couple of aspects to the rule, which could create interesting situations further down the line.
What constitutes 'undue delay' is a matter of opinion and could lead to some steamy debates with the on-field umpire if a player feels he is being denied a referral unfairly.
Also the TV umpire is not allowed to judge on no-balls. It means he could find himself in a bizarre situation where an lbw appeal is referred by the batsman, all conditions of the lbw law are satisfied, except that on replay it is noticed that the delivery should have been called a no-ball.
Bad luck. Too late. The TV umpire has to give the batsman out, even though the no-ball is clear for all to see.
Is that not going to look a little silly? The man overseeing the new rule, Alan Fordham, cricket operations manager of the ECB, tells me that they didn't want to open the floodgates on batsmen questioning the legitimacy of deliveries.
Fine. But if a no-ball is clearly visible to the TV umpire in the course of judging a dismissal, surely it makes a mockery of the game for him to ignore it.
I think that this is a stupid rule that they are trying to introduce. Of course you want to get as many things right as possible, but if u start giving the batsmen a chance to appeal when he is out then that just undermines the umpires decision. The rules should be left alone, they are fine as they are. If they start doing this then what is the point in having a umpire out there in the middle, he will end up not having anything to do other than count the number of balls in an over, warn players for running on the pitch and holidng the jumpers when the bowler is bowling.
Complain about this postThis new 'innovation' is an absolute disgrace. Where has the spirit of the game gone?
Complain about this postThis new 'innovation' is an absolute disgrace. Where has the spirit of the game gone?
Complain about this postUmpires have been in charge of decisions for the last 100 years or more. Run outs i can agree with, but lbw decisions should be made instantly by the on field umpire. if the batsmen gets an unfair decision one day, he will no doubt get a lucky one the next. And any way, how can a batsman disagree with being bowled?
mmm.. my off stump is 5 yards further back than it should be but i'm not sure if i'm out! i'll stand my ground.
Its human error that makes crikcet such an exiting sport to play and watch.
let the umpires do there job and be trusted to do so!
Complain about this postAs an umpire myself, I feel that there is already too much dissent towards umpires being shown in the game and this is just formalising it, which is bad for the on field umpires and sends a bad message to youngsters coming through the clubs - which, of course, don't have the benfit of tv technology.
A better approach would have been to have the off field umpire watching 'over the shoulder' of the on field umpires via television and able to speak via earpiece to confirm a decision. For example, a feather-like snick could be referred and snicko used with the decision being relayed back to the on-field people. That way, the authority of the umpires is upheld yet the players are getting the best of both worlds. No more being given out caught behind when the batsman has hit his pad instead of the ball.
Complain about this postCouldn't agree more with the posts here, this rule is absolutely ludicrous and the point raised in the main article re no balls is a good one. All in all this should be scrapped asap, and hopefully will go the way of the super sub, another one of the ICC's ill-thought rule changes.
Complain about this postRe the no ball thing - it's sort of similar in rugby union. There, the video ref can only rule on the act of scoring (ie grounding the ball cleanly without being in touch). If he spots (say) an offside, obstruction or double movement that the ref missed, he can do nothing.
Complain about this postThe alternative, in rugby league, is to allow video refs to consider anything relating to a try. But what happens then is that the on-field ref refers pretty much every try that wasn't scored right in front of him.
Either way is fundamentally flawed IMHO, and I can't see why cricket needs to have anything to do with it. Respect for officials is probably higher in cricket than in any other major sport except perhaps golf and snooker. Let's keep it that way.
none of it really matters does it ? Surely we need to get the quality of our players right, rather than worrying about the quality of the decisions and umpiring.
What a terrible waste of peoples time not to mention how boring it will be as a spectator.
more for the australians to ridicule us by
Complain about this postits doomed to fail because the technology isn't accurate enough to show whether someone is out or not,
even the run out cameras are sometimes hard to judge because there in one frame and out the next, snickometre is not always clear and don't even get me started on hawkeye, i think there was a delivery to ian bell in the world cup that went down leg side and hawk eye showed it hitting leg stump, i know alot of physics proffessers who highly doubt its ability, ofcourse then theres also the issue that we still can't always tell whether a ball is grounded before a fielder catches it
my point is when the technology is not 100% accurate how can it be used to decide decisions?
Complain about this postI was at the match in Taunton on Sunday and can say that Adams is right. All three referrals were upheld in favour of the umpire even though one was clearly incorrect and one could have been awarded in the batsman's favour if the system was open to interpretation. If the 3rd umpire is not going to over-rule the umpires in the middle then let's leave them to do the good job they normally do. I can see this causing more and more dissent amongst the players and the umpires being constantly undermined. That can't be good for the game.
Complain about this postIf the aim of using the technology is to improve the quality of the decisions - and, thereby, the 'fairness' within the game - why limit the number of referrals?
For example...
Batsman A thinks he's not out lbw, refers the decision, is given out. Batsman B does likewise, with the same result. The batting side has now used up its allowance.
Later in the same innings there are, perhaps, three more occasions when the standing umpire's decision is questionable, but no referral can be made. Television replays, however, suggest that batsmen C, D and E were not out and each could have gone on to score heavily.
When the other side bat, nothing happens that leads to a referral. Such is the unpredictability of the game.
To pluck an arbitrary figure (i.e. two 'successful') for the number of referrals seems to imply that cricket is a game where each innings is similar. Oh yeah?!?
So, if having a limit to the number of referrals doesn't actually improve the 'fairness', why have a limit? Why not allow the players to refer every decision? Or... why bother with umpires?
We cannot disinvent the technology. Nor do I think that the ICC/ECB could insist on a 'no-replays-whatsoever' clause in their contracts with television companies, which would lead to there being no television coverage and none of the huge revenues associated with it.
Umpires make mistakes - on the village green, at Lord's, wherever. They are human. To allow players to refer ANY decisions to a third party is to offend the dignity of the game's arbiters.
Disagreements over debatable lbw's, catches that might not have carried and other unfortunate dismissals belong where they have always belonged - over a friendly pint in the pub after the match.
Complain about this postAlot of people in the game (such as Duncan Fletcher) have been calling for referrals for some years.
At least the ECB have decided to trial this in an attempt to accomodate new technologies. It is only a TRIAL after all and at least if it is scrapped they can say they have tried it and it has not worked.
I think they should be congratulated for this, even if it turns out to be of no benefit. However simply righting it off as 'not cricket' is such an antiquated view. I am sure many people said this with TV replays for run outs, coloured clothing, and twenty20. Oh, and if something has been done for 100 years or more does not mean it should not change.
I am sure commentators (and players) are sick of seeing and trying to defend poor decisions when replays clearly show they are wrong. There is of course a lot hanging on these decisions such as the outcome of a match or a players career.
The ECB is seeing if this technology can be used to ensure more correct decisions are made (such as big inside edges on LBW appeals, which we saw give out in world cup). To suggest it takes responsibility away from the umpire is such a cop out. Is the game played for umpires? Surely the most important thing is the correct decision? There is too much of a mentality of 'it doesnt matter if they are wrong because they are umpires.
However we do need to see how it affects the game in the coming trials, until then the jury is out.
P.S. In relation to Jason Cromptons comments about hawkeye and ian bell the ball actually flicked his pad taking it down legside. Hawkeye showed there was a possibe LBW shout but no one appealed.
Complain about this postthe comment about no-balls is stupid if you think about it because even if the batsmen start to refer every ball - they only have 2 unsuccessful attempts and that's it. This means players wont question a decision without thinking abt the match situation and the importance of the wicket.
I think technology in decision-making is much-needed and although this might be the best way to go, its still a start
Complain about this postThe comments about Hawk-Eye are incorrect.. it has been proved to be correct almost 100% of the time. Just because it might not be perfect is no reason not to use it - its definitely much better than umpires..
The 2 unsuccessful referrals per innings is debatable, but you have to start somewhere.. This will only work if the TV umpire has access to Hawk-Eye and snickometers though - without them they will tend to just accept the on-field umpires decisions which would result in a pointless waste of time.
The issue of incorrect decisions are much more important than just saying it evens out.. take for example the WC semifinal match between SL and NZ - Chamara Silva and Dilshan were both clearly not out but given lbw - if SL folded to 250 and lost the game because of that theres no evening out - u dont get to play WC semis all the time.
Complain about this postAre these comments about 'undermining the authority of the umpire' and 'referrals will cause more dissent' really relevant?
At present players are given out knowing full well for example that they have inside edged the ball on an LBW shout. Surely this will promote more bad feeling as the batsman is powerless to dispute the decision. Similarly TV replays will show the error and undermine the umpires ability to make the correct call. Currently this happens time and time again on televised matches.
I am sure batsman will be more interested in being able to continue an innings than showing 'dissent' to an umpire. At least the correct outcome will have been realised.
But wont this undermine the umpires ONFIELD authority, as they will be shown to be wrong there and then? This is a rediculus question and I say again what is more important, saving the umpires face? or making the correct adudication?
I really do believe that some people think the former is more important and if it affects a players career or the outcome of a match then so be it.
With referrals if the umpires are good then they have no need to worry about being 'undermined' as their decisions will be upheld all the time!
However debating the benefits of technology is of no concern if it cannot be implemented without detriment to the game. To succeed the referral system needs to be fast, with well planned procedures. Also hawkeye needs to be used to prevent the 3rd umpire simply aggreeing with the onfield officials.
Complain about this postIf i was a captain of one of the sides involved in one of these mathes i would refuse to refer anything to the 3rd umpire because it doesn't follow what is written in the laws regarding umpires and even with TV the outcome can still be wrong.
Complain about this postIt strikes me that there's too much compromise on this issue: people want the right decisions but don't want to undermine umpires' authority. Well, to a large extent, these two desires are incompatible. If you want the right decisions to be made, you should use all the technology available (so long as this doesn't intolerably disrupt the flow of the game), and if the umpires feel undermined, well, so what? The game isn't about them; it's about the players.
Complain about this postThere are two things I think are really flawed about the current referral system: a) hawkeye and the snickometer aren't being used (OK, hawkeye isn't 100% accurate, but it's probably a better judge of the pitch and likely trajectory of a cricket ball than even the most expert human eye); b) the third umpire isn't allowed to judge as if he were in proper control; he can merely overrule the on-field umpire if he thinks an obvious mistake has been made. (i.e.: batsman X is given out caught behind; he appeals; there's no evidence he edged it, but no evidence he didn't; appeal therefore rejected). This is ludicrous: if you think it's worth consulting someone with access to TV footage, it makes no sense that their view should be subjugated to the on-field umpire; it's just pandering to this idea of the umpire's view as sacrosanct which you're simultaneously trying to undermine. Make your minds up!
It is often said that the wrong decisions even out over time, so batsmen should take the rough with the smooth.This may be OK for amateur cricket but a couple of doubtful decisions for a player starting his career in international cricket may mean they do not get the chance for the errors to even out.
Complain about this postThe way to curd the batsman's urge to question a decision is to have a penalty of,say the loss of 20 runs or 25% of his score,which ever is the greater.
If we could find a way to stop excessive appealing so much the better!
what about a situation where the decision can only be overturned if a FACTUAL mistake has been made? i.e. batsmen given out LBW when there was an inside edge or given out caught behind when it was off the pad.
in this scenario the TV umpire cannot overturn a decision if there is no definite evidence, i.e. if the batsmen is given out LBW but hawkeye shows that it was missing then the decision must stands as this is a subjective INTERPRETATION by the on-field umpire.
this achieves the dual aim of minimising the number of "shocking" decisions but also leaves the umpires interpretation as the main decision making factor in decisions that could go either way.
this would naturally limit the number of referrals as you know yourself if you've got a bad one for either of the reasons given above but won't bother referring it if you think the ball may have been going down leg and you've been given out because you know it can't be overturned.
i'm sure someone will find a hole in this system but it seems the most logical to me so far!
Complain about this postAnyone who playes cricket gets the odd shocker but on the other hand I have never met anyone who admitted to being LBW in 25 years of playing village cricket, myself included. If all decisions were absolutely accurate what on earth would we talk about in the pub afterwards?
I think it is a pointless waste of time to allow players to refer decisions, but I have some sympathy for Umpires being able to do so. If you are going to ask somebody to look at a TV replay then I agree with the article that they should look at all the circumstances, the question has to be the very open one "Was that out?" not "Did it pitch outside?" or "Would it hit the stumps?"
What do you do when the 3rd Official has a shocker, e.g Wilkinson's try in the VI Nations - croud, TV comentators and all bar one person who saw it thought his foot was in touch.... can we appeal against the 3rd Official to a 4th.....?
Why is it hapenning anyway if, as we are told by the ICC, 98% or so of decisions are correct, or at least would not be changed by referral to a 3rd official. Umpires get rated in first class cricket and if they have too many bad days they will not last too long on the panel. I only wish that happenned at our level!
The real beauty of sports like cricket is that us pond-life playing village cricket use the same ball over the same 22 yards as Test players. The stupidity of the referral is that it can not be used in 100% of first class or OD matches because the technology is not there to support it, let alone in the rest of cricket.
Complain about this postAny help the Umpires can get should be used. Its no suprise that Adams appealed against a Plumb LBW . Thats the kinda Guy he is. The rule is not for these occasions. It is for the obvious big inside edges and the pitched outside leg decisions, not the marginal ones - these are still down to the umps judgement.. Once the players are familiar with what they can get away with it will police itself. We already see players walking off for run out decisions knowing they will be shown to be out. Surely if bat pads are referred then the same thing will happen. There's no point hanging around to wait decisions when you know you have hit it.
Complain about this postIn the long run it will weed out the cheats and bring back some integrity
i think once the umpire has made a desision that is it. only an umpire should be allowed to ask for the 3rd umpire if he is any doubt
Complain about this posti think once the umpire has made a desision that is it. only an umpire should be allowed to ask for the 3rd umpire if he is any doubt
Complain about this posti think it should be up to the umpires to decide whether to refer it ot not. As at the moment you are only able to refer for run outs and to see if the catch had the the ground first or not. They should expand this to be able to refer anything, but the umpires NOT THE PLAYERS
Complain about this postThere have probably been more stupid rules invented in the recent years than all of the cricket history combined. A couple of years ago, it was "Super Sub" and now it is this stupid rule. I think even the powerplay in the first 20 overs in ODI are pretty stupid. The new powerplay has literally destroyed fast bowling. No wonder we don't have as many genuine quick fast bowlers these days as a decade or two ago!
The ICC CEO, President, etc. are literally destroying the beautiful game .....royally and globally!!! So much from making cricket global...this is not baseball or American Football...so please don't make it one!
Complain about this postThe 2005/6 ICC report states that between 2003 and 2005 International umpires made correct decisions between 91 and 95 % of the time. This equates to approx 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 incorrect decisions. The large majority of these are incorrect LBW calls. No data is provided for domestic umpires.
There have been alot of comment about Hawkeye on this blog (both informed and uniformed). Hawkeye is reported to accuratly predict the path of the ball to within 5mm. Experiments using thousands of bowling machine deliveries have apparently shown this. Hawkeye is a predictive instrument that could never show WITH CERTAINTY the actual path of the ball. However it is virtually impossible to predict anything with certainty.
Umpires also attempt to predict the path of the ball, but with the naked eye and with a much lower probability of doing it successfuly. Interestingly the umpiring postion makes it difficult to predict bounce. During tests umpires where shown footage of deliveries from a standing position and a stump high camera (the picture was paused afew feet after pitching). Umpires in the standing position tended to predict that the ball would hit the stumps, when in fact it was bouncing over.
The technology is available to increase the number of correct decisions, so why not use it? Simply burying your head in the sand will not make new technologies go away. Umpires are under increasing pressure, knowing their decisions will be heavily scrutinized. Why not give them the opportunity to use it? At the moment it is working against them.
Calls for the implementation of technology will NEVER go away. It will definately be playing a larger role in the future of the game. However it remains to be seen what will be the most appropriate way to use it.
Complain about this postTrialling the use of technology to help cricket officials make more accurate decisions has got to be a good thing. At the moment the technology is used to show how umpires occasionally (not often) get it wrong, so let's bring this aspect of the game into the 21st century and give the umpiring team tools that haven't been available to their predecessors.
What's silly about this trial is that it's taking place when the latest technology isn't available. This risks making the idea of referral to the third umpire unpopular before it's been properly tried. I think that would be a great pity.
Complain about this postSo far as I can see, the foremost school of thought which rebuffs this implementation is that which feels that it would rob cricket of the essential "spirit" and imperfection so endearing to the real tragic. The inexorable fact, however, is that the game has already shaken off so much of its blithe charm; it has to if it is to survive in contemporary climes. The allure of amateurism and the village green has lost its magnetic grip on the vast majority and its requirements, for that vast majority is not comprised of cricket-tragics. There are so many new facets to life on this world with which cricket has to compete. Efficiency, nothing else, is the crucial stuff; menial matters such as that of character mean little if not nothing at all - but, then, that is almost always the case when money becomes both the be-all and end-all. Cricket will continue to lose its "spirit", but that will not necessarily be a bad thing for it.
Complain about this postI had been actually waiting for something like this to happen for years. There are plenty of moments in a match that turn out to be deciding factors later on. A small err by an umpire turns the whole match upside down. I always thought that each team should be allowed 3 appeals per innings (whether right or wrong) but I think this new rule of allowing unlimited appeals until 2 turn out wrong is even better.
The Good:
Of course some decisions may still be difficult to predict even with camera replays but some obvious ones can be rectified. For example when an umpire gives a batsmen LBW for an inside edge. Or a caught behind with nothing touching that bat. So really in these cases batsmen and teams get frustrated because they don’t even have the right to appeal for something that they know is not out.
The Bad:
Of course some decisions may still go wrong by use of technology. For example, judging how high a ball may bounce through hawk eye simply cannot be 100% accurate.
The Ugly:
What about the poor umpires? It’s a hard job as it is to stand for 7 hours straight. And then on top of that they are disgraced by stripping off their powers and not allowing them to make any decisions as well.
Verdict: I think we all can argue on The Good and The Bad however there isn’t any argument on The Ugly. Either we remove the umpires completely and let technology take over. Or I suppose we gotta give the poor guys some respect.
PS. I don’t agree to this argument that if something has been going on for over a 100 years then it shouldn’t be changed. We should always be progressive and look for ways to improve the game.
Peace,
Complain about this postMoby
Its a good innovation.
Many are cribbing about the batsman's view on LBW.
Batsman may think he is out or not out.
About LBW, field umpires dedison should be final.
Complain about this postBut if a batsman was given out LBE even the
ball hits his bat then can challenge.
Poor umpiring decisions have a detrimental effect both on the game being played and also the stats of the player on the recieving end - fact. As a player, this, in my eyes is fundamentally wrong (although I do not necessarily blame umpires for getting it wrong). I do not agree with the new rule in the sense that players forfeit nothing from asking for referral to the third umpire. This indeed seems to undermine the integrity of the presiding umpire and therefore goes against the 'spirit of the game'. This situation would be remedied by introducing a forfeit of, say, 10-20 runs taken away from the batting side whose referral is rejected by the third umpire, and 10-20 runs awarded to the batting side if a fielding side's referral is rejected. This would make teams think twice before questioning a decision, and give on-field umpires the last laugh in many circmstances.
Complain about this postIn the Laws of Cricket (The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket, Point 5) "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture" - and now the ICC are actively encouraging players to do exactly that! In some areas outside of the top echelons of the game, the abuse that umpires receive is already at an unacceptable level and if junior players see the stars challenging the umpire's authority, this will only encourage them to do so.
Having recently experienced the iron fist of the ICC ruining the Caribbean spirit of the World Cup in St Lucia, I have one thing to say to the overpaid, overzealous (and unnecessary) bureaucrats at the ICC:
LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE!!
Complain about this postIn today’s climate of professional sport decisions can mean the difference from clubs being financially profitable or calling in the receivers. It is therefore important to the game that its ruling body tries to remove any uncertainty from the game, when it comes to decisions made by its representatives on the field of play. However it should not be for the players to question the umpire, moreover technology should be used by the umpire if they are uncertain of a decision. As already used for the run out scenario. This means that the control of the game resigns with the umpires and the controlling body and not with players who will always feel they have been unjustly treated. I think that technology should be used to enhance a game not ruin it.
Complain about this postThis trial is fundamentally flawed. It will further slow the game down - at a time when over rates (in the CWC) have reached around 12 to 13 an hour.
The way to improve cricket's flagging image would be to ensure that over rates returned to, say, a minimum of 17 overs per hour over the entire period of an innings - and fines teams very heavily for failing to reach them.
Complain about this postIt defeats the point of having an on-field umpire and, let's face it, what else would the Sky commentators have to shout about if there were no shocking decisions? Let the umpires do their job and keep the respect in the game.
Complain about this posthuman error is an integral part of every sport, including cricket. The referral rule seriously undermines the umpire's authority and should not be introduced in international cricket
Complain about this postBatsmen will not appeal against any decision! They can only be wrong twice so they will appeal if, for example, they hit the ball and are given out LBW or it hits their shoulder and they are given caught. They wont, or shouldn't appeal if they think it may possibly have been going down leg, unless of course they are the last remaining batsman and their wicket is therefore more valuable than that of people yet to bat. For the feilding side it will be much harder to decide on when to use a referal and they will probably end up being used for bat pads mostly where the umpire can almost never be certain and therefore says not out 95% of the time. I like the idea but if everyone who gets out is given out we might end up with a lot of 2 day games!
Complain about this postI've pretty much had enough of the "poor old umpires" line. Let me remind everyone that the game we are talking about is CRICKET and the people we should be trying to help are the CRICKETERS. Umpiring is not the sport - arguing that technology should not be used to assist decisions because it reduces the power of the umpire would be like saying that linesmen shouldn't be used in football because it undermines the referree. In fact, a similar debate has long existed in footballing circles about the use of technology to judge whether or not balls cross the goal line. My view with regards to that debate is the same as my view regarding the use of technology in Cricket.
In Football, the object of the game is to score goals. The most funndamental factor, therefore, in any game of football, is how many times the ball legitimately goes into the goal. I can see absolutely no excuse therefore for not allowing a simple use of technology which would help to ascertain whether or not a goal has been scored.
In Cricket, the object of the game is to score as many runns as possible while protectiing your wicket, or, as the fielding the team, to keep down the number of runs conceeded and take wickets. If the relatively unobtrusive use of technology assists the batting team in legitimately protecting wickets, and/or assists the fieldinng team in legitimately taking wickets, what is the problem? The Umpires are there in the first place because, on the whole, no-one would ever walk unless they were caught or bowled, and even then they would argue for a no-ball. Now, if a batsman nicks a ball on to his or her pad, but the umpire gives that player out LBW, how can you defend that decision when the technology (relatively simple technology) exists which could, within a minute, prove that the player was Not Out?
Obviously, on paper it looks like the players could abuse this option - but if Cricket is such a gentlemans game as everyone seems to t hink, thats houldn't happen. Batsmen will learn very quickly not to bother appealing against an LBW unless they definitely nicked it or they're sure it pitched outside leg stump.
Should no balls be judged by the third umpire? Certainly, this would be impractical at the moment, as a pause would be required after every delivery. But as someone else pointed out, players would not appeal against many no-balls as they are only allowed two unsuccessful appeals (a similar system to tennis, where the appeal system has been used well by organisers to increase tension in matches). If a player genuinely thinks that the bowler overstepped, or indeed if the non-striker noticed it, and the umpire gives the batman Out, what is wrong with appealing that.
Finally, the umpires would still have plenty to do. I would argue that they should be allowed to ask the third umpire for assistance at any point, for snicks, run outs, lbw's (checking where the ball pitched, not using hawkeye to determine height) etc., and should be encouraged to do some whenever there is doubt in their mind. They would retain the power to give LBW's in the first place, judge no-balls, and generally marshall the game - this is what umpires are for.
Complain about this postI would like to comment on some of the arguments against the use of technology:
- "It will undermine the authority of the umpires and promote desent." At present umpires are seriously undermined when one of their decisions is shown to be incorrect. It also undermines the game itself, as one poor decision can change the outcome of the match. This is only an issue at televised matches where umpires are under increased pressure as they know their decisions will be heavily scrutinsed. Also I am sure players will be more concerned about continuing their innings than showing any desent.
- "It will greatly slow down the game." It will but only as much as run out decisions do at present. Two referrals per innings will equate to only minutes in the course of a day. This time will be reduced as technology is perfected. Indeed if used well it could help develop tension and excitement in the game. Slow over rates are much more of a concern.
-"Technology cannot be used because it is not 100% perfect." Decisions like LBW deal with probability not certainty. Hawkeye is accurate to within 5mm when predicting the path of the ball. Yes this also includes bounce as data is also used after the ball pitches right up to impact. If it keeps low or rears up the continued path will be predicted. Although some may debate this (please read up on hawkeye instead of just blindly commenting) the question is what will give the most accurate decision? The answer is certainly not a human. Similarly technology will become more and more accurate as it is perfected.
-"Commentators and players will have nothing to debate over a pint after the game." Technology will never affect recreational and club cricket. However I am sure Graeme Smith and Ricky Ponting wont be too bothered about not being able to debate poor umpiring over a drink at close!! Maybe commentators will be able to spend some time talking about the match instead of crap decisions.
-"It will undermine the spirt of the game, umpires have made the decisions for hundreds of years." Don't worry it will not affect the "spirt" on the village green, just top flight cricket. The "spirit" in international cricket is still alive and kicking, what with ball tampering, excessive appealing, not walking and appealing when they know a batsman is not out. The game is (and needs to) evolve and modernise with the times. Just because something has been done one way for a long time does not mean it should not change. I am sure players from antiquity would be disgusted by todays game. Mayby we should have stayed with open-ended test matches and dinner dress, although I am sure cricket would have died out long ago.
Technology will not go away, just make it's presence felt more and more. Why not give umpires the opportunity to use it? It is only working against them at the moment.
Complain about this postit will work
Complain about this postTechnology should assist umpires not over-rule them. Technology should make umpires more effective rather than make players more willing to challenge them.
Umpires should be allowed to refer rather than players. this will preserve the umpire's position while making use of technology.
Complain about this postOf course there will be criticism of it, 'not in the spirit of the game' and all the stone age attitudes that come with any innovation or use of technology these days. The point of it is good, to avoid obvious bad decisions but obviously it will take time to get working fully and indeed for players to get used to it. Slowly but surely they'll give up on hopeful appeals and stick to the principle it was aimed at.
My concern is the umpires will stick together and rather than benefit from TV replays, they'll decide to undermine its use by giving the umpire the benefit of doubt. While it does question the umpires' decisions you get that anyway from the batsmen who trudge off, keep staring at the big screens or make it known to anyone and everyone. At least this should appease those who've been on the wrong end of bad decisions and hopefully reduce frivilous appealing for things even the bowler knows aren't out. There is a danger in limiting the number of appeals, then again that should in theory force players to use their appeals wisely and save them for when they're certain there's been a mistake.
LBW was always going to be a grey area, personally I think the referral umpire should make the decision as if he were in the middle based on three replays to check where the ball pitched, hit, height and for any edges. If he's still not sure then he should call 'not out'. He will then have checked all the things an umpire would but with three replays. People have to realise umpires make decisions based on one view of things and with no replays, if they had the option of a replay I bet a lot would take it up with a view to getting it right. But umpires are criticised for mistakes without the luxury of replays, same goes for football and a lot of sports.
I think replays on penalty box decisions would be fantastic in football, it would cut out diving and be a lot fairer. The so called 'purists' will come up with no end of waffle to fight any such move - "it will take too long", "it evens itself out", "where do you draw a line?" etc - when the truth is they like controversy, except when it costs them cup finals or titles or relegation of course. They'll also make it ludicrous by suggesting it will be for silly decisions like fouls leading up to goals, free-kicks, corners, throw-ins or the toss to make the whole thing sound ludicrous when you can easily categorise crucial decisions by the zone. But while people stick their head in the sand instead of testing ideas we'll never see progress. They'll sit in their armchair slating the referee, calling Ronaldo a diving cheat and laugh off suggestions we can and should do something about it
As for the use of gimmicks such as hawkeye, if it's 'proven' then it would be used. Perhaps we should use the snicker-o-meter or perhaps get the referral umpire to reenact the ball on an X-box. Computer says 'no'
Complain about this post"As for the use of gimmicks such as hawkeye, if it's 'proven' then it would be used. Perhaps we should use the snicker-o-meter or perhaps get the referral umpire to reenact the ball on an X-box. Computer says 'no'."
Maybe this should read:
"I dont understand it or how it works, how could it possibly be accurate, its witchcraft. Therefore I will slag it off."
Proven for what/at what by the way? It is more accuate than the naked eye if thats what you mean. It is predictive and so can never be perfectly accurate at showing something that hasnt/will never happen. It does however give a very good idea of what would happen. Also I am sure the scientists who originally developed the technology to predict the path of incoming missles and dispatch interceptive countermeasures would be quite upset to hear it could a gimmick.
International tennis competitions do use hawkeye. The reason cricket does not is because people want to preserve the all important singular authority of the umpires.
My arguement is that it should be used as a tool by the umpires, as with T.V. replays, not to make decisions outright. T.V. camaras only produce a 2D image at a very poor frame rate. Hawkeye uses 6 high speed camaras to produce a 3D environment to predict the path of the ball.
Complain about this postHowzabout looking at the National Football League (USA) model for play review? There are some time-proven procedures that may quickly resolve some disputes...
1. Why not put replay monitors pitchside and have the on-field official review his own call?
NFL referees (all of whom have regular full time jobs outside football) have no problem reviewing video shot from a variety of angles to make a timely decision.
If the visual evidence clearly supports overturning the call, the referee makes the announcement (and people usually don't hold it against him afterwards).
2. If the overs are limited, why not the number of challenges? The NFL model is quite simple: two per game, and if BOTH your previous challenges were successful you get a third.
3. There should be a time limit on play review. In the NFL it's 90 seconds. If there is any difficulty retrieving the replay, tough luck: no extra time is permitted.
I do agree with the British decision to not show disputed replays on the scoreboards, but they should show the words "play under review".
The "Jaws" theme has as much place in cricket as scantily-clad cheerleaders and costumed mascots.
Complain about this postOver time for a variety of reasons the balance between bat and ball changes. We had the various changes in LBW rules, the changes resulting from "bodyline/fast leg theory" and all the variations in the laws relating to forms of one day cricket such as power plays.
Complain about this postNow we have technology development that adds the capability for better accuracy, which is already being used for better run-out decisions, with justice for all.
Every sport has to learn how to cope with the impact of new technology, or it becomes archaic!
Surely we should use the technology available to assist in making just decisions wherever it is proven and applicable? How is that diminishing the status of the umpire? Surely his status and authority is much more reduced by blatantly wrong decisions?
But it is not clear whether this in turn will once more change the balance of the game. How would we deal with for example, a major increase of marginal "out" decisions and consequent drastic reduction in innings scores? Only trying these new technology capabilities will tell.
This whole rule sounds silly to me. Why should a team sacrifice their innings because of the number of referrals. If you are going to try something like this, just give a limit to the number of referrals per team and a limit to the time the match referee, or whoever, can take to make a decision.
Complain about this postLet the game go on. And if it is a no ball, pleae rule accordingly.
The system is a farse. The off-field umpire is never going to overturn a decision unless blatantly obvious. The decisions in the Sussex game were ludicrus. Firstly Chris Adams should never have been given out on the pitch, but i can understand not overturning that one. The one that astounded me was the Mustaq decision, the ball clearly pitched in line and was hitting the stumps. This results in the undesirable situation that people are blatantly out, but not given. Infuriating enough when made on-field, but when made after TV replays the whole thing becomes almost unwatchable for fans. And all to avoid an awkward conversation in the Umpire's dressing room after the match.
Complain about this postKeep introducing technology into the game & i can watch my cricket from the bar with a beer in my hand , instead of being out there in the middle !
Soon , the only umpires involved in cricket , will be stuck behind tv screens and monitors !!
Complain about this post