cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: New Rule Suggestion

  1. #1
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520

    New Rule Suggestion

    We've been hearing so much about bad umpiring decisions, but what has been done about it? No doubt the umpires make lots of calls, most of which are correct. However, the incorrect decisions can seriously affect the outcome of a match. Got me thinking of a rule that will make things much fairer and will ensure the outcome of a match is solely determined by the quality of cricket played.

    My suggestion is that each team has three chances to appeal the umpires decision per innings. For example, a bowler may get the batsmen plumb but if it's given not out, should be able to refer it to the hawk-eye. Conversely if a batsmen knows that he didn't get any bat on a caught behind, he should also be able to appeal it. Three strikes per team would mean cricket is moving with the times but is not getting too carried away with technology. Hawk-eye and similar technology should be used to enhance the game further, not just act as entertainment for the home viewer and match referee.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    State Vice-Captain mavric41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by shounak
    We've been hearing so much about bad umpiring decisions, but what has been done about it? No doubt the umpires make lots of calls, most of which are correct. However, the incorrect decisions can seriously affect the outcome of a match. Got me thinking of a rule that will make things much fairer and will ensure the outcome of a match is solely determined by the quality of cricket played.

    My suggestion is that each team has three chances to appeal the umpires decision per innings. For example, a bowler may get the batsmen plumb but if it's given not out, should be able to refer it to the hawk-eye. Conversely if a batsmen knows that he didn't get any bat on a caught behind, he should also be able to appeal it. Three strikes per team would mean cricket is moving with the times but is not getting too carried away with technology. Hawk-eye and similar technology should be used to enhance the game further, not just act as entertainment for the home viewer and match referee.

    Thoughts?
    Can't be the batsmen who asks for the chance. Otherwise what if the same batsmen keeps asking for chances and uses them up for his team. What if Glen McGrath asked for a chance and wasted one for his team?

    It would have to be the coach who flashes a light up on the screen. This stops the batsmen coming back. It then goes back to the third umpire who looks at the same footage as the coach and makes the final decision.
    Only two states to be in - Queensland and drunk.

  3. #3
    International Captain Buddhmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Same place as the Ashes
    Posts
    5,615
    I don't know whether you got this idea from them, but the commentators in India have suggested that recently. I think it was Mike Atherton who brought it up, to mixed opinions.

  4. #4
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddhmaster
    I don't know whether you got this idea from them, but the commentators in India have suggested that recently. I think it was Mike Atherton who brought it up, to mixed opinions.
    This one was all me... Maybe the captain should have absolute power over the decision.

    Rewind back to Sri Lanka earlier this year when Symonds was given out and then recalled. I seem to remember the noble Gilly throwing down his gloves in anger. I also recall Sri Lankan skipper Attapattu allowing Symonds to be recalled. I didn't see Gilly allowing Sehwag to be recalled this time in India, rather he was appealing. Cricket isn't always a fair game where the better side wins. Simply making a rule like this official isn't that much of change in the game. Especially when something like this has previously occured.


  5. #5
    International Captain Buddhmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Same place as the Ashes
    Posts
    5,615
    I'd rather the game how it is. Makes the game interesting.

  6. #6
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddhmaster
    I'd rather the game how it is. Makes the game interesting.
    INTERESTING?!.. When you got idiots like Bucknor on the Elite Panel.. Umpiring is far from interesting. Bad decisions are unfair. Now that we have the technology to make cricket more accurate, why not use it? I read someone saying that if it was used, test matches would only last 3 days. If that was the case, isn't it unfair then that tests last 5 days, if it is only based on bad umpiring decisions.

    It can be thought of as an industrial revolution. The umpire's are not however redundant. We still need hat stands, over counters and people to signal boundaries. Let modern cricket move with the times.

  7. #7
    State Vice-Captain mavric41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,081
    I wonder how today's match would have gone if they called back Hauritz?

  8. #8
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    I don't like the idea, myself. I haven't thought through all the strategic ramifications, but I'm not comfortable with either team having control of that process, particularly in a context of deciding when to use them. Introduces something to the game that I don't think I'd really enjoy.

    I'm all in favor of technology being used more for the sake of greater accuracy in decision-making though - I made some suggestions a few weeks ago regarding replays being used for bat-pad catches, and the snickometer being used to resolve tough caught-behind calls.
    "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
    - Linda

    "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
    - Craig

  9. #9
    International Captain Buddhmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Same place as the Ashes
    Posts
    5,615
    If there was that much of a problem with how the game is right now, don't watch it.

  10. #10
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    I don't like the idea, myself. I haven't thought through all the strategic ramifications, but I'm not comfortable with either team having control of that process, particularly in a context of deciding when to use them. Introduces something to the game that I don't think I'd really enjoy.

    I'm all in favor of technology being used more for the sake of greater accuracy in decision-making though - I made some suggestions a few weeks ago regarding replays being used for bat-pad catches, and the snickometer being used to resolve tough caught-behind calls.
    Exactly... using technology that is available would be preferable. I don't like the idea of giving that much power to the players - eventually the umpire would be virtually redundant. With technology, it's still the umpire who has ultimate control.

  11. #11
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    Exactly... using technology that is available would be preferable. I don't like the idea of giving that much power to the players - eventually the umpire would be virtually redundant. With technology, it's still the umpire who has ultimate control.
    Is there a method of introducing technology without making the field umpire redundant? Umpire's call upon the TV replays in just about every run out, shouldn't they then also do this with close LBW's and caught behinds? The fact is that they don't and most likely won't. Too much decision making power lies with these fallible humans.

    Even with this rule, ultimate power still lies with the umpire. The TV Umpire. That umpire still has the final decision about whether or not a player is actually out. That power doesn't lie with the player.

    If a player is genuinely out and chooses to appeal the decision, they'll still be given out. It's not like three lives. It's merely ensuring that the game is being played fairly. In an ideal world they might not even be evoked.

  12. #12
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,550
    Quote Originally Posted by shounak
    Is there a method of introducing technology without making the field umpire redundant? Umpire's call upon the TV replays in just about every run out, shouldn't they then also do this with close LBW's and caught behinds? The fact is that they don't and most likely won't. Too much decision making power lies with these fallible humans.
    But the technology isn't as accurate as people like to think.

    THe only certain think technology can prove is if the ball pitches outside leg stump on LBWs - nothing else can be proved by it.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  13. #13
    International Debutant Eclipse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Nere a Spoon
    Posts
    2,909
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178
    But the technology isn't as accurate as people like to think.

    THe only certain think technology can prove is if the ball pitches outside leg stump on LBWs - nothing else can be proved by it.
    actualy it's been proven to be 99% accurate according to the studies I read.

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year Mr Casson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mavric41
    Can't be the batsmen who asks for the chance. Otherwise what if the same batsmen keeps asking for chances and uses them up for his team. What if Glen McGrath asked for a chance and wasted one for his team?
    If Glenn McGrath is there, the chances are he won't be wasting them for his team mates, because most of them would be out. And even if there was a specialist batsmen with him, McGrath would appeal so as not to have the innings closed.



    As for the whole idea of appealing decisions, why don't we just leave the game as it is? By bringing in these chances to appeal everything, we'll end up contesting decisions in the High Court.

  15. #15
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    actualy it's been proven to be 99% accurate according to the studies I read.
    Yes, but bear in mind that's 99% of all decisions, and it's only going to be the marginal decisions that are referred, thus making the margin of error a lot more than that.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The first rule of _______ club is....
    By Paid The Umpire in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 23-11-2008, 08:39 PM
  2. THE LBW RULE ! Should it be modified ?
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 21-10-2005, 07:59 AM
  3. Solution for rain rule
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 25-01-2004, 05:44 PM
  4. A Question and a suggestion...
    By Sriram k in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-09-2003, 04:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •