• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

New Rule Suggestion

Shounak

Banned
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?
 

mavric41

State Vice-Captain
shounak said:
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.
 

Buddhmaster

International Captain
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.
 

Shounak

Banned
Buddhmaster said:
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.
 

Shounak

Banned
Buddhmaster said:
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.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
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.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Slow Love™ said:
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.
 

Shounak

Banned
Dasa said:
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.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
shounak said:
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.
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
marc71178 said:
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.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
mavric41 said:
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.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Eclipse said:
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.
 

ash chaulk

International Captain
Its like the NFL a team gets 2 challenges a Half.... A special coach up in the coaches box will be watching special footage during the game if the ref gets the call wrong they coach will tell the head coach whos on ground level to challenge that play he then throws out a red challenge flag. The head referree then goes to video evidence if there wrong then fix it.... if the Coaches are wrong the lose a Timeout.....
 

mavric41

State Vice-Captain
ash chaulk said:
Its like the NFL a team gets 2 challenges a Half.... A special coach up in the coaches box will be watching special footage during the game if the ref gets the call wrong they coach will tell the head coach whos on ground level to challenge that play he then throws out a red challenge flag. The head referree then goes to video evidence if there wrong then fix it.... if the Coaches are wrong the lose a Timeout.....
Thats all we need - more Americanization of cricket.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I think it might be a good idea to take away the appeal part from the decision. The umpire should decide on his own without an appeal. It will take away a lot of pressure from the umpire, he will be able to think spontaneously and by himself without being influenced by batsmen rubbing their elbows or pointing at their bats or bowlers and fielders screaming at him as if to say, "you must be really dumb if you dont think THAT was out?"
 

Top