Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Should 3rd Umpire referrals trialled in Super series continue

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 64.00%
  • No

    9 36.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Should the New Technology/3rd Umpire referrals trialled in the Super Series continued

  1. #1
    Cricketer Of The Year JASON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    At Work
    Posts
    7,558

    Should the New Technology/3rd Umpire referrals trialled in the Super Series continued

    I personally feel the trial of 3rd Umpire referrals in the Super series was a great concept and eliminated lot of doubt about dubious decisions (although some decisions by the 3rd Ump were somewhat inexplicable). The 3rd Umpire has better ability to judge close decisions (LBWs) with the aid of TV replays than the not so sharp or sometimes aging eye of a Rudi Koertzen .
    Time consuming it may be , but I feel it should be persevered with.

    http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/super...ry/222301.html

    What do other members of the forum think ?
    Last edited by JASON; 18-10-2005 at 12:02 AM.

  2. #2
    State Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,911
    Well I'm dubious. What i certainly don't like is the idea of the third umpire giving people not out, when they were probably out (as I think happened with one LBW). The technology should not incorporate benefit of the doubt, not least because it often creates doubt where there should have been little.

    I also think using the technology has had a relatively easy start. That problems arose with that (it has been suggested that the umpires became keener to give their own decisions after the time taken and the dubious nature of a couple of the decisions earlier in the match) is not a good omen to what would happen on the subcontinent.

    Although bear in mind that i am only going from generally second hand accounts.

  3. #3
    International Captain cameeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,902
    No, I don't think so. As Koertzen has said, it pretty much removes the main role the umpire has, technology is great for run-outs, but no balls and LBW decisions should remain to be decided the ump behind the stumps.

    http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...E11088,00.html

    I agree with him.
    Proud Member of the Melbourne Demons ,'97,'98,'99,'05-'13
    Supporter of Melbourne Demons FC, Aston Villa FC, and the Flyers

    "This tournament is a joke. Grass is for cows, I'm never coming back." - Marat Safin

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    I am in favour of technlogy where it will turn a doubtful decision into a cut and dry one at least 90% of the time. Examples are run-outs, stumpings and no balls. I am not in favour of technology when it slows the game down and eliminates the umpiring decision without actually significantly reducing the number of doubtful decisions.

    The Super Test had two decisions which were clearly wrong and were not referred. It also had two decisions that I personally thought were decided incorrectly by the third umpire (Clarke's first innings dismissal and Inzy's first innings non-dismissal to Warne).

    Just like the last time replays for non-conclusive decisions was implemented, in the 2002 Champions Trophy, it sometimes made a decision easier, and sometimes it created doubt or was simply inconclusive. You will also notice that throughout the Super Series, the majority of the time the umpire would shake or nod their head, and then go to the third umpire to confirm, so clearly most of those decisions would have been given the same way anyway.

    I don't think it worked.
    It's cold on the outside they say
    But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze


  5. #5
    U19 Cricketer
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    478
    I think it was quite apt how Rudi made a complete howler of a decision just after making his comments. I was impressed with how it ran overall, the time it took to reach a decision was not too long and the accuracy of the decisions weren't too bad imo. Onward and upward.

  6. #6
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    I liked it, and thought it worked well and should be continued - with a few provisos that I made in the other thread discussing the subject.
    "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

  7. #7
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,909
    I'd still like to see minimal technology that won't delay the game, but will aid the umpires a great deal (ie no balls to the 3rd umpire and earpiece's tying them to the stump mic)
    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.

  8. #8
    U19 Cricketer
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    478
    The stump mike didn't appear a useful or effective tool to me. There were a number of instances where it should have been useful or used correctly, and wasn't. Watsons' dismissal (what else is it for?), and obviously the Boucher one.

  9. #9
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Zinzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cover point
    Posts
    25,958
    I'm definately for it, particularly as a NZ supporter who honestly feels we've had a rough time in the last few years with tradional umpires (particularly against Aust) - mind you, all supporters probably think that of their teams

    Not only are the decision more likely to be correct....but I actually reckon the delays for the decisions add to the excitement of the match.....And they can work on speeding it up.

  10. #10
    International Captain cameeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    I liked it, and thought it worked well and should be continued - with a few provisos that I made in the other thread discussing the subject.
    Such as some kind of restrictions on the number of times it was used, there was quite a few obvious decisions that were referred, taking up 2/3 minutes each time

  11. #11
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    62,909
    Quote Originally Posted by parttimer
    The stump mike didn't appear a useful or effective tool to me. There were a number of instances where it should have been useful or used correctly, and wasn't. Watsons' dismissal (what else is it for?), and obviously the Boucher one.
    Was the stump mike in use in the Super series then?

    I thought it was only in one of the CTs, and Bowden lead a call for them to be given them all the time.

  12. #12
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    I really approve of technology for decisions,but i still voted no to stop all the debating.

    i hate it.all the pundits do is say the same flawed argument over and over again and site inappropriate cases as evidence for or against.

  13. #13
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4
    I think 3rd umpire should only be used for more obvious decisions like catches.Since the batsmen know that they will be given out anyway eventually batsmen may start to walk even before they are given out and the fielders also will not appeal if it hasnt hit the bat.

    LBW's are more subjective decisions and shouldnt be referred.If the main umpire and 3rd umpire have different opinions then it will take a long time to arrive at a decision.The only thing maybe the umpire can ask is if there was any bat involved.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    Really don't like it.

    If this becomes the case, the Test umpires you will want will not be the best decision makers; but the best player/situation managers.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  15. #15
    International Regular chris.hinton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,335
    I agree with Neil

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 ICC Super Series
    By aussie in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 390
    Last Post: 04-07-2005, 06:30 AM
  2. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-12-2004, 05:26 PM
  4. The ICC Super Series 2005
    By Barney Rubble in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 07:02 AM
  5. World Eleven for ICC Super series V Australia
    By JASON in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 15-07-2004, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

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