Player referrals to be tried

[silentstriker]

Yes.



FINALLY.


I am ecstatic. My biggest worry is that they won't try it in the right format, and if it fails they'll blame the whole idea instead of the implementation.

 

[Johnners]

It's good to see an increased use of Technology. Although I'm not sure that putting option of when & where to use it in the players hands is a good thing...

 

[howardj]

Let me guess, they'll say it slows the game down too much (even though they had a faster over rate in the ICC SuperTest, when there were unlimited referrals) than in the controversial, Bucknor-marred, Test against India in Sydney this year.

 

[silentstriker]

It's good to see an increased use of Technology. Although I'm not sure that putting option of when & where to use it in the players hands is a good thing...

Why? Other sports do it. I'd like to see a cap of two incorrect referrals per innings per team. It can only be referred in cases where a player's status in terms of being out or not out is at stake and can be initiated by the fielding captain or the batsman. The third umpire cannot use any predictive technology, but can use snickometer, hotspot and any other tools he has, including hawkeye, but only to see where the ball pitched and hit the batsman and not where it might have gone. The third umpire will uphold whatever decision the umpire on the field has made (whether out or not out) unless he sees compelling evidence that leads to the conclusion that the decision rendered on the field is wrong beyond reasonable doubt. In case of doubt, the decision made by the umpires on the field will stand.

That's how I'd implement it. Let's hope something similar happens.

 

[pasag]

I would have liked to see other solutions sought out first - primarily more communication between umpire and third umpire and to see if there would be any noticable change after that before going towards this which I feel is more drastic and should have been a last resort.

Could be one of those things that you get used to fairly quickly but I'm not really too excited about it at this stage.

 

[Burgey]

I hope they don't refer everything requested, rather that they have three referrals per innings per team, like in a set of tennis. If the referral leads to the original dismissal being upheld, then they lose one. If not, they keep all three as the innings progresses.
By limiting the referrals, it will hopefully encourage players to walk, thereby taking some pressure off the on-field umpires.
The way technology is going these days, they either have to bring in some system of referral, or stop showing us endless replays using all sorts of infra red technology and super slow mo, which increases player rancour and places greater pressure on the field umpires.
Edit: what's going on witht he IPL window? the article says no request was made by the IPL or the BCCI to make a window - does this mean at least another 12 months of issues re availability for internationals like we're getting re the WI-Aus series? Not that that case is necessarily the IPL's fault, just that there will be another 12 months of uncertainty, or so it seems.

 

[bond21]

um...they did this like 2 or 3 years ago in the Aus vs World XI matches, which btw we dominated.

 

[Burgey]

um...they did this like 2 or 3 years ago in the Aus vs World XI matches, which btw we dominated.

Slightly different then in that the umpires referred decisions - in this case the teams can ask the umpires to refer.

 

[roseboy64]

um...they did this like 2 or 3 years ago in the Aus vs World XI matches, which btw we dominated.

 

[roseboy64]

Sounds a good idea.

 

[Somerset]

Personally I think this can only be good for the game giving the players the power to challenge the call like tennis players have been able to do at the recent Open tournaments. After all, we go to see the players play rather than the umpires umpire, so giving the players the power to perform to their best with correct decisions can only be positive.

Interesting also that the World Cup will be reduced to 14 sides. As much as the non-associate followers will be disappointed, I think its a better format than four groups of 16. However I still think three groups of 5, with a Super 6, would be the way to go.

 

[Somerset]

um...they did this like 2 or 3 years ago in the Aus vs World XI matches, which btw we dominated.

From what I can remember, not a huge amount was referred. Would've been better if the proposal was extended for a larger period of time back then IMO (would've been more worthwhile than the useless Super Sub rule) to actually determine if it'd be relatively successful.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Interesting also that the World Cup will be reduced to 14 sides. As much as the non-associate followers will be disappointed, I think its a better format than four groups of 16. However I still think three groups of 5, with a Super 6, would be the way to go.

Naah, it's absolutely rubbish. Two groups of 7 and top four go through to quarter-finals? The group stages basically won't matter at all except maybe for England and West Indies, and the winner is the one who has luck in three successive games.

Referrals might work though.

 

[Somerset]

Naah, it's absolutely rubbish. Two groups of 7 and top four go through to quarter-finals? The group stages basically won't matter at all except maybe for England and West Indies, and the winner is the one who has luck in three successive games.

Referrals might work though.

Without wanting to sidetrack too far from the main topic, I think two groups of 7 will work better than 4 of 4 (as in the event of an upset a side is stuffed, i.e. in the case of Pakistan at the 2007 WC). I do tend to agree that it goes a bit far the other way, in that group matches lose a bit of their meaning. Though as I suggested earlier, three groups of five provides a good balance IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Player referrals are a great step forward. I think they should have it in all sports where applicable.

 

[biased indian]

good thing... give both team 3 each for the entire test macth..

if they are not succesful they should loose one...

 

[Burgey]

From what I can remember, not a huge amount was referred. Would've been better if the proposal was extended for a larger period of time back then IMO (would've been more worthwhile than the useless Super Sub rule) to actually determine if it'd be relatively successful.

Actually. I was at the World XI test in Sydney, and "Rudi the Referrer" sent nearly everything upstairs. it got a bitmuch, actually.
Another good sidelight to this may be that players won't be able to bang on so much about bad umpiring if the officials can turn around and say "well, why didn't you refer it?".
One thing I would be caustious with though is snicko. You can get noise, but it can only be part of the evidence in giving catches out - hopefully they'll take both it and the super slow mo into account, the latter to look for changes in the spin of the ball as it passes the bat.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I just hope we don't end up with the usual morons leaping in afterwards saying such stuff as only 99.9% decisions were right so it's a waste of time.

 

[silentstriker]

I just hope we don't end up with the usual morons leaping in afterwards saying such stuff as only 99.9% decisions were right so it's a waste of time.

Haha, yea. I can't stand that line of reasoning.


"Well its not perfect, therefore it's not any good." Well, nothing is perfect. All that matters is if it was better than before.

 

[Richard]

FFS, hope this rubbish falls flat on its face and we get the system that would do the job better and do less damage.