the "t" sign

[LA ICE-E]

You can be completely certain that you're right if you're the batsman, though, and have your appeal turned down due to inconclusive evidence. It's pretty unlikely, but if the umpire gives four caught behind decisions out in a batting innings and the first three prove inconclusive (or even worse, the first two prove inconclusive but the third one looks looks not out and is ruled inconclusive by the third umpire) I'm going to be pretty peeved as the batsman on the wrong end of that fourth call. Never mind as the crazy fan with a conspiracy theory. Much more so than if every decision was down to the umpire's discretion.

I generally just don't like the idea of the outcome of one decision being effected by the outcome of a previous one.

What are the chances of an umpire giving 4 wrong decisions in an inning? If an umpire is making that many wrong decisions then we need to get a different umpire. If the 3rd one is not out why would the 3rd umpire say inconclusive? Plus not many chances of 3 referrals being deemed inconclusive.

Perhaps the third umpire could just make a distinction between "inconclusive" and "wrong challenge", with only the ones deemed wrong coming off your three-challenge limit. It'd probably end up too subjective though.

I like that though not really necessary because if it's that close that it's deemed inconclusive then we can give the on field umpires the benefit of the doubt can't we? With all the talk about umpires and bla bla bla about how they are part of the game well then there give them benefit of the doubt there.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What are the chances of an umpire giving 4 wrong decisions in an inning?

Mark Benson got 3 wrong in 4 balls a Test match ago.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like that though not really necessary because if it's that close that it's deemed inconclusive then we can give the on field umpires the benefit of the doubt can't we? With all the talk about umpires and bla bla bla about how they are part of the game well then there give them benefit of the doubt there.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'm suggesting that the "wrong challenge" doesn't count against the team if that happens, though. If it's inconclusive, the original decision should stand and the number of challenges remaining should not decrease. I'd be happy with that.

 

[Burgey]

Like the idea, except:

1. T sign? That's just stupid.
2. What is the criteria for overturning? Will the benefit of the doubt always go to the batsman? Or will a more sane system be trialled - as in, the benefit of the doubt goes to the on field umpire. If there is clear evidence he was wrong, he is overturned, otherwise his decision stands.

Should be the latter imo.

When this was first floated they said hot spot wasn't going to be used, nor was snicko.

 

[pasag]

T sign? Prefer a chicken dance tbh.

 

[Richard]

When this was first floated they said hot spot wasn't going to be used, nor was snicko.

Stupid. Absolutely stupid IMO. I'd not be in favour of HawkEye being used as that's a prediction of a probability, but snicko and HotSpot are simply things that reveal facts - facts which would otherwise possibly not be available. It's not possible for either to make a decision more likely to be wrong than right, whereas with HawkEye (though it's unlikely) it could conceivably do so.