• 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.

the "t" sign

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
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.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
  1. 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.
That would be the only thing that makes sense.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
well i'm for this and all but why are they trying this is tests 1st? shouldn't it go 20/20 then odi's then tests? another thing, why can't the third umpire just straight out go with the decision or overturn it instead of wasting time by going back to the on field umpire and then they overturning their own discision? pointless, they should just do it like they do it now when the 3rd umpire is refered.

I don't care about the T sign but i think thorw red flags to challenge a call would be ill, like in the nfl. so the umpires can't call on the third umpires on their own anymorre besides boundary line dicisions?
 

Dissector

International Debutant
I think it's a good idea which should eliminate or at least greatly reduce the number of outrageously bad dismissals in tests. Fiascos like the Sydney test will be much less likely as a result. 3 wrong appeals per innings seems about right to me; I doubt it will slow down play significantly.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not much opportunity to properly test an appeals system when an innings is 50 overs or shorter. Logical that they'd test it in Tests then.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
Not much opportunity to properly test an appeals system when an innings is 50 overs or shorter. Logical that they'd test it in Tests then.
but isn't there a thing like"oh it's test you don't mess with it" and try everything else 1st in one day cricket?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
but isn't there a thing like"oh it's test you don't mess with it" and try everything else 1st in one day cricket?
Makes much more sense to do it in Tests here though. That is, if they're intent to doing it in international cricket.
 

MrHat

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
From what i remember of the World11 farce the effect could be pretty startling, depending on which method they use. If they go with the video ref as final decision maker the game will IMO be much shorter, as batsmen who'd be normally reprieved via the benefit of the doubt won't anymore. There are alot more wrong decisions favouring the not outs than outs. The likes of Murali was given alot of LBW's originally denied by the ump if memory serves.

Aside from helping the bowler i think it hurts the atmosphere a bit, there's something intangilable and mysterious about an umpire raising his finger according to his own judgement. Everyone forgets this of course when they cop a raw one. Overall its a good idea. If it can eliminate some of the controversies surrounding cricket lately everyone will be relieved. In soccer a poor referee can quickly lose control of the game with a bad decision and things can escalate from there.
 
Last edited:

MrHat

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
I have been waiting for this.If it was tried in the present test the windies may have won it .
I am not watching but Bravo was let off a few times apparently. The WI commentators mentioned Symonds reprieves whenever they mentioned him but quickly forgot about Bravo's and when he got out it was all talk of a promising innings cut short. This is hopefully the kind of rubbish the 3rd ump will sort out.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I am not watching but Bravo was let off a few times apparently. The WI commentators mentioned Symonds reprieves whenever they mentioned him but quickly forgot about Bravo's and when he got out it was all talk of a promising innings cut short. This is hopefully the kind of rubbish the 3rd ump will sort out.
The commentators mentioned Bravo's let-offs several times, actually.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
You only get 3 unsuccessful ones per innings...
I really hate the thought of a decision not being over-turned purely because there have been three inconclusive appeals exercised already. It'd be different if they were conclusively wrong appeals, but I can see a lot of appeals being unneccessful without being proven wrong as such.

For this reason, I really dislike the limited referrals system. Although I suppose it is marginally better than the current system.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I really hate the thought of a decision not being over-turned purely because there have been three inconclusive appeals exercised already.
This is the same system as in the NFL, and it works great. It stops people from challenging every single decision. If there is no downside, people will challenge everything, every catch, every LBW on the off chance that it might not be out (or be out). You only want people to challenge when they are pretty sure they are right.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
You only want people to challenge when they are pretty sure they are right.
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.

silentstriker said:
If there is no downside, people will challenge everything, every catch, every LBW on the off chance that it might not be out (or be out).
Maybe in the field, but I think the cricket culture is different enough to stop it happening with batsmen. There's enough hoo-har about regarding claimed catches and unsportsmanlike conduct that challenging an out caught behind which you clearly hit would not go over well at all. I don't think it'd happen too often.

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.
 
Last edited:

Top