Referral System

[Badger Land]

I personally don’t like it. I prefer the on-field umpires to make the decisions and not have players constantly challenging them. Its seems this referral system pretty much makes the umpires decision worthless.

 

[archie mac]

Are they rotating the umpires?

I think they should, it would give them all equal status, otherwise the video umpire would assume 1IC

 

[Furball]

The best example I've seen for referrals was a Tendulkar (iirc) dismissal by referral against Sri Lanka.

Went for a sweep, missed, ball bounced and hit the back of his bat on the way through to the keeper. No way the stump umpire could have seen it, would have been hard for the square leg to have seen convincingly, so it would have been a fair call to give it not out, as it was.

Yet to the keeper and slips, it was clear as day what had happened, and they were rightly allowed to appeal the decision.

 

[99*]

Was more than 50 % of the ball pitching in line with the stumps for the Flynn dismissal?

I think 50% isn't enough, it should be more like 75%.

I'm not sure it was 50/50, the seam was just outside the line iirc.

 

[_Ed_]

But it doesn't need to pitch in line with the off stump does it?

 

[Furball]

But it doesn't need to pitch in line with the off stump does it?

Nope.

As long as any part of the ball is in line with the stumps at the point of contact, then that's good enough to be adjudged as "hitting in line."

 

[archie mac]

Just watched it in real time, what a yawn, lets slow the game down even more, how many overs will they take off for the time wasted?

 

[Precambrian]

Just watched it in real time, what a yawn, lets slow the game down even more, how many overs will they take off for the time wasted?

Not by much, going by Ind vs SL series.

 

[archie mac]

Not by much, going by Ind vs SL series.

Maybe it is just Rudi

 

[Precambrian]

Maybe it is just Rudi

Yeah Rudi could be a big over-eating (no pun intended) factor. He'd be better make judgements using TV than not.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm not sure it was 50/50, the seam was just outside the line iirc.

So there we have it, according to the rules mentioned above, it was an incorrect decision.

 

[Prince EWS]

So there we have it, according to the rules mentioned above, it was an incorrect decision.

Nah, you misinterpreted. Jack and Hakon were talking about the "ball must not pitch outside leg" rule; you're talking about the "ball must hit in line with the stumps if the batsman is playing a shot" rule. Two different things.

When the ball pitches on the ground, the part closest to the ground is obviously going to hit the ground first, and given the ball is round, that'll mean the centre of it (from a 2D, bird's eye view) will strike the ground. However, given the pad is 90 degrees (or there abouts) from the ground, the part of the ball closest to the pad and not closest to the ground will in fact hit the pad first, and hence only that part must be inside the line under that particular rule.

 

[JimmyGS]

When the ball pitches on the ground, the part closest to the ground is obviously going to hit the ground first, and given the ball is round, that'll mean the centre of it (from a 2D, bird's eye view) will strike the ground. However, given the pad is 90 degrees (or there abouts) from the ground, the part of the ball closest to the pad and not closest to the ground will in fact hit the pad first, and hence only that part must be inside the line under that particular rule.

So when the ball hits the pad, the northern most point of the ball makes contact first (birds eye 2d view again). Viewed from the umpires perspective in hawkeye, this makes it on the seam, on the other side of the ball. The seam was outside the line of off stump.

Not out.

 

[Prince EWS]

So when the ball hits the pad, the northern most point of the ball makes contact first (birds eye 2d view again). Viewed from the umpires perspective in hawkeye, this makes it on the seam, on the other side of the ball. The seam was outside the line of off stump.

Not out.

No, because the outside of the ball is always going to hit the pad first - the eastern (or western to a left hander) part of the ball is going to strike it first, not the middle part or the part closest to the ground.

They actually explained it one of the innings breaks today. Under the rules, it was definitely out. It's essentially because the ball glances or rebounds off the pad rather than coming from above and landing on top of it.

 

[GIMH]

Does that include the 3rd umpire? If so, I can see your point. Otherwise, why would an on-field umpire refer a decision that he thinks was right?

I'm OK with players asking for referrals up to a max of 3 duff calls by them per innings. That way, we avoid the sort of decision that saw off Collingwood today, whilst not giving bowlers licence to refer every decision that doesn't go their way.

In the Stanford Super Series we saw the umpires refer plenty of things to the 3rd umpire that they normally would have had to make a call on one way another.

 

[Flem274*]

The above argument (PEWS vs Jimmy) is why LBWs suck. Either make it so anything that gives the pad a whack and looks to be hitting (with no bat involved) out or can the thing. Needs to be simplified.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The above argument (PEWS vs Jimmy) is why LBWs suck. Either make it so anything that gives the pad a whack and looks to be hitting (with no bat involved) out or can the thing. Needs to be simplified.

That would simplify matters.....it would also shorten matches considerably as well.

 

[B.Scott4England]

I don't like the delay. Especially in cricket with the inability to keep up wiht over rates anyway.

It works in tennis because it's an indivdual sport and the decision is almost instant.

I don't think it works in Rugby because it all depends on the question the on-field ref asks. i.e. if he asks about the grounding the video ref can't mentiona forward pass in the lead up, and the delay can take the heat out of a pulsating game.

I think there are too many variables for a successful referals system in cricket and if we ever got to a stage where all the decisions were right what would we talk about on messageboards?

 

[slugger]

we will ask ourselves......... why did this referral system take so long.. cause now its become apperant that aussie may not have been so invincible after all.. they just got a better roll of the dice than anyone else..........

 

[silentstriker]

I like the idea of referring, hate the idea of the players having to challenge the umpires. Just let the umpires refer it, same way as the runouts. That works fine.

Yea, so they can refer every appeal like they do with run outs. No thanks.

Limiting it to two or three per innings allows teams to reverse bad decisions while still being cautious about using too many for calls that they aren't sure about. Anything that lessens the influence of an umpire over the game of cricket, I'd generally be for. Umpires shouldn't be there to do anything but to count overs, hold hats and enforce rules. Ridiculous that they have so much power over the results, but until the last couple decades, it was a necessary evil. Now it's just a drag on the game.

Umpires deciding games instead of the player in this modern age of multi million dollar players and billion dollar TV contracts is ridiculous. If the governing body weren't such a spineless bunch of luddites, we would have had this long time ago.