Umpire Referrals

[Evermind]

Good idea? Bad idea?

Personally, I just don't understand the logic of the 3rd umpire being unable to use hawkeye and hotspot/snicko. What sense does that make? What is the rationale behind it?

 

[Somerset]

Voted for option two. Like it or not, technology has to play a part in the game today. We are infuriated by incorrect umpiring decisions that potentially cost teams games or at least change the cause of the match so some form of technology, if available, should be used IMO for any dismissal. To do that effectively the third umpire has to have as much assistance as possible. Allow the use of hotspot, which is a brilliant piece of technology, allow hawkeye to adjudge LBW decisions, allow snicko for fine edges - if the tecnology is there for the commentators to make a correct decision within 30 seconds then surely its worthwhile giving it to the third umpire. Two referrals per innings would be the way to go too, correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't have coverage of the West Indies vs England series) but the change from three to two per innings after three were used in the New Zealand vs West Indies series is a positive one in my opinion.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

My problem with Hawkeye is when you get decisions that they technology says is clipping a bail or something. I would be very disappointed if they started giving those out.

 

[pskov]

I think the system used in the Stanford series was the best, just leave it up to the umpires themselves.

 

[Athlai]

The LBW stuff is fine, we shouldn't give decisions that are only just clipping or whatever. Hotspot and snicko however should definitely be used. Predictive technology is different to that of what hotspot and snicko do, they both record things which actually happen while hawkeye predicts what will happen which to me is a bridge to far no matter how accurate.

 

[Evermind]

The LBW stuff is fine, we shouldn't give decisions that are only just clipping or whatever. Hotspot and snicko however should definitely be used. Predictive technology is different to that of what hotspot and snicko do, they both record things which actually happen while hawkeye predicts what will happen which to me is a bridge to far no matter how accurate.

Well, but the human eye in case of LBWs is also predictive, isn't it? The ball doesn't actually hit the stumps, so a person's judgement is as predictive as the technology being utilised - except we have a much more accurate predictive measure in case of technology. I don't see how it's any different, and as an argument it's rather illogical.

 

[Athlai]

Well, but the human eye in case of LBWs is also predictive, isn't it? The ball doesn't actually hit the stumps, so a person's judgement is as predictive as the technology being utilised - except we have a much more accurate predictive measure in case of technology. I don't see how it's any different, and as an argument it's rather illogical.

I mean the current system for LBW's (seeing where it pitched) when referred is fine.

 

[GIMH]

I think the system used in the Stanford series was the best, just leave it up to the umpires themselves.

yeah, was gonna say this myself. I find the current situation a little contrived

 

[andyc]

I think the system used in the Stanford series was the best, just leave it up to the umpires themselves.

No, I disagree. The best judge of whether or not a batsman's hit a ball or not is the batsman himself, and there's been at least one referral (SL-Ind, IIRC) where the keeper and the slips could clearly see that the batsman had hit it, but the umpire's vision was obscured by the batsman himself. I think the current system is probably the best way to go, it just needs a few things to be ironed out and just a bit more time, while things like Snicko, and definitely HotSpot, should be brought in. As it is, I'd personally have no real problems with Hawkeye coming in as well, but I think it's going to be a while before that happens. I do hope that the referral system is implemented completely throughout the Test game, and I reckon that in time, we'll be seeing frivolous appeals ala Shane Warne or Monty Panesar becoming much more a thing of the past as they realise they're not going to be getting away with bogus decisions.

 

[Uppercut]

The lack of clarity is such bull****. Steve Harmison in his Mail on Sunday column:

"When I trapped Ramnaresh Sarwan back in the crease, I was convinced he was out," Harmison wrote. "So was Hill, which was why he stuck up his finger.

"When Hill, after consulting Daryl Harper, then reversed his original decision and gave Sarwan not out, I asked him why, and he said something like: 'Daryl said he couldn't be sure but it may have been going over the top.' I said to Tony: 'That's not right. He's got to have seen something that proved you were wrong.' Then he said: 'Yeah, I thought so as well.'

Oh dear.

 

[silentstriker]

That's just poor implementation. If Harper said 'I'm not sure but....', then there is no way it should have been reversed. It's just like the ICC - get a good idea and completely ruin the implementation, and then blame the idea itself.

 

[Matt79]

The lack of clarity is such bull****. Steve Harmison in his Mail on Sunday column:



Oh dear.

Haven't watched a game where they're being used yet, to properly judge, but that quoted story is disappointing.

If they can make them work as close to as quickly as the tennis referrals, I'm for it, otherwise...

 

[silentstriker]

Works fine in the NFL - a much bigger and more lucrative sport than cricket.

 

[andyc]

The lack of clarity is such bull****. Steve Harmison in his Mail on Sunday column:



Oh dear.

Well, that's just ridiculous stuff, from both umpires really. In an lbw decision, the third umpire should only ever be deciding on whether or not there was an edge, and where the ball pitched and struck the batsman, end of story. If you're going to allow the third umpire to suggest that it may have been going over the top, why aren't they allowed to use Hotspot and Snicko, or even Hawkeye?

 

[Uppercut]

I'd quite like to see the umpire decide if it's hitting the stumps and whether the batsman was playing a shot and the third umpire look at where it pitched/hit the batsmen. Would speed things up a lot if the man upstairs didn't have to make judgement calls.

EDIT: Haha, andyc posts the same thing at the same time.

 

[Evermind]

Why can't we just use the Hawkeye to take of LBWs altogether? Not just where the ball pitched, but also whether it's clipping the bails. Let Hawkeye take care of it - end of story: doesn't matter whether it's close or not. If it's used in tennis, why not in cricket? The batsman and the bowler should accept hawkeye decisions because it may not be 100% accurate, but it's more accurate than the umpire. That's just the standard we're gonna have to go by, now that it's available.

 

[Uppercut]

Too many people would be given out and matches wouldn't last long enough.

 

[Matt79]

Maybe amend the rule to say if Hawkeye shows more than half the ball hitting the stumps, to restore that element of doubt factor?

 

[Precambrian]

I'd quite like to see the umpire decide if it's hitting the stumps and whether the batsman was playing a shot and the third umpire look at where it pitched/hit the batsmen. Would speed things up a lot if the man upstairs didn't have to make judgement calls.

EDIT: Haha, andyc posts the same thing at the same time.

1 minute is more than enough for plagiarising.

I have absolutely no qualms with the current system. Much better to avoid farcical situations like the Sydney Test 2008. However, errors like the one Harper did in case of Powell are despicable.

 

[cowboysfan]

what are these massive changes?.the only change i can think of is the hotspot-i dont trust the snicko.