ICC gives umpire reviews the go-ahead

[howardj]

ICC gives umpire reviews the go-ahead | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | Cricinfo.com

A couple other good developments in there too.

Common sense initiatives all.

Look forward to their implementation.

[howardj]

The only thing that brings the referral system undone, is the video umpire making incorrect decisions. But you shouldn't throw the technology out because the video umpire is getting things wrong. You only throw the technology out if it's faulty.

[Uppercut]

I'm very much in favour of referrals, but I will rather miss the drama of an umpire's finger going up being the final word.

[nightprowler10]

What Uppercut said.

[Richard]

What's nonsensical about it?

West Indies played at least a couple of series' under the trial. Therefore, you should know why.

[Richard]

Richard, sometimes I wonder you have to be so po-mo.

Po-mo?

[Richard]

I don't see how allowing obvious umpiring errors (which are of course apparent to everyone) to stand uncorrected undermines umpires.

What does undermine umpires is the sort of over-appealing, intimidation and dissent which have become so prevalent in the last 30 years or so. And that's PRECISELY what the referral system cuts out. This was obviously predictable and has been plain to see in practice. Because the umpire can say to the bowler, look, if you're so bloody sure that decision was wrong, you can risk a referral on it. If the bowling side doesn't refer it, there's no use their whingeing or bitching on about it. And hey, if the referral is upheld, an injustice has been averted.

And yes decision-making has certainly already been improved. And it will improve further as video umpires and those who present the evidence to then become more skilled and experienced.

On-field decision-making hasn't improved as those responsible for it have gained experience - what it takes is natural talent, not any amount of experience. With the current system, it is impossible to be an on-field Umpire to the requisite standards - we've known this for decades, there are far too many mistakes made. And evidence so far suggests it's also impossible to attain the standards required to make this referral nonsense less nonsensical.

The best thing to do would be to implement a system that actually made a wrong decision an impossibility - only where there was doubt would there be, well... doubt. That'd eliminate dissent completely, eliminate injustice completely, and wouldn't require such nonsensical wastes of time and confusion as the review system induces.

Obviously, though, this system can only be used so far. At club level, the whole silly idea is impossible and totally OOTQ, and I also think the best system would be one that keeps things as similar as possible all the way down.

[roseboy64]

West Indies played at least a couple of series' under the trial. Therefore, you should know why.

The nonsensical part was the incompetency of some of the umpires and the rules being ambiguous enough.

[G.I.Joe]

Po-mo?

post modern.

[zaremba]

With the current system, it is impossible to be an on-field Umpire to the requisite standards - we've known this for decades, there are far too many mistakes made. And evidence so far suggests it's also impossible to attain the standards required to make this referral nonsense less nonsensical.

I'm amused by the irony of this.

What evidence are you referring to? The evidence, presumably, of you seeing replays and forming the view that the umpire / video umpire has got certain decisions wrong. And of course if you can form such views accurately - and I'm sure you believe you can - based on video evidence, then so can video umpires.

It's just a question of getting good decision-makers who understand their brief and who have the skill and confidence to carry it out. And, given time, that will happen.

[oitoitoi]

To quote Brian Lara after the Australians adjusted the field in exasperation, 'MISTAKE'.

[GIMH]

I would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated Stanford Super Series

[Jungle Jumbo]

I would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated Stanford Super Series

That's unlikely to cut out the worst mistakes though - usually there has to be a complete misjudgement, rather than a 50-50 call, for a ball pitching two inches outside leg.

I'm all for bringing in referrals if they are used for obvious mistakes (balls pitching outside leg, inside edges, thigh rather than bat) rather than marginal calls. Therefore I'd like to see the trialled system continued, but with a maximum of one referral per innings. That would end the problem of players referring decisions on the chance, rather than the conviction, that the umpire is wrong.

[silentstriker]

I would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated Stanford Super Series

So they can refer everything like they do with run outs? They obviously don't want to be wrong, so they'll refer everything, and may not refer the worst mistakes. Plus, it still keeps the umpire intimidation line open.

[zaremba]

So they can refer everything like they do with run outs? They obviously don't want to be wrong, so they'll refer everything, and may not refer the worst mistakes. Plus, it still keeps the umpire intimidation line open.

AWTA.

3 referrals per innings by each team (or something pretty similar to that) will work just fine. Actually I think it's a beautifully judged approach.

From time to time there will be glitches, which will be exaggerated in the media by lazy journalists and commentators looking for a quick and cheap story and by those who have set their minds against the system. But I have absolute confidence that, if it is given sufficient time and if it is refined and developed intelligently, it will be a resounding success.