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.
What Uppercut said.
Can't decide on a signature? Why not Zoidberg?
(\/) (;,,;) (\/)
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
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.
Last edited by Richard; 26-06-2009 at 02:01 PM.
Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson = Greatest Ever Manager
"One from ten leaves zero." - Eric Williams, former T&T PM
Member of Cricket Web Green
Member of Northside Power
R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi
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.
Last edited by zaremba; 27-06-2009 at 02:01 PM.
To quote Brian Lara after the Australians adjusted the field in exasperation, 'MISTAKE'.
I would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated Stanford Super Series
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.
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.
Last edited by zaremba; 28-06-2009 at 05:13 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)