ICC gives umpire reviews the go-ahead

[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.

 

[Richard]

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

I think the "incompetence" reached such absurd levels that you cannot be confident it will improve. I think it's simply a system which is impossible to work with competence. Time will tell.

 

[Richard]

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 easy to say that when you've no hands in the till. Not so easy when you're charged with reversing or not reversing decisions. The heat being off and the heat being on have rarely been so apparent.

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.

Will it? As I say, I'd not be anywhere near so confident of that as you are.

And even if it were true, there are still better ways to go about it.

 

[andruid]

i would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated stanford super series

awtac

 

[zaremba]

And even if it were true, there are still better ways to go about it.

If I remember your argument rightly, your view is that if they're going to have video referrals etc then they should go much further than they have.

In my view, the fact that it might be a good idea to go further is not a reason not to take the limited steps that are being taken. The current changes are radical enough as it is, particularly given the inherent conservatism within the game, its administrators and players and followers. For this reason, and a number of other good reasons, if the system is to develop still further, such development should be evolutionary and incremental.

All our plans will be overtaken by better ones, but only if we get started. (A science fiction writer whose name eludes me wrote something along these lines regarding space probes - all our space probes will be overtaken by newer faster probes, so it might be tempting to believe fallaciously that we shouldn't bother sending the first probe in the first place - I read about it in a Dawkins book - perhaps one of our sci-fi-literate CW members will help remind me who wrote it and what the theory/story was called).

 

[Richard]

My view is that the path we're going along to get to the whole hog is completely and totally the wrong one, and that there are better routes to take.

For instance, it beggars belief to me that there's been a Cyclops in tennis for, well... a long time... and 17 years on from the first use of third-Umpires in cricket there is still no mechanism being developed which uses technology to call no-balls rather than leaving it to the bowler's-end Umpire. This, as I've said 1,000,000 times or so, should have been the first thing which was done, not a few piddling calls on whether a ball went for four or six.

 

[zaremba]

Well now that they're doing this very thing (for disputed dismissals), you should be pleased, and you can spare yourself your 1,000,002nd complaint about their failure to have done so hitherto

You might say that they've not gone far enough yet, but evolutionary and incremental is the way that they should, and will, go.

 

[Richard]

As I say - the evolution is, if things go this way, following a course of evolution that is direly bad, IMO.

And they're not taking the calling of no-balls out of the hands of the bowler's-end Umpire at all - all they're doing is checking, at random, whether an occasional ball is a no-ball. There are immeasurable benefits attached to the scheme whereby all checking of the bowler on the return-crease and popping-crease is done by technology.

 

[zaremba]

And they're not taking the calling of no-balls out of the hands of the bowler's-end Umpire at all - all they're doing is checking, at random, whether an occasional ball is a no-ball.

The longest march starts with a single (over)step.

 

[Matt79]

Doesn't beggar belief at all. It's a much more difficult challenge.

A sensible compromise, if they have a camera aimed at the crease full time, would be to have a 'linesman' watching that feed everyball able to signal any overstep to the umpire.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't beggar belief at all. It's a much more difficult challenge.

It's far from easy, but with the technology we have available, far, far, far more complicated things are do-able than it.

A sensible compromise, if they have a camera aimed at the crease full time, would be to have a 'linesman' watching that feed everyball able to signal any overstep to the umpire.

That is one option, but it seems to me to be a bit of an over-man-power option. A machine could do it more easily and with less potential for error.