ICC gives umpire reviews the go-ahead

[silentstriker]

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

A couple other good developments in there too.

[four_or_six]

This will be good if common sense is applied. I'm sure it will be okay once everyone's got used to it.

[silentstriker]

Yup.

I also like harsher penalties for over rates (should have been harsher though), the change in the light rule, and the prospect of day-night Tests.

All in all, a good meeting for the ICC.

[G.I.Joe]

Did they also sign away yet another new cheque for 'No play, all pay' Zimbabwe Cricket? That carpet in the ICC board room is looking real lumpy with all that stuff swept away under it.

[Richard]

This will be good if common sense is applied. I'm sure it will be okay once everyone's got used to it.

I'm not. Hopefully it'll be abandoned once everyone's got to realise what a terrible idea it is.

Still think over-rate penalties need to come in runs if they're to have any effect though.

[zaremba]

A very welcome step. Errors in decision-making will be reduced. Player dissent will be reduced. These are good things and, in view of them, the old argument that the authority of the on-field umpires will be undermined is paper-thin.

Teething troubles need to be ironed out (apologies for the grisly mixed metaphor) but once that's happened the system will be accepted, much like referrals for line decisions which we all now accept as normal and an improvement to the game.

[silentstriker]

Exactly.

[Richard]

Errors in decision-making will be reduced.

Evidence so far suggests the truth of this is debateable TSTL, and that even if it were slightly true (which it's absolutely no more than) that the backlash is considerable - and that's without the facet that was the most immediate and obvious (potential to undermine Umpiring authority).

There are, in my view, plenty of arguments against the review system and precious few (now we actually know what it entails) in its favour.

[roseboy64]

Just need to make the rules clearer for it.

[Richard]

Be so much easier to just use a better system rather than trying to push water uphill to make a nonsensical system work.

[roseboy64]

What's nonsensical about it?

[silentstriker]

It's a good system, they just need to clarify the rules for everyone, and actually take disciplinary action against those who refuse to get it.

[cowboysfan]

Be so much easier to just use a better system rather than trying to push water uphill to make a nonsensical system work.

you are a regular contrarian on this board arent you.

[G.I.Joe]

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

[zaremba]

Evidence so far suggests the truth of this is debateable TSTL, and that even if it were slightly true (which it's absolutely no more than) that the backlash is considerable - and that's without the facet that was the most immediate and obvious (potential to undermine Umpiring authority).

There are, in my view, plenty of arguments against the review system and precious few (now we actually know what it entails) in its favour.

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.