Do umpires even call front foot no-balls anymore? Unless there's a possible wicket and they want to clarify?
Heck, umpires are beginning to use the third umpire to count balls in an over (as seen in the RSA's 2nd innings at Newlands).
At this rate, there will be one of these behind each set of stumps with a speaker attached to it;
Last edited by Second Spitter; 06-03-2014 at 09:28 PM.
DRS has been quite successful I think, and is absolutely worth persevering with, its aim is to eliminate 'howlers' from the game, and if captains didn't abuse the system by using it to review very close decisions (sometimes out of desperation), then it would serve that function perfectly, as it is, that function is largely being served anyway, particularly now that captains such as Alistair Cook have worked out how to get the best out of it. The solution to make the system perfectly is certainly not to put it in the hands of the increasingly scrutinised and conservative umpires, as Furball was saying, everything would be checked, and the game would slow to a crawl. Not only that, but the system of "3rd umpire intervention" that I often see spouted as the solution to this problem has arguably been discredited by its trial during the Ryobi Cup in 2012/13 .
"It's just shocking, it's embarrassing, it needs to worked out," said Bailey, also Australia's Twenty20 captain. "I think it confuses the players, I think it confuses the umpires. I think leave it in the hands of the players. You get two, if you use them with bad reviews then so be it."Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers Association and a member of the cricket committee, said the problems encountered with the system had not been envisaged at the time it was devised, and would force a close look at its faults at the end of the summer.
"Certainly when it was talked about conceptually we didn't see the problems that would come up," Marsh told ESPNcricinfo. "There are issues with broadcaster actually showing replays, and I don't think anyone saw that, and it just seems to be inconsistent the way that it is working. It definitely is something we need to put on our agenda for the coming year.
Not sure players can put their sunglasses on that.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Yup, you're relying even more on the host broadcaster if you leave it to the players in the rooms.
Anything that relies on the batsman not getting off the ground so that a third party (3rd umpire or his teammate) will end up as a pure farce.
Last edited by vic_orthdox; 07-03-2014 at 12:49 AM.
I actually think the system as it is now is great. Umpires will make mistakes, even 3rd umpires.... but I really believe the current system helps when there is a very clear 'howler' which is what it is there for. The 50/50 ones are just a part of the package but if it means we eliminate most blatantly wrong decisions then so be it.
Andrew Symonds 143*
Is...is that a Steve Smith bust?
No team but India bowls 160 overs in a test innings.
But why two referrals? How about 1 per batsman? Both teams would have to be more sure about how and when to use it.
I actually think the system is pretty good as it is.
You can't give the Umpires the ability to review decisions because otherwise it'll be like run outs where they will review everything 'just to be sure'.
The no-ball phenomenon is bizarre though and frankly annoying.
"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
MSN - email@example.com
Manchester United FC: 20 Times
R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008
The only issue I have with the current system is with needing conclusive proof to overturn a decision. The commentators keep telling me the 3rd umpire needs conclusive evidence to overturn but in practise it seems more like they ignore the original decision.
An example of this is the Philander decision if he was given not out or the 3rd umpire was ignoring the on field umpire and making a new call than I agree not out is correct, however I saw no conclusive evidence that his hand was off the bat, so why was it overturned.
I think an important part of any sports video review system is that people watching at home know what call is going to be made even if they don't necessarily agree with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)