• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

3rd Umpires

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Also just think what it would be like if your team got to the final of the 2003 World Cup and a descision goes the wrong way and it cost your the team the WC how would you feel then?
Most matches don't come down to one decision. South Africa could claim that they had a few decisions which cost them a place in the WC final such as the last ball of the semi-final which Damien Fleming bowled. It was later shown to be a no-ball...........life sucks, that's the game. I mean, bad decisions happen all the time and sometimes they go against you, sometimes for you. Some will say that the decision made for Steve Waugh last year in the Test against NZ cost them the series but if you look at their play in the previous Tests, they didn't deserve to win the series.

FYI, if Australia lost the WC final because of a bad decision, I would say that they didn't play well enough in the match to make any bad decisions negligible so once you start relying on probablity to in a match, well you're in trouble already.
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
I reckon a 3rd umpire should be used i agree with James , let the mistakes be minimized and let the game not be spoilt because of a mistake or a players good score etc....
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I've said this before and I'll say it again...

Controversial/'Incorrect' Decisions are all part of sport, whatever sport it may be. It just wouldn't be the same. So many of history's great sporting moments have come from controversial officiating. 1966? Hand of God? The list goes on.

If all decisions were correct, sport wouldn't be what it is today.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Neil, as much as I'd like to agree with you (and I do) I'm sure the shopkeepers who have their shops vandalised by Italian soccer team supporters would rather the officiating was correct............same for Liverpoolians when they lose due to a dubious penalty and certain hooligans riot.

I hate the third umpire with an unbridled passion but with the game's standard and speed increasing all the time, so must the officiating. It hasn't done that.

As I said, though, the third umpire or any other device must be absolutely PROVEN to be as close to 100% accurate as possible before it should be introduced. If that means spending money on higher resolution cameras to ensure that dubious catches are called correctly then so be it. Until then, the catches should ALL be decided by the umpire on the ground.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
To add to this the discussion between Thatcher and the FA Chief Exec in the 80s:

Thatcher: 'We don't want football's hooligans in our society'
FA: 'We don't want society's hooligans in our football'

What I'm asking is, is it sport's place to bend to violent thugs? IMO it's not.
 

Eyes_Only

International Debutant
Neil, as much as I'd like to agree with you (and I do) I'm sure the shopkeepers who have their shops vandalised by Italian soccer team supporters would rather the officiating was correct............same for Liverpoolians when they lose due to a dubious penalty and certain hooligans riot.
I agree with this but are you sure that all umpires are going to get it right all of the time??

As I said, though, the third umpire or any other device must be absolutely PROVEN to be as close to 100% accurate as possible before it should be introduced. If that means spending money on higher resolution cameras to ensure that dubious catches are called correctly then so be it. Until then, the catches should ALL be decided by the umpire on the ground.
Not all umpires are going to get it right all of the time. What about the "Human Element" that comes with umpires being human?? As an umpire myself, I can tell you that there are a hundred and one things an umpire must watch for on the field. It's not as easy as saying the umpires must not get it wrong and cannot have any help whatsoever.

When it all comes down to it, all the help we can get in the middle is much appreciated. Even with this help, we are still going to get it wrong some of the time. After all, umpiring isn't as easy as it looks....trust me...I know!!
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
To add to this the discussion between Thatcher and the FA Chief Exec in the 80s:

Thatcher: 'We don't want football's hooligans in our society'
FA: 'We don't want society's hooligans in our football'

What I'm asking is, is it sport's place to bend to violent thugs? IMO it's not.
Sometimes you have to bend to compromise. Being absolutist doesn't help the problem either. Giving the thugs less to complain about does. It's a reality that unless you fingerprint or retinal ID all people entering the ground and refuse entry into the ground on that basis, there will be fights and riots. So unless you want to take the Orwellian approach, the sport will have to bend or accept that the riots and hooligans will be as much a part of the sport as the kick-off or bat and ball.

I agree with this but are you sure that all umpires are going to get it right all of the time??
Of course not nor do I expect them to. I just think that with this new technology if PROVEN to be accurate, the idiots would have less to genuinely complain about. Of course there are those who just look for reasons to riot and the ref isn't foremost in their mind but there's little that can be done about them under the present system.

Not all umpires are going to get it right all of the time. What about the "Human Element" that comes with umpires being human?? As an umpire myself, I can tell you that there are a hundred and one things an umpire must watch for on the field. It's not as easy as saying the umpires must not get it wrong and cannot have any help whatsoever.
Nah you missed my point. I wasn't saying that the umpires should be expected to get it right all of the time. I was saying that if people want higher standards of decisions then the means to do so should be provided to the umpires i.e. video technology and the like. This is provided the technology is as close to infallible as possible.

Until that day comes, let the umpires make ALL the decisions and accept that there WILL be mistakes. People seem to want a hybrid of both approaches where the 'human element' is left in the game but the mistakes are eradicated which doesn't make much logical sense and in practice has shown itself to be even less possible.

So either have the human element in the game entirely (i.e. NO third umpire etc.) and accept that there WILL be mistakes and that it's all part of the game etc. OR MAKE SURE that no mistakes are possible using technology. This half-way approach that we have right now (where the technology can only be used on certain decisions and not others) is just stupid. APply the technology unilaterally or not at all is the crux of my point I guess.
 

Eyes_Only

International Debutant
Fair enough Top_Cat...point well made. I just get a little angry when "armchair experts" expect that umpires SHOULD get it right all of the time.

No offenece intended.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah but we're already enemies because I play the game, though I've ventured into the dark side occasioanlly and have umpired. :D
 

Eyes_Only

International Debutant
LOL!!

I'd still be playing too except I compound fractured my ankle and walked on it for 6 weeks without knowing it was broken. As a result of this ,I need a total reconstruction and have chronic arthrtis!!
 

Top