Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Po-mo?Richard, sometimes I wonder you have to be so po-mo.
Po-mo?Richard, sometimes I wonder you have to be so po-mo.
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.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.
The nonsensical part was the incompetency of some of the umpires and the rules being ambiguous enough.West Indies played at least a couple of series' under the trial. Therefore, you should know why.
post modern.Po-mo?
I'm amused by the irony of this.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.
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 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.I would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated Stanford Super Series
AWTA.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.
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.The nonsensical part was the incompetency of some of the umpires and the rules being ambiguous enough.
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.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.
Will it? As I say, I'd not be anywhere near so confident of that as you are.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.
awtaci would prefer the umpires to be able to refer decisions themselves, like in the ill-fated stanford super series
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.And even if it were true, there are still better ways to go about it.
The longest march starts with a single (over)step.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.
It's far from easy, but with the technology we have available, far, far, far more complicated things are do-able than it.Doesn't beggar belief at all. It's a much more difficult challenge.
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.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.