• 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.

its time to end the review system of umpiring

shortpitched713

International Regular
Sorry, but that's wrong.


You could have talked about stacking, which has historically been an 'issue' and has basis in team sports like the NFL, rugby league and union. If anyone doesn't know what stacking is, it is the stereotype of white players being more intelligent and better decision makers, therefore playing key positions like quarterback, halfback, first five-eighth etc; and 'athletic, strength-first' black players into other positions. Brain v brawn.

And the history of the NFL would have probably backed you up (as it would in the NRL rugby league competition, the All Blacks rugby union team etc) but a modern-day analysis wouldn't.

How many current quarterbacks in the NFL are black? Is it more than half? It could well be, or close. And you're claiming racism over a rule that protects every single one of them, regardless of their skin colour. That sort of viewpoint only creates further division in race, which judging by your desire to isolate it as a race issue, suggests it is something you'd not like to exist. That roughing the passer rule - and it's fair enough if you disagree with it - is to protect a player who is in a vulnerable position. A person running into a defensive line is not passive or vulnerable - they are taking on the line. It's the same in rugby league/union with kickers. Yeah OK, I'll suggest there's some preciousness about protecting the golden boys of the game from physicality. But **** me, it isn't racism.
Eh, I know about the history stuff too, just didn't want to get into a history lesson.

Sure, you can say there's some merit to the way things are set up. But the process in the past 20 odd years I've watched football has been insane. And they're more or less making up rules on the fly to protect the cash cows that sell to predominantly white fan base. It's not rocket science.

Also, the bolded rule simply isn't applied consistently.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
It’s simple to fix. Umpires umpire and players ask for a review. As many as they like.

If a batsman is given out and asks for a review, and he’s incorrect, he (and the team) are penalised an an amount of runs. Let’s say 12.

If a bowler disagrees with an umpire’s call, and asks for a review, and is incorrect, the next two balls become free hits for the batsman on strike.

I don’t necessarily like this because runs really should only come in conventional ways, but I think it’d make teams think hard about reviewing half assed things. There needs to be some sort of penalty for reviewing rubbish just because you can.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It’s simple to fix. Umpires umpire and players ask for a review. As many as they like.

If a batsman is given out and asks for a review, and he’s incorrect, he (and the team) are penalised an an amount of runs. Let’s say 12.

If a bowler disagrees with an umpire’s call, and asks for a review, and is incorrect, the next two balls become free hits for the batsman on strike.

I don’t necessarily like this because runs really should only come in conventional ways, but I think it’d make teams think hard about reviewing half assed things. There needs to be some sort of penalty for reviewing rubbish just because you can.
This has my support
 

cnerd123

likes this
Re: the soft signal. I think it's fine in theory, the issue is that there are decisions where the evidence is clearly conclusive but the TV umpire isn't confident in it. This is something having dedicated, trained TV umpires will resolved.

Also putting tech in the hands of the umpires means that the soft signal is essentially redundant. If they've passed a decision to the TV umpire then it is up to the tv umpire to decide
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry, but that's wrong.


You could have talked about stacking, which has historically been an 'issue' and has basis in team sports like the NFL, rugby league and union. If anyone doesn't know what stacking is, it is the stereotype of white players being more intelligent and better decision makers, therefore playing key positions like quarterback, halfback, first five-eighth etc; and 'athletic, strength-first' black players into other positions. Brain v brawn.

And the history of the NFL would have probably backed you up (as it would in the NRL rugby league competition, the All Blacks rugby union team etc) but a modern-day analysis wouldn't.

How many current quarterbacks in the NFL are black? Is it more than half? It could well be, or close. And you're claiming racism over a rule that protects every single one of them, regardless of their skin colour. That sort of viewpoint only creates further division in race, which judging by your desire to isolate it as a race issue, suggests it is something you'd not like to exist. That roughing the passer rule - and it's fair enough if you disagree with it - is to protect a player who is in a vulnerable position. A person running into a defensive line is not passive or vulnerable - they are taking on the line. It's the same in rugby league/union with kickers. Yeah OK, I'll suggest there's some preciousness about protecting the golden boys of the game from physicality. But **** me, it isn't racism.
yeah there still a LOT of racism with how black players are treated and talked about etc but roughing the passer calls certainly isn't such an area
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It’s simple to fix. Umpires umpire and players ask for a review. As many as they like.

If a batsman is given out and asks for a review, and he’s incorrect, he (and the team) are penalised an an amount of runs. Let’s say 12.

If a bowler disagrees with an umpire’s call, and asks for a review, and is incorrect, the next two balls become free hits for the batsman on strike.

I don’t necessarily like this because runs really should only come in conventional ways, but I think it’d make teams think hard about reviewing half assed things. There needs to be some sort of penalty for reviewing rubbish just because you can.
No penalty if it’s umps call and this seems quite feasible.

Tbh I still prefer the current system as is just without umps call.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No penalty if it’s umps call and this seems quite feasible.

Tbh I still prefer the current system as is just without umps call.
Been some decent suggestions and some terrible ones in this thread but none of them are better than the system we already have

I think umpire's call still has a place with tracking projections but maybe with a smaller margin. Nearly half the ball hitting the stumps should always be "hitting"
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Been some decent suggestions and some terrible ones in this thread but none of them are better than the system we already have

I think umpire's call still has a place with tracking projections but maybe with a smaller margin. Nearly half the ball hitting the stumps should always be "hitting"
**** i meant soft signal not umps call.

But yeah umps call shouldn’t be the same margin at all points of impact surely. I can live with it though.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
**** i meant soft signal not umps call.

But yeah umps call shouldn’t be the same margin at all points of impact surely. I can live with it though.
Dont the weather guys talk about how the projected path is usually a cone of uncertainty? It gets broader the longer it has to travel, so maybe something similar should be worked out for cricket right? I guess it is why that 3 feet or whatever down the track rule is there but surely ball track must consider the cone of uncertainty?
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
Been some decent suggestions and some terrible ones in this thread but none of them are better than the system we already have

I think umpire's call still has a place with tracking projections but maybe with a smaller margin. Nearly half the ball hitting the stumps should always be "hitting"
So is 20% hitting enough, or 10%, or 2%? Personally I don't think it's quite so accurate as to call all such fine margins, but hopefully this piece gets improved because the current 50% threshold I think is slightly farcical. It does keep the benefit of the doubt with the batsman, which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
No it keeps the benefit of the doubt with the umpire
There's actually a built in benefit of the doubt to both because the allowance for a margin of error doesn't work both ways.

If the umpire says not out but HawkEye says it's just hitting then the decision isn't overturned... but if the umpire says out and HawkEye says it's just missing then the decision is overturned.

If the entire point was to give the benefit of the doubt to the umpire because of possibile small margins of error in HawkEye then we'd see it go back to umpire's call when he said out but the ball was missing by less than half a ball-width too, but we don't.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If the umpire says not out but HawkEye says it's just hitting then the decision isn't overturned... but if the umpire says out and HawkEye says it's just missing then the decision is overturned.
Isn't that just because it takes the middle of the stump as it's impact point and if the ball is just missing the stump then it's missing that middle-point by more than half a ball?

Or now I'm thinking that might have been changed. I haven't watched a lot of cricket over the last few years except the Ashes . . .
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
Isn't that just because it takes the middle of the stump as it's impact point and if the ball is just missing the stump then it's missing that middle-point by more than half a ball?

Or now I'm thinking that might have been changed. I haven't watched a lot of cricket over the last few years except the Ashes . . .
Yeah, but you don't have to hit the stumps with the middle point of the ball to disturb the bails. A cheeky edge of the ball clipping edge of the stumps usually does just fine.
 

ashley bach

International 12th Man
When this thread first came out I thought it may well be dead after 3-4 days or so. To see it dribbling on after 10 is very surprising.
Probably the reason for this is we went slightly off topic. Given just about every poster here feels the review system is here to stay,(and really why
shouldn't it be, the game has only advanced for the better) it should have been named ''it's time to improve the review system of umpiring".
I've already said my piece, nobody has said anything for or against it, so given it's not something spontaneous I've come up with,
(have literally been thinking about it for years) I'm going to add a final piece in favour for it.
Overall there seems to be 3 main issues at stake.
1. We all want the best result in terms of the correct decision made on the field.
2. Nobody wants to see teams use their challenges and be left high and dry(even if poor challenges were made earlier in the innings)
3. The time factor seems an issue here, we don't want to watch about an hour of reviews/challengers every day of test cricket.
If there was to be something along the lines of ''umpires challenge'', I'm pretty confident it would aid all 3 instances.
The first 2 are self explanatory, it's number 3 that needs explaining. If it was to be umpires challenge, it's almost certain that these calls would
be reviewed anyway, either because it's so close and the players aren't sure, or that they sense that the umpire isn't so sure about the decision.
Even more important here, is that the players should take into account when the umpire hasn't used a challenge, hence completely slowing down
all these frivolous and silly challenges that waste time and ultimately challenges.
I'm sure some here will think, but if the umpire has unlimited challenges then we'll be here all day. But I don't think that would be the case,
the game proceeds as usual as umpires call only transpires when the umpire is completely clueless as to the result/decision.
My rough guess here(although quite difficult to assess) would be it would be used on average less than once a session, say about 2-3 times in a day.
Curious as to why @Burgey hasn't had a say here, maybe because he thinks the system is fine the way it is, just reckon there's always room for
improvement. Anyways these are all just thoughts which won't matter at the end of the day, because the ICC from what I'm aware haven't had
the nous to join Cricweb and suck up our thoughts/opinions.
 

Top