This review system could be death to bowlers.

[Uppercut]

Rightly so, though. If you don't use a referral, you weren't sure whether it was out, and therefore it's reasonable for the umpire to not give it if he felt the same.

 

[zaremba]

Rightly so, though. If you don't use a referral, you weren't sure whether it was out, and therefore it's reasonable for the umpire to not give it if he felt the same.

Which is part of the real beauty of this system. It takes all the pressure off the umpires. It doesn't matter whether you've got a fat legspinner getting all theatrical on you, if he doesn't put his money where his mouth is and refer your "not out" call then it's because he doesn't think it's out. Which means that said fat legspinner's ability to pressurise the umpire is stripped away. No bad thing.

 

[Uppercut]

I love fat leg-spinners.

 

[The Sean]

I love fat leg-spinners.

Don't really understand this - Zaremba was very clearly giving a hypothetical example that was carefully constructed in order to bear no reference whatsoever to any real cricketer, living or dead.

 

[aussie]

Not seeing the NZ tests ATM. But the dismissal Xuhaib is describing seems to be how Watson got out LBW this morning to Taylor, a bowler who does swing the ball into right-handers.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't really understand this - Zaremba was very clearly giving a hypothetical example that was carefully constructed in order to bear no reference whatsoever to any real cricketer, living or dead.

I know, but the mention of that very broad and unspecific demographic in society made me feel inclined to point out how much I love them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If any bowler is going to die a death because wickets that shouldn't have given in the first place are taken away he should probably be considering an alternative career anyway.

 

[zaremba]

Don't really understand this - Zaremba was very clearly giving a hypothetical example that was carefully constructed in order to bear no reference whatsoever to any real cricketer, living or dead.

In truth it was purely autobiographical

 

[straw man]

One thing that I reckon it will do is allow commentators to deflect the blame away from umpires for making an initial bad decision, onto players for not referring the decision.

That's certainly true. Prime example was the lbw on Fulton in the NZ v Pak game. Instead of people lambasting the umpire for missing the inside edge we are calling Fulton a fool for not referring it.

The referral system as it stands is therefore adding an extra level of decision making & strategy that players have to consider that they did not previously. Fulton made a poor decision but that's where I'm most uneasy about the referral system being set up as a 'player challenge' system. Being astute on which decisions to challenge and which not to is not a skill I expect a cricket player to have - it's really external to the game.

It's a similar issue with the Windies using up their challenges while batting to try to protect Gayle and Chanderpaul (iirc) - if that really was a deliberate strategy (and not a very good one) then the system is moving beyond the realm of officiating and into the realm of team strategy - similar to field placement, choice of bowlers etc. I guess where this leads is I/we don't ultimately want to see test matches decided by which team employed the best strategy to best utilise their umpiring challenges and which team squandered them.

All that said, the current implementation of the system is better than nothing IMO, and should hopefully improve over time.