Cricket Appeal

So what is everyone's view on this. Not sure if I am a fan or not as it does add a bit of excitement but surely it undermines the umpires. I think their job is hard enough as it is without this.

I used to be very much a fan of leaving these decisions to the umpire, and always thought the bad decisions were part of the spectacle.

However, having seen some shockers of late, and being less than impressed by the current international panel, Id be in favour of a referral system that has worked well in tennis. Nothing more frustrating then seeing someone like McKenzie not given out when plumb, and then some 10 hours later he is still batting. Dont think it will interupt the flow of the game at all.

Id leave it for football though as nothing better than watching premiership managers whinge after a bad decision.....

I think it is different in each sport. It works really well in tennis and think a similar number of challenges, say 3 per innings where hawk-eye gets involved would be good for the game.

The difference is Cricket and Tennis are stop-start sports. Football needs to be as free-flowing as possible, hence why it is more suitable to tennis and perhaps cricket.

scrounger700 said:

I think it is different in each sport. It works really well in tennis and think a similar number of challenges, say 3 per innings where hawk-eye gets involved would be good for the game.

The difference is Cricket and Tennis are stop-start sports. Football needs to be as free-flowing as possible, hence why it is more suitable to tennis and perhaps cricket.

Click to expand...

We could have done with referrals in the SZFC unders v overs cricket match.....the unders umpiring was Daryl Harper esque at best, but probably more Shakoor Rana....;)

I quite like the appeals the frustraing thing for me is when the umpire calls for the 3rd umpire when everyone can see the batsmen was home by about 5 yards!

Yorkshire Bambi said:

So what is everyone's view on this. Not sure if I am a fan or not as it does add a bit of excitement but surely it undermines the umpires. I think their job is hard enough as it is without this.

Click to expand...

How does it make the umpires' job harder?

Their decisions are still held up to the same scrutiny, its just their mistakes will be reversed rather than endlessly detailed in the media over the following days. What undermines umpires is getting decisions wrong. I remember speaking to a senior member of the England coaching staff one day after play in Colombo, lets call him Meter Poores. Alistair Cook had been given a terrible lbw decision (I think it was Harper again) and Meter Poores was far from impressed with the umpiring. He reckoned England had lost something like nine of their 24 wickets to fall (can't remember the exact figures) at that stage to umpiring mistakes. The England dressing room were therefore more than aware of the inadequacies of the umpiring, the spectators were as that Cook lbw was met by astonished silence and then boos as TV replays confirmed how awful the decision was.

This should also cut down dissent as players will have to put up or shut up.

England were stupid to go against it. I'd see it as a sign of weakness in a team that you want to keep bad umpiring in the game, its as if you weren't confident on winning in an even contest.

When a decision is not referred, does the 3rd umpire have all the technology available to him, such as snicko, hawk eye etc? Or does he just have the footage and have to use his judgment to decide? If the latter then surely this is an imperfect measure still.....

number11 said:

When a decision is not referred, does the 3rd umpire have all the technology available to him, such as snicko, hawk eye etc? Or does he just have the footage and have to use his judgment to decide? If the latter then surely this is an imperfect measure still.....

Click to expand...

The 3rd umpire should only have access to the various camera angles. Bear in mind that Hawkeye is only a suggestion of what the ball may do, and I've never been totally convinced by snicko, which IMO is a gimmick rather than an aid to the umpires.

number11 said:

When a decision is not referred, does the 3rd umpire have all the technology available to him, such as snicko, hawk eye etc? Or does he just have the footage and have to use his judgment to decide? If the latter then surely this is an imperfect measure still.....

Click to expand...

It helps simply that he can review it from a number of different angles and again and again. The standing umpire sees it once.

It works well for run outs/stumpings, is it a boundary or not.....not convinced by the "is it a catch" or not thing tho.

I am sure I saw a game where they had a 3 appeals thing against the umpires decision in an innings and if they appealed it was referred....or maybe I just dreamt it....:unsure:

I think they should trial this stuff and if the consensus of the experts is that it helps then keep it, if not get rid of it....

I knew it wasnt a dream....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7522923.stm

Southminster_Shrimper said:

It helps simply that he can review it from a number of different angles and again and again. The standing umpire sees it once.

It works well for run outs/stumpings, is it a boundary or not.....not convinced by the "is it a catch" or not thing tho.

I am sure I saw a game where they had a 3 appeals thing against the umpires decision in an innings and if they appealed it was referred....or maybe I just dreamt it....:unsure:

I think they should trial this stuff and if the consensus of the experts is that it helps then keep it, if not get rid of it....

Click to expand...

It was trialled in last season's Friends Provident Trophy (see the bottom of this article from the Guardian), but neither the county captains involved, nor the third umpires, really went through with the idea. There were 11 referrals, and none were overturned.

I think for line decisions (run-outs, boundaries), it's fine, but no-one can be absolutely sure about an lbw shout (a few blatant shouts aside) and with catches carrying, the third umpire only sees a two-dimensional image of a 3D action, so it is virtually impossible to make a 100% judgement.

Exiled Shrimper said:

It was trialled in last season's Friends Provident Trophy (see the bottom of this article from the Guardian), but neither the county captains involved, nor the third umpires, really went through with the idea. There were 11 referrals, and none were overturned.

I think for line decisions (run-outs, boundaries), it's fine, but no-one can be absolutely sure about an lbw shout (a few blatant shouts aside) and with catches carrying, the third umpire only sees a two-dimensional image of a 3D action, so it is virtually impossible to make a 100% judgement.

Click to expand...

Agree, the available technology should be for line decisions only. We have all seen in the last test how evidence of catches has proved inconclusive. And as I have mentioned earlier Hawkeye is a suggestion of what the ball will do and is not definitive.

As an Umpire myself, I'm not in favour of any change from what we have now. Yes mistakes are made, but not as many as we think. Hawkeye is not the saviour everybody thinks it is. It is based on a pure mathematical basis & not what will always happen. It doesn't take into consideration wind hardness/softness of the pitch, it is a pure mathematical equation!

It just requires better training & better umpires. Gimmicks such as Snicko or Hawkeye are a good guide, but are often as wrong as the umpires.

The Big Shrimp said:

As an Umpire myself, I'm not in favour of any change from what we have now. Yes mistakes are made, but not as many as we think. Hawkeye is not the saviour everybody thinks it is. It is based on a pure mathematical basis & not what will always happen. It doesn't take into consideration wind hardness/softness of the pitch, it is a pure mathematical equation!

It just requires better training & better umpires. Gimmicks such as Snicko or Hawkeye are a good guide, but are often as wrong as the umpires.

Click to expand...

The big revelation with most of this technology was how good the umpires actually were. With exceptions (Harper in particular).

My solution is to give the umpires handheld monitors (showing all this technology) against which they can check their decisions before giving them.

Hawkeye may not be infallible, but it is useful as it can often confirm opinions when a ball looks to be missing leg, or going over.

The real problem is when umpires make horrendous decisions like that Strauss lbw pitched well outside leg stump, that Collingwood "bat"-pad catch etc which look bad first time round and the replays just confirm how bad the decisions were.

Surely they should mimic Wimbledon's appeal system - which I thought worked excellently (and showed just how good the vast majority of line judges and umpires are).

I would suggest that you're allowed two unsuccessful appeals per innings, whether fielding or batting. That would sharpen up umpires' acts, while also stopping anyone from abusing the system. Indeed, limiting it to two would test players' and captains' tactical acumen as well...

Matt