The Referral System

[canveyshrimper]

End this farce now. Having watched a fair bit of the 4th Test against the WIndies and some of the Saffers v Convicts, I am totally against this ridiculous system.

Harper is bad enough in the middle but sat on his useless convict arse in front of a tv replay screen is even worse. I've always been of the opinion that the 3rd umpire should only be used for line decisions only, what I have seen recently only reinforces that view. While I like Hawkeye, it is only an indication of what the ball may do, not what it will do. The onfield umpires must be the sole arbiters of all lbw's & catches, and as said the 3rd umpire should be utilised for stumpings, run outs and boundary line decisions. I don't agree with the 3rd umpire being used for contentious catches as these have often proved inconclusive.

Furthermore cricket isn't the fastest sport in the world and these constant referrals slow the game even more, slowing already pedestrian over rates and further short changing the paying customer.

 

[BalmainShrimper]

Completely agree. This system sucks. For a start the players don't seem to know how to challenge or communicate with the umpire. In the Aus v SA game there was an incident were Ponting referred but someone had spilt their coffee on the keyboard and the playback didn't work.

It just undermines the umpires, and let's face it they do get it wrong occasionally, but over 5 days/40 wickets it really does even out over a game. As for slowing the game down - the over rates are farcical already. This does not help.

I enjoyed the introduction of the challenge in tennis, but not cricket please

 

[The Big Shrimp]

End this farce now. Having watched a fair bit of the 4th Test against the WIndies and some of the Saffers v Convicts, I am totally against this ridiculous system.

Harper is bad enough in the middle but sat on his useless convict arse in front of a tv replay screen is even worse. I've always been of the opinion that the 3rd umpire should only be used for line decisions only, what I have seen recently only reinforces that view. While I like Hawkeye, it is only an indication of what the ball may do, not what it will do. The onfield umpires must be the sole arbiters of all lbw's & catches, and as said the 3rd umpire should be utilised for stumpings, run outs and boundary line decisions. I don't agree with the 3rd umpire being used for contentious catches as these have often proved inconclusive.

Furthermore cricket isn't the fastest sport in the world and these constant referrals slow the game even more, slowing already pedestrian over rates and further short changing the paying customer.

Totally agree too!

As a qualified Umpire it undermines their authority & eventually any respect they may have from the players. We all make mistakes, as do the cricketers themselves. Who do the cricketers blames for their failings, the umpire!

I don't have a problem with them making sure it pitched or hit in line, run outs/stumpings or whether the ball was grounded by the catcher, but the final decision rests with the fat bloke in the white coat! If we use LBW's as an example, If the 3rd umpire confirms the ball didn't pitch outside leg stump or hit outside the line of off stump, then the decision to give the batsman out stands, whether it looks like it MIGHT go over the stumps.

Also, I would only aloow the 3rd umpire 30 seconds or a minute to look at the evidence, if he can't make his mind up, its not out. This will replicate what us Umpires are taught, the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman!

I have an Umpires meeting tomorrow & I'm sure this will be discussed. I will report back if it is!

 

[canveyshrimper]

Totally agree too!

As a qualified Umpire it undermines their authority & eventually any respect they may have from the players. We all make mistakes, as do the cricketers themselves. Who do the cricketers blames for their failings, the umpire!

I don't have a problem with them making sure it pitched or hit in line, run outs/stumpings or whether the ball was grounded by the catcher, but the final decision rests with the fat bloke in the white coat! If we use LBW's as an example, If the 3rd umpire confirms the ball didn't pitch outside leg stump or hit outside the line of off stump, then the decision to give the batsman out stands, whether it looks like it MIGHT go over the stumps.

Also, I would only aloow the 3rd umpire 30 seconds or a minute to look at the evidence, if he can't make his mind up, its not out. This will replicate what us Umpires are taught, the benefit of doubt goes to the batsman!

I have an Umpires meeting tomorrow & I'm sure this will be discussed. I will report back if it is!

That system works well enough in tennis where such decisions are immediate.

 

[BrettieAngell]

I think they should get rid of it, apparently england got given an lbw decision yesterday when the ball looked like it was going over the top?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I wrote this during the first test

The problem isn't with the concept (although as I say, it needs some common sense adjustments) it is with the idiot operating it. Harper's one man sabotage act is just further proof that you need to give technology more importance to counter human error.

 

[Grayson]

Ricky Ponting wins the award for the worst referral so far today.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I'm split on this. There was a chat in this forum about it when it was first mooted for use in international cricket here when opinion was pretty much down the middle (and I have to note here the consistency of the posters above in the stance now, after a fair number of trials, and before it was implemented).

It would be fair to say that, initially, a lot of cricket followers were in favour of it, and certainly a lot of critics in the media wanted it brought in. I've always been sceptical as I'm not sure that using the technology brings any greater conclusivity to proceedings. On a low catch, a 2D presentation foreshortens the angle, and the decision made will have to err with that given by the on-field umpire; on an lbw shout, it is always about opinions. By not using the predictive element of Hawkeye, which may be anything from 2mm to 10mm out depending on who you listen to, the 3rd umpire still only sees pretty much what the on-field umpire sees, just in slow-motion a number more times.

Sure, there may be some occasions when a close bat-pad/pad-bat opportunity can be reversed on the evidence of a TV replay, but then if you've used up all of your referrals anyway, the 'injustice' of an incorrect decision will still stand.

Another massive point to consider is that the players are unhappy about it - at least, that is the opinion given by Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain when discussing the matter both last night and this afternoon on SKY Sports. It was definitely the case when it was trialled in the televised matches in the Friends Provident Trophy domestically, and captains refused to use it because they didn't want to undermine the umpires authority.

My conclusion would be to trial the system used in the Stanford 'Super' Series - it may be the only good thing to come out of that week - and give the power to the umprires, whether that be the on-field umpires or the 3rd umpire. That way, the players don't have to challenge the officials' authority, the gut feeling of the on-field umpire can hold sway, and if the 3rd umpire sees an obvious nick, he can rapidly bring it to the on-field umpire's attention.

In February, the ICC released this statement to Cricinfo, explaining why they don't use it currently:

The approach used during the Stanford Super Series has been considered in the past, but several factors make it appear inferior to the current decision review system. Some of them are:
1) It might take longer than the current method.
2) It could be impractical. The third umpire would have to watch at least one replay - and there's no guarantee that will be conclusive - before indicating he felt the decision should be changed, by which time the batsman might already be halfway to the pavilion.
3) It could actually provoke dissent if players stood their ground after being given out - or bowlers stand mid-pitch after an appeal is turned down - waiting for the TV umpire to start watching replays.
4) It would diminish the authority of the on-field umpires more than the current trial, as it'd be the TV umpire who'd have the final say, not the on-field officials as now. It could see the on-field officials relegated to ball counters and clothes horses. That was what happened in the Johnnie Walker Super Series in 2005, you may recall: umpires had the power to refer to the TV official and ended up referring virtually everything.

I would suggest: the current method is hardly speedy, so it's unlikely to take any longer; any obvious decision - which is what the ICC claim to be trying to stamp out - would be so by watching the live action on a monitor (did anyone watching TV think Chanderpaul was out yesterday, other than Daryl Harper); I don't think there would be any great shows of dissent - most cricketers accept the umpire's decision, although this may be a fair consideration; finally, the final statement contradicts itself - the system can only diminish the on-field umpires if they have no say in what is referred, and if that is the case, then they won't be referring everything.

One final comment: fair play to Nass for asking Alan Hurst, the ICC Match Referee in Barbados who actually put up a good fight in trying to defend the current system, if he thought Daryl Harper was incompetant - no letting the officials off lightly there!

 

[canveyshrimper]

It was the Chanderpaul dismissal that prompted me to start the thread, it was so utterly ludicrous that only Harper could have deemed it was out. In the main umpiring standards are pretty good despite the increasing intrusion of television replays, and often, and as in the case of football the "experts" have to replay the incident time and time again before they determine that the official was right or wrong.

It is time for the ICC to **** or get off the pot and do away with this system immediately and leave the match in charge of the on field umpires, and as I've said often enough take recourse to the third umpire over line decisions only.

As pointed out by ES above players still largely have great respect for umpires and this in part is because the majority of umpires have played the game to a good standard and generally understand all the nuances of the sport. Unlike football where referees have generally no experience playing even at semi pro level.