The referral system

Top Contributors
Re: Mod's Note

Boris;377118 said:
Yes and no.

This is a great way to do it, yes, because it means that the umpire is still making the calls unless its impossible for him to do so.

But then again, there would be large interruptions to play if there is a no ball, because all of a sudden there is a call from the cricket gods and the ball would have to be rebowled.

I think umpiring isn't as clear cut as the rules seem to be. Umpiring is often done on if it looks out. If a batsman gets caught in front off anything, then generally its good bowling that has gotten him into strife in the first place. This means the bowler has outsmarted the batsman. The bowler wins, the batsman is out. Then the replay shows that there was the finest of edges, or hawkeye says its going down leg. That doesn't matter, the batsman was bamboozled by a good delivery and outsmarted on every front. He looked out and so he should be out.

Going the other way if the batsman has made his century and played across his pads and simply just missed it because of laziness or tiredness or whatever, not the bowlers fault, the batsman would probably get the benefit of the doubt.

That's the way I see umpiring.
Click to expand...
How is it a large interruption? If a bowler bowls a no ball and the umpire sees it then he bowls it again, that wont change, all it will mean is the umpire signals after the play rather than before it, so what? He still has to do that normally to check the scorers got it, It wont increase playing time in any way whatsoever
 
Re: Mod's Note

Perfect example of the review system in todays game between New Zealand and Pakistan. McCullum was given out LBW, appealed the decision, and the ball had struck him just outside the line of offstump.

It was clearly the wrong decision, although it was close, the review process left no doubt that the ball had hit him outside the line of offstump.

Good advertisment for the system.
 
Re: Mod's Note

eddiesmith;377133 said:
How is it a large interruption? If a bowler bowls a no ball and the umpire sees it then he bowls it again, that wont change, all it will mean is the umpire signals after the play rather than before it, so what? He still has to do that normally to check the scorers got it, It wont increase playing time in any way whatsoever
Click to expand...

Ah I get it now, I thought you were meaning through a different system. That way is fair enough and a good idea.

And back to the way I see umpiring:

Cricket is different to all other sports. In no other sports can the two captains, if agreed, can do anything on the field.

In the Ashes if Ponting approached Strauss and said "I think there should be a large pink unicorn statue in the middle of the field" and then if Strauss said "Sure that would help this game a lot" then they would approach the umpires together in agreement and the umpires wouldn't have a choice but to get a large pink unicorn statue in the middle of the field. Obviously that wouldn't happen because only Strauss would want it ;), but the point is if the two captains are in agreement anything can happen, regardless of the rules. Cricket is not a clear cut sport, the rules are there as a guide and guide only as to how the game is played, and if the two captains decide to change some rules before the game then they CAN. It's just that they will rarely both agree on the same thing, and and if they change the rules most likely someone on the cricketing board wouldn't like it and the captain would have to say no with the threat of being hated. Seriously, if both captains agreed to play water polo, they could, but they wouldn't.

This does not happen in any other sport that I can think of. Obviously the examples I used were silly, but things of the nature have happened. Both captains have agreed to let players go home if they were sick, one Ashes series in the 40s the Aussie captain agreed with the English captain that they could swap a player on the second day of a Test because his daughter was in hospital.

Another example is appealing. No other sports do the players have to make that sort of decision. In soccer you don't see the players appealing that they have scored a goal to the referee or they have to appeal to the ref before he calls the ball out of play.

Cricket is different and is as clear as mud. And that's why it is such a good game.
 
The referral system

I personally think the referral system is a massive insult to world class umpires. The Australia/WIs test made it look ridiculous. Are good batsmen going to refer every decision made against them unless they are clean bowled or caught on the fence? Gayle was so obviously plum LBW.

It makes a mockery of umpire's decisions.
 
Re: The referral system

courtjester;377792 said:
I personally think the referral system is a massive insult to world class umpires. The Australia/WIs test made it look ridiculous. Are good batsmen going to refer every decision made agianst them unless they are clean bowled or caught on the fence? Gayle was so obviously plum LBW.

It makes a mockery of umpire's decisions.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Windians were using it in an attempt to find any technicality to keep their best batsman in and not worrying about the others.

It's already beginning to bring unsportsmanlike qualities, such as that, to the game.
 
Re: The referral system

Need to get rid of it for LBW unless it's an inside edge, it's getting ridiculous. The umpire gets it exactly right 95% of the time anyway
 
Re: The referral system

The problem is that teams are using it basically for the heck of it, as it "why not - you never know". Maybe we need to bring in a bigger penalty for the incorrect use of a challenge system.
 
Re: The referral system

It doesn't need to go at all - a kneejerk reaction if I have ever seen one.

From all accounts Mark Benson's health isn't the best - apparently he has had some problems with his heart - and he did miss the ODI series in India a few weeks back. Either way it's none of our business.

If Benson walked out on the match because he doesn't "like" the referral system then to me that's a bit of a dummy spit - fair enough if he doesn't like the system but if that is the reason for walking out on the test match then I'd be disappointed. At least wait till the match is over.

To me it seems like his health was worrying him, we have all been in the position where we have been worried about our health at one time or another and often people can get very anxious and tired from constant worrying. If this was the case then Benson would be in no state to umpire a test match and he'd want to get home as soon as possible where he could see his own GP rather then a person he has never meant.

This seems to be a massive beat-up.
 
Re: The referral system

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;379182 said:
Either way it's none of our business.
Click to expand...

Depends, if it was health related then I agree. However, if he spat the dummy and quit because he was over ruled then it does have some modicum of public interest.

Are other umpires feeling the same? Is anyone else about to walk? Umpires already get a bad rep in the media, they don't need a further stick to be beaten with by having decisions over turned left right and centre.
 
Re: The referral system

Well in fairness, the decisions that were overturned IMO were clearly incorrect. One LBW that was given out against Bravo was clearly missing the top of the stumps - that was correctly over-ruled and given not out.

The decision to give Chanderpaul OUT was IMO the right call, hotspot didn't show anything because the edge of the bat in question wasn't facing the camera.

One camera angle showed the ball clearly deviating after hitting the edge, while the other camera angles were somewhat inconclusive mainly due to the fact that camera-man hadn't focused entirely on the area of interest.

To me there is no problem wither either of those decisions being over-ruled, the Chanderpaul one apparently caused some raised eyebrows in the press box and it seems that there is some difference in opinion regarding what is classified as "conclusive" evidence.

I don't have a problem with what happened on either decision - you'd hope the umpires don't get a bit narky if their decisions are over-ruled - I don't think this has happened in this case, rather it seems Benson is worried about his health. I don't think his the type of person who'd quit a test match while the game is in progress simply because he doesn't like the referral system.

Most people would rightly see that as a dummy spit - especially as the game is still in progress.

If his worried about his health, by all means, leave the match and get home to the UK and see doctors that you have been seeing for years and who know your medical history.

Makes sense to me.
 
Re: The referral system

AAP is reporting that Benson left due to health complications arising from a serious heart condition. The ICC Match Officials spokesman has explicitly ruled out that it had anything to do with the video referral system.
 
Re: The referral system

As someone who was initially in favour of video referrals, I am supremely unimpressed with them. The criteria for decisions is unclear to those watching, the application is patchy, and what the match referee is and is not allowed to use is confusing to fans watching on TV who haven't read the fine print.

All in all it's a horribly confusing process. It will probably correct a few howlers now and then, but it's not really going to improve the overall quality of officiating.
 
Re: The referral system

Look, I think we all have to realise that this system has only just come in, it is unreasonable to expect it to be running like a well-oiled machine at this point in time.

One thing I do like about it is that it doesn't take the umpires opinion out of the equation.

For example, that LBW shout on Ponting at the Gabba that was given not out was a perfect example. It was 50/50. If it was given out by the umpire and Ponting referred the original decision would have stood. The umpire still has a role to play.

There is still a bit of conjecture on what is classified as 'conclusive'. We also need to use a combination of hotspot cameras rather then just the one camera.

Whether or not that is logistically possible im not sure, I think there are only 4 hotspot cameras available between all test matchs which may make it difficult.
 
Re: The referral system

If Mark Benson was suffering ill health one would assume that his first port of call would be to visit a doctor, which he did not do. Only an abject idiot would get on a plane, while suffering from high blood pressure and/or heart palpitations, and without consulting a doctor first. There is absolutely no way Benson would have been allowed on a place if his story was true.

It's pretty obvious that the illness issue is a complete an utter fabrication crafted by the ICC to protect the integrity of the umpiring panel and the review system.
 
Re: The referral system

How the hell do you know he didn't visit a doctor, he could well have rung his doctor back in the UK?

I just don't he'd be the type of bloke who would quit a test match mid-game for any other reason bar his health - if it is simply a dummy spit then the ICC is probably better off without him as an umpire.
 
Re: The referral system

Because it has been widely reported that he hopped on a plane without seeing a doctor. I'm not sure whether England has perfected the art of measuring blood pressure over the phone, but kudos to them if that's the case.

I doubt it's as simple as a 'dummy-spit'. The referral system, at it's core, suggests to the umpires that they are not doing their job well enough, and I can absolutely respect the umpiring panel's issues with it. The scrutiny placed on umpires with the introduction of the system is completely unfair, especially when it is used incorrectly, as was the case with Chanderpaul on day one. If Benson has chosen to retire as protest to the referral system, then good on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top