Referral System

randomer

Does anyone have any opinions on the referral system, which was used in the England versus South Africa test series?

While I am all in favour of technology being used, I think the referral system is just wrong!

When a player appeals, they do so because they think the player is out. When the umpire says not out, the captain of the fielding side much decide whether he thinks the umpire made a mistake or not. This undermines every decision that the umpire makes. Also, questioning the umpires decision on the pitch is wrong.

While the referral system has been used to correct a few wrong decisions during the test, a few wrong decisions have not been overturned because they were not referred. So why bother in the first place?

Also the margin for error thing really annoys me. For an LBW decision, if the umpire gives the batsman not out, and hawkeye shows that the ball was going to clip the stump, the original decision stands. If the umpire gives the batsman out and the hawkeye shows that the ball is going to clip the stump, then the original decision stands. Consistency please!

Personally I think we need to go the whole way with umpiring and give the off field umpire complete control, although I doubt this will be a popular idea with umpires...

Beasty

Ultimately no system will be completely foolproof, but cricket is one of the few sports where I think the use of such technology can make a positive contribution (because there is a natural break between balls - I would certainly not want to see this type of system introduced into "continuous" sports such as soccer)

In principle, I like the idea of giving the two teams limited "referrals" under the system. This works very well in Tennis, but that is because they rely entirely on the Hawkeye technology, which gives a definitive decision one way or the other (and even if the decision is actually wrong, no-one could ever prove it).

However the problem with this in cricket is, particularly for the batsmen, is he may be absolutely certain he has not nicked the ball, but if there is no video evidence to support this he is given out anyway, and the team has lost one of only two referrals available. This makes "referrals" less likely, as both teams will want to retain them for something they think is cast iron. Even today, the Collingwood decision could have gone either way (the TV commentators were certainly not conclusive, although Collingwood's reaction suggested he was certain there was no nick). I would therefore think it would be better to allow each team, say, 4 rather than the present 2 referrals (thereby reducing the number of bad decisons that are not referred)

I would ask, if you don't use the referral system, who makes a decision whether to refer, and when - just look at the number of run-out referrals at present - most of them tend to be given not out, but the umpire would be criticised if he ever gets one wrong, so he almost always goes for the referral. Extending this to effectively every time the fielding team makes an appeal will be time-consuming, and encourage even more frivolous appeals.

Maybe they can improve the situation by including the snickometer and hotspot technology in all international cricket. However you can never have camera angles catering for every conceivable situation, and there will still be mistakes made (and there have already been a very large number of "inconclusive" situations). I guess the advantage of using the technology is it will definitely reduce the number of mistakes

In terms of giving the 3rd umpire complete control, it does take quite a lot away from the umpires on the field, and it makes the international game very different (in this respect) to all other levels of cricket. If you go down that route, why bother with on-field umpires in the first place - just have 2 guys sat in front of TV screens - my view is this would be a very negative step.

randomer

The existing system for referring run outs and grounding of catches is a good system. Why not do the same for snicks and LBWs, where the umpire is not certain?

randomer

Beasty wrote: »

If you go down that route, why bother with on-field umpires in the first place - just have 2 guys sat in front of TV screens - my view is this would be a very negative step.

In theory I don't have a problem with this. Although you do need to have umpires on the field for other reasons. The umpires are there to facilitate the cricketers, rather than to perform.

Beasty

randomer wrote: »

The existing system for referring run outs and grounding of catches is a good system. Why not do the same for snicks and LBWs, where the umpire is not certain?

I just think it will take a lot of time out of the game - more appeals are likely, the umpire will refer pretty much every appeal and the 3rd umpire would probably need to check every camera angle. Using the Captain referral system severly restricts the number of "turned down" referrals (using my quota of 4 per team, there is a maximum of 8 of these per innings)

kyp_durron

I think the ICC should pony up for Hotspot and Snicko when the home broadcaster can't afford them. It's stupid having it in Oz and not in SA.

Marshy

kyp_durron wrote: »

I think the ICC should pony up for Hotspot and Snicko when the home broadcaster can't afford them. It's stupid having it in Oz and not in SA.

From what I saw, certainly in the West Indies series down under, Hotspot was rarely useful. Judging by most of the caught behind decisions that were referred, a mark on the bat rarely showed up and I don't remember seeing a decision over-turned.

Gordon Gecko

Must say I'm against the referral system in general I think it denigrates the human element of the game. There will never be 100% accuracy and fairness as we have all seen from the inconclusive examples from England vs. South Africa. I think it's best to keep the game as it is and retain the unpredictable element of LBWs and edges. While I am in favour of video technology with respect to run-outs and stumpings, I just don't think it's proper to surrender every decision making process to technology.

Dasbo

I think if the referral system is to be used it should be standardised. There are only two hot-spot cameras in the world, if it's not available in Australia it should not be available in SA, it's not a level playing field.

This margin of error is a bit ridiculous. If it's hitting the wicket it's out. If the margin of error is as big as half a ball the technology should be discarded until it is accurate enough.

http://munstercricket.wordpress.com

Beasty

There are apparently 4 hot-spot cameras (according to Sky this morning), but, given the amount of money in the sport at present, it should not be too difficult to fund some more.

Botham has (quite rightly) just had a rant at Harper's performance in the SA v England 4th Test. There was another poor decision this morning, making at least 3 "referral" howlers (one of which may have been the fault of the SA broadcaster, although it may simply be that harper had not switched his hearing aid on:)) in the current test. Given we are not even half way through the test, this is very poor. Because they are rationed to 2 referrals which are not overturned, England have been put at a major disadvantage. There were poor decisions made after this that England may have challenged if they had more referrals left. This is why I think this limit should be increased

However, in relation to this morning's decision, the TV commentators also called it wrong at first. They needed some time, various angles and probably the HD quality to spot it. This highlights two points - the system can never be 100% accurate, and to get more correct decisions more time will be taken out of the game to allow the TV umpire to consider all angles (and if necessary call for specific camera angles to be replayed as at present the host broadcaster seems to have too much control over what he sees (and hears!))

Stev_o

As with Rugby Union and League the third offical will not always get it right but their chances of making the right call are higher then that of the umpire on the ground. Atherton suggested that they should use the method used in Rugby at the moment where if the Umpire has any doubts he can refer to the third official. But the problem with that is a great percentage of dismissals have some doubt in them and then you ll have time wasted on the review.

storybud1

i think the referral system is being incorrectly used...it was set up to spot the howlers...and not for every iffy little doubt...also i think it has taken a lot of the fun out of cricket..the debates over whether the ball was on the spot or not...a bit like tennis...i miss mcenroe having a freaker over every line call...call me old-fashioned.