Referrals, do you support?

[OzBomber]

Not the way it is now.

If they get snicko and hot spot in, then it has my support. I still think it should have 2 per innings. Even with 1 there'll be players who are selfish and will use it.

Super Sport doesn't seem to have many camera angles. Channel 9 have heaps more (ie. behind the bowler at ground level on both sides of the wicket and at either end of the ground).

 

[STC]

If it was there in 2005, we wouldn't have lost the Ashes. It is absolutely a good thing.

 

[Cousin Jed]

I was.

But on what I have seen so far - way too slow, and they don't even get it right anyway

Just to repeat.

 

[Blue Dimension]

Hotspot and snicko are not used because they are not 100% fulproof. They will not utilise technology that may indicate a batsman is out, when he is indeed not. Similar to the reason why they will not use hawkeye.

 

[Fade to Gray]

Hotspot and snicko are not used because they are not 100% fulproof. They will not utilise technology that may indicate a batsman is out, when he is indeed not. Similar to the reason why they will not use hawkeye.

How is Hot Spot not reliable, its seems to me one of the best pieces of technology in Cricket?

 

[OzBomber]

Hotspot and snicko are not used because they are not 100% fulproof. They will not utilise technology that may indicate a batsman is out, when he is indeed not. Similar to the reason why they will not use hawkeye.

Hotspot is being used in the final two tests.

 

[Showbag]

The idea has merit, except for the fact that it defers back to the field umpire. How can you ignore what hotspot/ hawkeye, etc are saying?

 

[Blue Dimension]

Hotspot is being used in the final two tests.

Stumped me there Sean!

There have been improvements over the past summer or two, as i definitely recall some of the 9 commentary team explaining how its not always completely accurate when it was first introduced.

Definitely a positive thing for cricket and the referral system if this is the case.

 

[Badesumofu]

They have to use hotspot. Hawkeye, not so sure, but then I don't know much about that technology and how accurate it really is. Hotspot, however, has no accuracy issues, it's not reconstructing anything, it's just allowing us to see something not normally visible to the human eye.

I think what we've seen so far indicated that without hotspot, the referals are not that useful. Even in slow motion it can be hard to see whether a ball hit the edge or not. You can look for other soruces of sound, but if the 3rd umpire has to be certain that the field umpire was wrong - I can't seevery many decisions being over-ruled based just on the slow motion replays.

The other thing I'd like to see happen is more run-outs being given out or not out by the field umpires now. It's almost like they feel they have to refer everything, even the ones where everyone knows the batsman is clearly in or out from the beggining.

So, on the whole, yes - I support this* - especially if the extra caught behind and LB referals are made up for by fewer run outs being handed direct to the 3rd umpire.

*Only if they can use hotspot. Don't need snicko if you have hotspot, and Hawkeye only if it can be proven to be 99% accurate or better.

 

[Mr P@H]

Watching WI vs England exposed a huge flaw in the system, it allows for human error, we might as well not bother. For LBW's the decision should only be changed if it hit the bat or it pitched outside leg. Whether it was hitting the stumps or the batsman was playing a shot if it pitched outside off should be upto the onfield umpire to decide.

 

[fairdinkum]

I only will support it when the technology is 100% accurate.

Hawkeye is full of flaws and should not be used, it just can not take in consideration the swing of the ball and inconsisent bounce of the pitch.

I don't know how Hawkeye projects a ball to swing, surely it isn't that smart.

If this is a piss-take, then take a bow.

 

[King Elvis]

I thought I'd like them.

But I absolutely loathe them; get rid of it.

 

[Aarick13]

can anyone explain what happened today with the windies/england. all i heard is there were about 4 referrals and atleast 2 of those were wrong.

 

[Belnakor]

one was a dubious LBW.

I dunno about Referrals for LBWs... unless you are judging if it pitched outside leg or for inside edges its a complete lottery.

 

[Cooldude]

Well Darryl Harper is making the referral system an absolute joke. He was frequently making blunders as an onfield umpire, and he's somehow making plenty of blunders as a third umpire with the help of technology

The system is suppose to eliminate bad decisions and decrease the amount of doubt associated with some decisions. The fact that they don't allow umpires to look at the predicted path of hawkeye to see whether it hits the stumps leaves it entirely to the interpretation of the third umpires, and different ones will see differently.

No hotspot, no snicko, which makes a joke out of trying to refer edges decisions as well.

All in all, it's a good concept, but a complete utter farce if they're not prepared to use all available technology to make sure it'd work

 

[Zarrix]

Referrals in their current state are atrocious aye?

 

[Father Jack]

It's too early to call for its removal just yet, they need to be a fair bit of fine tuning to get it right, if used properly it will get rid of the howlers. For a start the ICC will have to somehow ensure they have snicko and hotspot available at every test to make it fair. Mind you, the way it is going they may as well stick a hatrack with a TV monitor on it to umpire the game.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

To early to call for it's removal. For what it's worth i seem to be one of the ones who thought the Haddin deicision was right to be over-turned. It hit him outside off and he was playing a shot? It seems to hardly have been mentioned.

I think they should allow for the predicitive element to be used, it's only 95% accurate but if Hawkeye shows the ball going over by a fair distance then even if it's only 95% accurate the 3rd umpire can say mate, it's going over by 3 inches so even for a bit of error the ball would still clear the stumps.

I feel sorry for Harper to be honest, it's obvious that Sarwan decision was playing on his mind. It's hard to have "conclusive" evidence if you don't have a tracking of the ball once it strikes the pad. It is a trial however and you can't expect it to be 100% perfect first go.

 

[grizzlym]

The system is supposed to provide a proxy appeal mechanism, giving you recourse against bad decisions. All well and good as an ideal. But, without going into the myriad reasons for and against etc, and issues surrounding technology etc, I think there is a fatal logic flaw in the current implementation system. Indeed it almost makes a mockery of the whole thing.
It goes like this: you’re giving a howler of decision and sent packing. Everyone on the field, in the grandstand, even in the commentary box knows you’re not out. But Bowden has stuck his crooked finger in the air and you got to go. Sorry, because you’ve used up 2 referrals earlier in the innings on marginal calls from Bowden, you’ve got to lump this stinker and get off the ground.
How has this helped anyone? Or removed doubt and improved the umpiring? Or corrected a bad decision. It hasn’t.
So, in summary, the intent behind the system is admiral. But the half-arsed, ill thought out implementation is laughable.

 

[XFactor1979]

1 per team per innings is enough

 

[fairdinkum]

Once they get snicko and hotspot in, I think referrals will be okay.

The problem at the moment is LBWs.

How is this for a solution to this hawkeye problem:

Picture the stumps as rendered by hawkeye. Now picture a 'strike zone' (in green or whatever) the same size as the stumps less one inch on both sides and on top. If hawkeye says the ball is hitting in this zone, you are gone. If H/E says it is hitting the stumps but outside the strike zone, you are given the 'benefit of the doubt' -- IF either party refers. No referral and whatever the main umpire adjudicated at the time stands.

This would indeed allow for 'howlers' to be corrected, but would not lead to additional howlers as seen in the Windies recently, as 3rd umpire 'interpretation' is taken out of the equation. Once a team has referred the LBW decision (based on whether or not the ball was going on to hit the stumps), it is entirely up to H/E -- and both teams are judged by the same H/E.

I have seen H/E in use plenty of times and do not recall seeing any of its path predictions look to be any more than an inch out. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing it make a blaring mistake -- and yet we have had umpires making blaring mistakes for as long as the game has been played.

 

[Mr P@H]

That's the problem, there is still room to make it better. I am not totally opposed but they shouldn't be playing with test match careers testing some system. Let those at County and State level trial it and get it correct before using it in tests

 

[weevil]

Once they get snicko and hotspot in, I think referrals will be okay.

The problem at the moment is LBWs.

How is this for a solution to this hawkeye problem:

Picture the stumps as rendered by hawkeye. Now picture a 'strike zone' (in green or whatever) the same size as the stumps less one inch on both sides and on top. If hawkeye says the ball is hitting in this zone, you are gone. If H/E says it is hitting the stumps but outside the strike zone, you are given the 'benefit of the doubt' -- IF either party refers. No referral and whatever the main umpire adjudicated at the time stands.

This would indeed allow for 'howlers' to be corrected, but would not lead to additional howlers as seen in the Windies recently, as 3rd umpire 'interpretation' is taken out of the equation. Once a team has referred the LBW decision (based on whether or not the ball was going on to hit the stumps), it is entirely up to H/E -- and both teams are judged by the same H/E.

I have seen H/E in use plenty of times and do not recall seeing any of its path predictions look to be any more than an inch out. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing it make a blaring mistake -- and yet we have had umpires making blaring mistakes for as long as the game has been played.

Yeah that is exactly the sort of thing I think they should do. It isn’t perfect but it is within a couple of cm of being perfect.

 

[grizzlym]

journo in the Age today called the current referral system 'phone a friend'... in that you have limited lifelines. pretty much sums it up. unless you can implement it in such a way that it can be used for all contentious decisions without delaying the game, it's a bit farcical.

 

[Heisenberg_]

The over rule of Kallis shows how bad this system is.
That was absolutly plum LBW