Referrals, do you support?

[Father Jack]

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

That wasn't the system, it was the clown in the box. Should never have been overruled unless it was absolutely not pitching in line. Bloody good decision by HeyLookAtMe Bowden.

 

[Cousin Jed]

These blokes make the NRL Video Referees looked good.

I hope someone was timing how long that decision took. Pitch in line, hit in line, was hitting middle and leg, didn't inside edge it.

And it took 5 minutes.

If it takes that long I'll live with umpires making incorrect decisions.

 

[Belnakor]

Buckner hates the referral system, maybe he was doing that deliberately.. but that was just insane.

 

[Mr P@H]

KP was referred an LBW decision yesterday, the only question was if it struck inline, you could see within 10 seconds of the replay that it didnn't but it took another 5 mnutes as the TVMO had to have another 10 looks at it and then had to semaphore the decision as the technology broke down.

 

[RooBuoy]

I like the idea of referrals, but they just take too damn long.

They want to crack down on the bowlers taking too long to bowl their overs, they should be cracking down on themselves on taking an eternity to make a god damn decision.

 

[Blue Dimension]

I dont understand why it takes so long to make some decisions.

The referral system was a huge success in the ICL, and decisions were made swiftly and correctly on a consistent basis. Admittedly, more is put into Test match dismissals (i.e. the use of Hotspot) but surely there is room for improvement in terms of speeding up the process.

The commentators on ABC were disgusted with how long it look for the Amla LBW decision, and rightly so. Pitched inline, swung in and was going straight on. Wasn't rocket science yet took way too long for a decision to be made,

Along with improvements in the process, need's to be improvements with the umpires to make the decisions. There needs to be a clear cut set of instructions for umpires that they need to follow for all matches (by this im referring to the Eng Vs WI LBW that was referred and given out when it should never have been). Only when there is CLEAR cut evidence to suggest it is actually out, should it be given out.

I'm all for the referral system, however there is still plenty of improvement that needs to be implemented to ensure that it works to the best of its potential.

 

[R00StaR]

I like the idea of referrals, but they just take too damn long.

They want to crack down on the bowlers taking too long to bowl their overs, they should be cracking down on themselves on taking an eternity to make a god damn decision.

Yep im the same, like em but too long atm. Theres too much at stake to have bad decisions, once hey quicken up the process the little time used to get it right will make for better games.

 

[red+black]

Needs someone under 40 looking at the video rather than Bucknor whose eyesight is worse than Stevie Wonder's.

 

[Vedder]

Its the time it takes to adjudge that makes it a freakin joke, 6 minutes of players, supporters, tv watchers sitting/standing around waiting for a decision, u got to be kidding me....

In fact despite that, give it the boot anyway, cricket is fine without it

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Only when there is CLEAR cut evidence to suggest it is actually out, should it be given out.

No. Only when there is CLEAR evidence that the centre umpire's decision was wrong should that decision be changed.

And as I've posted before, the referring team should be specifying exactly what it is that the umpire is looking for on the replay, not just hoping for a second opinion that goes their way.

 

[King Elvis]

I blame the Indians; we have this stupid system because of their massive dummy spit over here.

 

[ptrg]

Should be one unsuccessful referral. You get it wrong, too bad if you get another shocker.

They are there to get rid of the absolute shockers, not the 50/50 wickets.

Give em one, and tell them to save it till a shocking decision happens, and if they blow it, well.. they had their chance..

Right now it's almost a case of having too many and using them for the sake of using them..

 

[RooBuoy]

Should be one unsuccessful referral. You get it wrong, too bad if you get another shocker.

They are there to get rid of the absolute shockers, not the 50/50 wickets.

Give em one, and tell them to save it till a shocking decision happens, and if they blow it, well.. they had their chance..

Right now it's almost a case of having too many and using them for the sake of using them..

Spot on!

If a decision is obviously out then they can use it without risk, but at the moment they're just using it in hope that they'll get lucky.

 

[RooBuoy]

Now that Morkel decision was an absolute shambles, they came to the right decision in the end by **** it was clearly bloody out, you could see he edged the ball, haddin caught the ball inbetween his thighs, I don't see how that could possibly be not out.

As much as I like the idea of referrals, the way they've gone about it has been disgraceful.

Scrap it in test cricket, tinker with it in FC cricket and make it better and quicker.

 

[Audacious]

after what I saw Morkel do just then trying to get out of dismissal despite clearly being caught behind - i say give this system the flick. Works well in tennis because it is straight forward and quickly resolved.

Not suited for this game. Its just not cricket.

 

[DIG]

Should be one unsuccessful referral. You get it wrong, too bad if you get another shocker.

They are there to get rid of the absolute shockers, not the 50/50 wickets.

Give em one, and tell them to save it till a shocking decision happens, and if they blow it, well.. they had their chance..

Right now it's almost a case of having too many and using them for the sake of using them..

Spot on.

The system can definitely work, and is needed to negate the howler decisions - but just not in it's current form which is a mess.

 

[rickyp]

after what I saw Morkel do just then trying to get out of dismissal despite clearly being caught behind - i say give this system the flick. Works well in tennis because it is straight forward and quickly resolved.

Not suited for this game. Its just not cricket.

that's because they use hawkeye for the whole thing, not video replays with different camera angles etc.

The only way I see it working is if they ONLY use hawkeye, and use the predicted path, and have it within reason, i.e. if it clips the bails its not out. If they don't want to do that, then don't have a referral system, its not effective.

 

[Jimthegreat]

2 minutes to make a decision or it just goes back to the centre. All technology should be available including hawkeye. Hawkeye might only be a guide but it's a decent guide and surely better than the judgement of an umpire. And it is the same for both sides. We never got the huge howler this series to properly put the system in place.

Good system but needs refining. If we were on the wrong end of a costly howler we'd be screaming for technology.

Ponting should be kicked for not referring that plumb non-LBW decision against Boucher. I screamed at the TV to refer then screamed at him when he didn't....lol!

 

[Bodicifer]

that's because they use hawkeye for the whole thing, not video replays with different camera angles etc.

The only way I see it working is if they ONLY use hawkeye, and use the predicted path, and have it within reason, i.e. if it clips the bails its not out. If they don't want to do that, then don't have a referral system, its not effective.

Absolutely spot on. The referral system is not perfect therefore they should go back to relying on the umpires judgement. Those who have played a lot of cricket know that you get some go your way and some not, that's the nature of the game with human umpiring. We've all been given out before when we knew we weren't out but we've all got away with them as well when we know we nicked it or were plumb in front and too scared to look up at the umpire but he hasn't rasied his finger ! Unless there is a perfect way of using technology then it is a waste of time.

 

[Minotaur]

Yes, but it's got to be set up right.

Referrals should only be for checking what actually happened, not for having another guess at what might have happened (i.e. no Hawkeye predictions, but Hawkeye for determing if ball pitched in line is OK)

The player asking for the referral should also have to specify what they want checked - they didn't hit it, did hit it, pitched outside leg, whatever. Not just a "have a look at the replay and hope you find something".

Finally, if the reviewing umpire cannot be certain one way of the other, the original umpire's decision stands.

Spot on. The way third umpires have been overruling marginal and totally uncertain calls shows that the system is let down by the mentality of the average umpire. For some reason every umpire - regardless of the sport - feels a need to piss on everything.

 

[Ruddeger07]

after what I saw Morkel do just then trying to get out of dismissal despite clearly being caught behind - i say give this system the flick.

How did that take 4 or 5 minutes and about 10 replays to decide?
You only needed one replay to see Morkel hit it into his pads and then it carried through and Haddin caught it between his legs.Simple decision - OUT

 

[damochandler]

the system is joke. its to slow and to inconsistant. it takes 1 decision 10 minutes to say if it out or not out. in the west indies last night. baker wanted to refer that catch that he got out off. that shouldnt even be case for a referral. last time i looked. your not out until you cross the boundry. they sghould have went up stairs to see if it didnt carry. the umpiring in thats series was pathetic and harper wont be an elite umpire for much longer

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I thought I hated them but now I'm not sure. Waiting on Bucknor's decision.

 

[grizzlym]

The effect it has on the umpires is bad too. Billy - bless you you freak - had 2 LBWs over-ruled where the initial decision should have stood. (Like was there really significant doubt that the replays showed for the decisions to be over-ruled? No. But analyse anything enough and you'll find doubt).

Anyway, it looked like Billy was scared to make an LBW decision after the over-rules. It's a shambles.

 

[Blue Dimension]

No. Only when there is CLEAR evidence that the centre umpire's decision was wrong should that decision be changed.

That's what I'm saying, only when it is clearly out, should it be given out, if still in dispute then it should not be overturned