Referrals, do you support?

[jiphoc]

the human error line is very stupid.


we should use technology to enable the correct decisions to be made

The human line of error is what make the game so good imo. It just brings another factor into the game which I love

 

[Father Jack]

Hify had an LBW get overruled because it looked like the trajectory of the ball would take it over the stumps. Peter Roebuck on ABC reckons that it wasn't clearcut enough to overrule, ie it wasn't a howler. I tend to agree. If there is an edge or it clearly pitches outside leg or clearly hits outside the line (and by clearly I mean by two or three ball-widths) then overturn, otherwise don't. That way it should be a lot quicker as well. With Hilfs LBW it would have 10 seconds to decide that it wasn't too far off.

 

[TorresIsGod]

I am not a fan of the referral system one little bit.

 

[grizzlym]

Hify had an LBW get overruled because it looked like the trajectory of the ball would take it over the stumps. Peter Roebuck on ABC reckons that it wasn't clearcut enough to overrule, ie it wasn't a howler. I tend to agree. If there is an edge or it clearly pitches outside leg or clearly hits outside the line (and by clearly I mean by two or three ball-widths) then overturn, otherwise don't. That way it should be a lot quicker as well. With Hilfs LBW it would have 10 seconds to decide that it wasn't too far off.

I agree. It seems in the last test they were totally reevaluating LBW decisions which, as Roebuck was at pains to point out, wasn't within the scope of the current referral system. It's a farce, it reduced Bowden to being a cap holding, jumper carrying, ball counting bystander!

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Even then he struggled with ball counting.

I'd like the referral system to be used solely for detecting inside egdes with LBWS, and to see whether the ball pitched outside leg or hit the batsmen outside the line of the stumps.

 

[grizzlym]

Even then he struggled with ball counting.

I'd like the referral system to be used solely for detecting inside egdes with LBWS, and to see whether the ball pitched outside leg or hit the batsmen outside the line of the stumps.

I suspect that Billy struggles with quite a few daily things we both take for granted.

 

[courtjester]

Even then he struggled with ball counting.

I'd like the referral system to be used solely for detecting inside egdes with LBWS, and to see whether the ball pitched outside leg or hit the batsmen outside the line of the stumps.

I agree, in part.

Hot-spot is excellent technology (nearly flawless) for detecting edges in LBW decisions. Also fielding captains should be able to refer faint edges believed caught behind the wicket or at bat-pad etc to the 3rd umpire (where the central umpire may not have heard or sight-detected an edge).

Central umpires should run the rest of the game. Including all LBW decisions where an edge is not a possibility.

The whole system is a shambles at the moment. Half-assed and insulting to central umpires.

 

[KWAH FAN]

Not at all, over the years I've heard batsman say that decisions usually even out good and bad, and they've accepted it accordingly.

 

[damochandler]

experimantal part has provided an even cloudier position on it. it isnt working and they should just go back to relying on the umpires decision

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Not at all, over the years I've heard batsman say that decisions usually even out good and bad, and they've accepted it accordingly.

That is total crap IMO, what does that mean, that we except shithouse decisions because over a career they even out?

That's crap, what about the game at hand.

I can except 50/50 LBW decisions and what not. But surely it is time to introduce a system that removes the absolute howlers from the game.

Im talking about howlers like Damien Martyn smashing the ball into his pad in consecutive games and being given out LBW. Im not talking about faint egdes, but the ball literally almost being middled of the bat into the pad.

Decisions like Symonds in Sydney against India and when the ball pitches outside leg.

Snicks and bat pads are defintely harder for the 3rd umpire and as such if there isn't hotspot available then the system should only be used for LBW's with regards to whether the ball pitched outside leg and what not.

In this situation you have hawkeye to tell you what happened. If the ball pitched outside leg it says so, 50% of the ball has to pitch inside leg, hawkeye can tell you whether it did or not. Same with getting hit in line.

The problem currently is that the 3rd umpire is having to judge decisions which means that now you have 3 umpires trying to make a decision which means there is going to be more mistakes.

You want a system that tells an umpire what happened rather then him having to make a decision based on interpretating evidence put before him.

 

[Jimthegreat]

At this point judge aspects we have technology. That means, hotspot for for catches, hotspot and video for for inside edges onto the pads for LBW's, balls that pitch outside leg stump or not in line, plus the one's we've had for a while. If you get an LBW against you that's all you can appeal against, not whether or not the ball goes on to hit the stumps, unless they allow Hawkeye. Too subjective and takes too long.

What I'm saying is a player can only refer for definitive purposes ONLY as I've described above, not subjective decisions. Surely that can work. That way a decision will take no more than a minute and add to the suspense, rather than drive us crazy with the length of time it's taking.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The other thing that needs to happen is the fielding side has to be required to get back into position while awaiting the decision, bowler at the top of his mark, etc. Then if it's not out the next ball can be delivered straight away instead of losing another minute while everyone wanders back to position.

If it's out then they have plenty of time to run in again for a group hug as they wait for the next batsman anyway.

 

[grizzlym]

. But surely it is time to introduce a system that removes the absolute howlers from the game.

Im talking about howlers like Damien Martyn smashing the ball into his pad in consecutive games and being given out LBW. Im not talking about faint egdes, but the ball literally almost being middled of the bat into the pad.

Decisions like Symonds in Sydney against India and when the ball pitches outside leg.

I agree with you in principal. One of the things that disturbs me about the current system is once you use up your 2 ‘lifelines’, you’re vulnerable to the shocking decision again. The limitations imposed seem to contradict the intent of removing ‘howlers’, resulting in the referral system being an annoying novelty. What about if Damien Martyn, using your example, copped that decision after the team’s 2 lifelines had been used up? The decision stands. And that’s just stupid.

 

[dr nick]

the problem i have is blokes like neil mckenzie using it to escape lbw's and boosting his own cause on these 50:50 decisions.

not what the system was put in place for.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I agree with you in principal. One of the things that disturbs me about the current system is once you use up your 2 ‘lifelines’, you’re vulnerable to the shocking decision again. The limitations imposed seem to contradict the intent of removing ‘howlers’, resulting in the referral system being an annoying novelty. What about if Damien Martyn, using your example, copped that decision after the team’s 2 lifelines had been used up? The decision stands. And that’s just stupid.

If they use it for definitive rather speculative decisions teams will get more right and would be adjudged upstairs very quickly. If they're silly enough to use their 2 referrals unwisely, that's their problems. If they then get a howler it's no different to the previous 100+ years.

 

[grizzlym]

the problem i have is blokes like neil mckenzie using it to escape lbw's and boosting his own cause on these 50:50 decisions.

not what the system was put in place for.

Yes, of course. And Morkel's shameful bit of opportunism too. I don't have the answer, but at the moment it doesn't work and the limitations worry me. Because under the current system, McKenzie could get a reprieve and Martyn would be sent packing. How's that right? A batsman being give out to a howler is surely a worse outcome than an opportunistic git asking the question? Afterall, isn't that what the referral system has been brought in for?
It needs more work - a sensible balance has to be found.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

the problem i have is blokes like neil mckenzie using it to escape lbw's and boosting his own cause on these 50:50 decisions.

I was actually hoping he'd escaped enough to hold his place for the 3rd Test.

 

[YOTC]

Referrals are just there to slow down the eventual slide all the way down until the umpires go upstairs for the most basic of decisions.

 

[lfctorres9]

I hate them, umpires are now not making a decision and leaving the decision up to the players. Waste of time get rid of it.

 

[Zesers]

Maybe teams could get better at determining when to refer. If they have someone in the pavilion looking at a replay as soon as the ball is bowled they could make a quick call on whether to refer in the 30 or so seconds they have to refer. They could then shine a light to the players on the field to let them know to refer.

 

[grizzlym]

Total Farce. First session at Newlands arguably 3 incorrect decisions were given. Hughes (or was it Katich) given not out LBW when it was plumb. Hughes given out LBW when he was clearly hit outside the line. Ponting given out caught behind when the technology showed otherwise.

Either use the technology sensibly and get the decisions right, or get rid of it.
It's farcical.

 

[Zarrix]

Yeah its a farce, but South Africa epically fail in their referral judgement, and geez thats an understatememt. Of numerous referrals so far, one has gone their way and they have missed several referrals which could of had the decision reversed.

 

[grizzlym]

So you have all this technology to get the decisions right, but you have to guess correctly on whether you refer it or not? That's an inherent contradiction for me. It's like saying, 'our commitment to reaching the correct decision is conditional'. Farcical.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Then what to you do, it's alright for everyone here to say its shit and a total disgrace and what not. But you can't refer every damn decision, otherwise there would be no point for umpires.

IMO i have no problem with 50/50 LBW decisions being given or being not given. Fair enough.

I hate it though when batsmen get given out LBW after smashing the ball onto their pad. That can be easily seen on replay.

Same with being struck outside the line or pitched out side the line of leg. Once again easily detected.

By the sounds of it hotspot isn't 100% conclusive, especially with regards to faint edges and the intensity of the hotspot can vary. In that regard, maybe its best to kick that to curb.

Maybe just use referrals for LBW's and thats all

 

[Ill Chicken]

The Stanford T20 series had it right with if the umpires are unsure, they refer it. That's how it should be. The way it is being used now is poor.