Referrals, do you support?

[Zarrix]

After seeing their farcial introduction in the England-West Indies test, I don't think we need them. I like the human element of umpires making the decision. Sure there are going to be a few errors here and there, but thats the fun, and karma is a b****, so it usually evens out ^_^

Also it slows down the game wayyyyy too much, people moan about over rates in test cricket, but they contradict this by introducing something that delays the game by 3-4 mins.

 

[Kram]

Yeah, I'm not a fan at all.

 

[damochandler]

i am niot a fan. it is to inconsistant and irt doesnt show the true indication of the swing of the ball when its swinging

 

[Cousin Jed]

I was.

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

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Well without seeing it in this apparent England/West Indies match I don't see why it isn't worth a shot. It might slow things down a bit but if it gets things right then I think that's worth it.

 

[Blue Dimension]

In the ICL it was done with great success and i really liked how they carried it out. It was quick and effective. I haven't seen the England series though so i can't comment but i can't see any reason why it cannot be carried out in a similar way at international level.

 

[Great_Ocean_Road]

the human error line is very stupid.


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

 

[red+black]

I support them.

Fielding sides do not even try to bowl 90 overs in a day, and the penalties are easy to ignore. Introducing a referral system is no excuse for a fielding side to not get through their overs.

Let's make a clear distinction between the introduction of an intelligent referral system and the introduction of a stupid one. Most referral systems are stupid, such as the NRL, even run-outs for cricket. Why video referees feel the need to watch 10 replays is beyond me, given that most people with two good eyes can make a quick decision based on a video replay. In my opinion, video referees should be held accountable to make a decision within a set period of time, say 30 seconds. For every second they are over, dock them 10% of their pay.

 

[HawkieTalkie]

Don't like at all. Even WITH the referrals there have been a couple of controversial results. I think anything that is limited (eg 3 referrals per innings) is a bit pointless. Pakistan would have used them all up in 10 minutes when Wasim Akram had the old ball!

 

[Illinois Nazi]

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.

 

[rickyp]

Don't like at all. Even WITH the referrals there have been a couple of controversial results. I think anything that is limited (eg 3 referrals per innings) is a bit pointless. Pakistan would have used them all up in 10 minutes when Wasim Akram had the old ball!

its 3 incorrect referrals per innings, if you've used 3 incorrectly in an entire innings you don't deserve any more anyway...

 

[emperor]

Personally I don't like it, but such is the media coverage and microscopic scrutiny of close decisions I feel it is inevitable. In that regard I agree with it.

Problem is, it still seems to create controversy. Still a lot of work to be done before it can be introduced in totality in the test and ODI arena.

 

[Danny MacGill]

Initially, i thought i didn't like the system and believed it's the umpires choice whether they should be out or not.
Then i asked myself why i like the 3rd umpire for run outs

 

[Kahuna]

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.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'm very much in two minds. If it means more decisions are correct, it shouldn't be a bad thing.
But if the umpire on the field disagrees with the reason for the third umpire overturning it, let the on-field umpire's decision be it. (No red-green lights, just the walkie-talkie.)
Time is also a problem, but if its not clear and the on-field umpire gave not out, then not out it stays. Batting side referrals are a bit different in that respect, as they are less likely to refer a not out decision.

 

[BLPC08]

Shocking umpiring decisions can cost blokes their careers - did anyone think about that?

I agree it didn't work too well in the West Indies Vs England test, but give the damn thing a go.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Can't believe so many have voted against it. These the same people who complain when a poor decision is given Don't they want the correct decision given? Can cost careers.

Of course it should come in. You'll see alot more players walking. They won't hang around knowing their fate.

You may get teething problems but that's part of a new system. They'll be ironed out. Short-term pain, big long-term gain.

 

[beez]

Not at all, the human element in sports is what makes it great.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Shocking umpiring decisions can cost blokes their careers - did anyone think about that?

A shocking decision might cut a career short, but odds are its a career that wasn'y going to last much longer. Few guys get dropped for one failure.

 

[Zarrix]

Instead of using the referral system, which in its current form is a bit of a farce, I think the ICC should be putting more money into improving the umpiring standards. Less mistakes, but still that human element. There are still umpires which are making mistakes with every second decision these days, which doesn't bode well even with a referral system.

 

[DIG]

hmmmm.

Today we've seen an Australian referral not even be able to be made due to camera breakdown or something, and now Boucher's referral's failed when it was very grey either way, there was a noise but Boucher looked adamant he'd missed the ball.

Maybe if they had hotspot in this second rate coverage??

 

[dr nick]

depends who's umpiring.

Bucknor, a must.

 

[realsniper09]

I don't like it for predicting LBWs, but its good for bat-pads and whether the ball pitched in line with the stumps. Just not 'if' the ball would've hit the stumps. Leave that to the umpire.

If it's not conclusive, then just go with the original decision. OVerall, I think it's better than not, just to rule out the 'shockers', even if its at the expense of a couple of minutes.

 

[aussie1st]

We need a better broadcaster, can't make our mind up with this crap coverage. I reckon sniko would be handy and definitely hotspot for those tight ones like Boucher's.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

It's a good idea in theory but we've seen today how the referral system is flawed.

1. HotSpot and Snicko need to be used to ensure the correct decision is made.

2. I reckon they should limit it to 1 per innings. That way you wouldn't see McKenzie and the like be selfish and use up a referral in hope rather than anything else.