Technology & Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

archibald

Club Legend
Dec 15, 2004
1,648
3,242
AFL Club
Richmond
Most likely this has been discussed before, but am interested in people's thoughts.

Personally, i like the current drama thats afforded by players deciding when and when not to review. I know there have been calls for this to be taken out of the players hands and the 3rd umpire to adjudicate without this being requested, whether from players or on field umpires

Ideally i would have no review system but we've come too far to revert back to this. I've always gotten some kind of sick pleasure from watching incompetent decisions from umpires (See Bucknor non decision against Symonds vs India, Billy Bowden non decision vs Simon Jones in 05 ashes).

Opinions? Do you want to see the third umpire be given this much power and what would be the repercussions or benefits to the game were this to happen?
 

11kgm

Premium Platinum
Sep 24, 2014
3,199
2,087
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd
I think taking it out of the players hands is the smartest move however could you imagine the delays if every ball striking the pads is sent for review

I think we have a happy medium at the moment

The move to 3 reviews should help
 
May 24, 2006
59,756
106,592
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
Hopefully the technology keeps improving and stuff that takes a long time now (getting up the footage for front foot, then snicko, then ball tracking...) can happen closer to real time

I agree that it would be too intrusive if every half shout was referred now.

However I also don't like that shrewdly using reviews has become a decisive skill of the game.

Preference 1: Ditch it altogether
Preference 2: Faster technology, 3rd umpire handles all
 

Log in to remove this ad.

archibald

Club Legend
Dec 15, 2004
1,648
3,242
AFL Club
Richmond
Where's the middle ground between players having the choice to refer and the 3rd umpire having complete control of the game? I think that would almost be a happy a medium, although I would rather the current state than on field umpires becoming completely redundant. I think the further we go, the more robotic the whole spectacle becomes.

With front foot no balls, surely something similar to a long jump real time foul detector could be replicated. That's one part of the 3 part referral checklist that can be eliminated.
 

corbies

Moderator
Jul 31, 2010
4,566
6,302
Newcastle
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
S'roos, New Jets, WHam, Cronulla
I think it's pretty good the way it is. The amount of time spent talking about umpiring has greatly reduced since it's introduction and that can only be a good thing. In fact, I'd go as far as to say cricket is now close to the sport with the least amount of time spent talking about officialdom (refereeing/umpiring) when it was nearly the most pre-DRS.

The system isn't perfect but I don't think you'll ever get perfection. It's the best system that can be put in place when you combine the want to get all decisions correct with the timeliness of keeping the game going.

With front foot no balls, surely something similar to a long jump real time foul detector could be replicated. That's one part of the 3 part referral checklist that can be eliminated.
Been watching the current England v Pakistan test series? They've already introduced the 3rd umpire monitoring no balls in real time to remove that part of the referral system.
 

Fudge Nuggets

Debutant
Dec 27, 2019
111
57
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
They need to get rid of the deal that more than half the ball has to hit the wicket else it’s umpire’s call. If any part of the ball is hitting any part of the wicket, your ass is out.
 

corbies

Moderator
Jul 31, 2010
4,566
6,302
Newcastle
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
S'roos, New Jets, WHam, Cronulla
They need to get rid of the deal that more than half the ball has to hit the wicket else it’s umpire’s call. If any part of the ball is hitting any part of the wicket, your ass is out.
I don't understand what's wrong with it? It takes into account a margin of error in the system and allows for the umpires original call to still be valid.
 

Millky95

Starchild > You
Jul 6, 2014
34,663
43,122
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Renegades
They need to get rid of the deal that more than half the ball has to hit the wicket else it’s umpire’s call. If any part of the ball is hitting any part of the wicket, your ass is out.
I don't understand what's wrong with it? It takes into account a margin of error in the system and allows for the umpires original call to still be valid.
The original version had like a "box" that was in the centre of the ball and if that square hit the wickets/pad it was out with the rest of the ball umpires call. I preferred that to the 51% rule
 

big_e

Premium Platinum
Apr 28, 2008
6,694
19,299
The Championship
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers
They need to get rid of the deal that more than half the ball has to hit the wicket else it’s umpire’s call. If any part of the ball is hitting any part of the wicket, your ass is out.
It's to acknowledge the slight uncertainty that comes from it being predictive technology.
 

Remove this Banner Ad