Umpire referral rules confuse Phil Mustard

[King]

Technology's use should be limited. It is flawed and players know what is right, writes Michael Atherton. More... Umpire referral rules confuse Phil Mustard By Michael Atherton, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:19pm BST 18/08/2007 Have your say Read comments A month or so ago, during the first Test between England and India, Kevin Pietersen was caught behind by MS Dhoni and was given out by umpire Simon Taufel. He walked off and just before he reached the Lord's gate he looked up to the dressing room balcony where his team-mates, who had been watching the replay on the big screen and had reckoned the catch to be dubious, signalled that he might think about retracing his steps. Pietersen did so and was subsequently re-instated, even though a Test match does not allow for decisions to be referred and overturned. Video: Collingwood interview Yesterday, Phil Mustard scored a sparkling 49 off 38 balls before he was given out lbw by umpire Ian Gould. He walked off and just before he got to the gate he turned to look at the big screen. The replay showed that the ball probably pitched outside leg-stump. He reckoned, since this was a match where each side could refer two decisions during the course of the game, that this might be a good chance to 'do a Pietersen.' Accordingly, before he reached the gate he turned and flapped his arms half-apologetically, indicating that he'd rather like another go. Who wouldn't, given the form he was in? Instead Gould waved him off, clearly annoyed that his decision had been questioned, and Mustard was canned, so to speak. Confused? Mustard certainly was. No doubt the majority of the spectators were, too, not many of whom, I wager, would have been aware of the referrals system in the first place and would only have seen a player querying an umpire's decision. Throughout the whole of the tournament not one referral decision has been overturned, so either the umpires are doing such a good job that not one howler has been made, or players remain unconvinced of its value. Or, as Steve James, of this parish, has already written, there is a quasi-official agreement among third umpires to back up their on-field colleagues no matter what. The process is equally confusing. Was Mustard within his rights to wait at the gate in the hope of a reprieve? Strictly speaking, no. A referral must be made 'immediately' and 'without undue delay.' If it is suspected that a replay has already been shown then the referral should be disallowed. But what is 'immediately'? How long does a batsman have to contemplate his bad luck? Does it mean that television companies should delay replays for their viewers? And if the aim is to get the right decision no matter what, why should it matter if a replay has already been shown? Also, had Mustard called for an immediate referral, would the third umpire have upheld the original decision? A decision can only be reversed if 'a clear and obvious mistake' has been made, a mistake that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It seemed clear that the ball pitched outside leg-stump, but could a third umpire prove absolutely that no part of the ball touched the line of leg-stump? Beyond reasonable doubt takes us into the realms of the law, and into areas most of us are not qualified to discuss. To make matters more confusing, at the instigation of the umpires it was agreed earlier in the week that Hawkeye would not be used by the third umpire, even though it would still be seen by television viewers. Still with me? Increasingly, administrators are getting themselves in a flap about technology and how far it should be allowed to go to help on-field umpires. Gradually, its use has been extended to include assessing whether catches have been taken cleanly, whether the ball has touched the boundary line or not, and, in the Super Series in 2005, to helping umpires with any and every decision. None has been trialled acceptably or successfully. Durham on the brink of victory In the case of the above, batsmen were more often than not given the benefit of the doubt for catches that most people who have played the game know to have been taken cleanly (the camera lens foreshortens and distorts the image, making clean catches look dubious); fielders now routinely wait for the third umpire to determine whether the ball has crossed the boundary rope - even though they must know - and the Super Series experiment was short-lived. The desire to use more technology is based on two false premises: that the technology is completely accurate and that all decision-making can be reduced to an absolute truth. Dinesh Karthik calmly admitted to edging the ball during the second Test at Trent Bridge, when not one piece of technology picked it up. Opinions will differ on some lbw decisions no matter how many times, and from how many angles, a reply is viewed. Every commentator working on television yesterday thought that replays showed John Crawley had been run out by Ottis Gibson, yet Trevor Jesty, the third umpire, disagreed. There should be only one opinion that matters and that is the opinion of the on-field umpire. Technology should be limited to line decisions only, a move which would be less confusing for spectators and less humiliating for umpires. The great irony about Mustard's exciting innings yesterday was that the only time his decision-making was flawed and indecisive was when it came to deciding whether or not he was out. And that should always be the umpire's domain.

[fineleg]

I am a strong believer in that technology has a role to play in umpiring deczns. Unfortunately, the nits in ICC just keep screwing things up without clear rules.

[Guest dada_rocks]

LBW: at least line of pitching and inside edge of bat adjudication must be shifted to technology..

[Chandan]

LBW: at least line of pitching and inside edge of bat adjudication must be shifted to technology..

I concur!

[The Outsider]

^Also the line where ball hit the batsman. All these are line decisions just like run outs, well inside edge is not but mostly they are very easy to pick on the first replay itself.

[simba28]

I think the refral system is a good idea.. just like players can challenge calls in tennis.. Thats been a big success in recent times.. I dont see why all these oldies are opposing it.. Maybejust the umpires are insecure about their job.. which they shud nto be as techn is only gonna assist them

[Ram]

A big point of contention for me wrt this referral system is - How do the teams decide when to use the 2 referrals per innings ? Do they use it if their best batsman is playing , or decide to use towards the end of the match where a wrong decision could cost the team dearly ?

[simba28]

They shud use when the batsmen is playing and they think the decision is dubious.. no point doing it later

[fineleg]

They shud use when the batsmen is playing and they think the decision is dubious.. no point doing it later

In Test match if the dubious deczn is against a night-watchman, then depending on the situation, the captain may "sacrifice" the wicket and not use the referral.

[King]

I don't appreciate limited referrals simply because each batsman values his wicket. If you ask each batsman I'm sure he will like the team to use a referral for his cause. Let's for instance reckon a batting team is given a chance to refer a decision twice in an inning. Invariably the two wickets that will be referred by India would be Tendulkar's and Rahul Dravid's. With the referral system the umpires may relax a little bit more and may rule more out in the confidence that the team will ask for referral. Now if the team can only have couple of referrals they may still be hurt by bad umpiring. I think a provision for umpires to go to the 3rd umpire should be made with no limit possible. It should be left to the discretion of the umpire to refer to the 3rd umpire when he's in any kind of doubt. It worked well enough in the World XI vs Aussie XI couple of years ago and I don't quite understand why they didn't want to continue on similar lines. They should bring about this change in the ODIs to start with and trial it for about 6 months. If successful and it starts to make difference then that should be extended to test cricket.

[simba28]

Dont leave to the umpires.. they get it wrong too many times.. and they might refer too much or too little.. i think giving the team a chance gives more of a strategic edge to the game.. and wats wrong in going for the referal when u need it the most

[Chandan]

A big point of contention for me wrt this referral system is - How do the teams decide when to use the 2 referrals per innings ? Do they use it if their best batsman is playing ' date=' or decide to use towards the end of the match where a wrong decision could cost the team dearly ?[/quote'] Why can't it be like we have in tennis? If the challenger gets to challenge a correct decision, he'd lose that challenge while if he gets it right he'll keep it?

[fineleg]

Why can't it be like we have in tennis? If the challenger gets to challenge a correct decision' date=' he'd lose that challenge while if he gets it right he'll keep it?[/quote'] Eggjacktly. This shud be the way...each team has 2-3 referrals per innings and - " If the challenger gets to challenge a correct decision, he'd lose that challenge while if he gets it right he'll keep it"