I ask this question again.

[Ram]

You saw this BG series, You also saw the previous series in Sri Lanka. Whats your take on referrals now? I still maintain that using referrals goes against fundamental dynamic of the sport of cricket, even to the point of altering it to the unrecognizable. Just because some screwed up umpire gave some screwed up decisions doesn’t mean we’ve gotto to change the way the game’s been played since time immemorial. And I don’t mean that in the traditionalist sorta viewpoint. Referrals kill the sport for me. It just doesn’t feel ‘cricket’, when they’re there. You make you own judgments. I rest my case.

[Online]

Referrals rock! We need them back asap!

[Sachinism]

If bad decisions level out in the matches and series it looks fine, but the moment they are one-sided you see the need for referrals I vote yes on referrals

[Lord]

wait till we lose a match bcoz of umpiring,referrals do help

[coffee_rules]

I am for referrels for Caught behinds, inside-edged LBWs, runouts etc. I don't like using hawkeye in any form for LBW (trjectory, point of contact). Those referrels used for LBWs in SL series screwed India big-time. Even with third-umps, the fact that a catch is caught after it hits the helmet (Dravid's dismissal) was missed. Players, umpires should be educated, trained before referrels are put to use. I was totally disappointed with referrels in SL series.

[Fontaine]

I don't like referrels because they take up too much time. In the Lanka series they took up so much time to make the decisions and that's the last thing test match cricket needs.

[cochise]

I would go for a different system. A third umpire intervenes with a correct decision (using technology available) for a blatantly wrong decision. 50-50s are allowed to pass. The timing is the only issue...the third umpire would have a limited timespan in which to place a "stay" on proceeedings pending further evaluation if he had a suspicion. Thus, tech experts would have to be on the ball advising third ump of technical feedback in real-time. He would require a team of a few tech-cricket experts around him, parameters on what to act on and what to let pass and the timeframe to do it in. This would eliminate 99% of the unsatisfactory decisions in play and make for better outcomes.

[Lord]

I would go for a different system. A third umpire intervenes with a correct decision (using technology available) for a blatantly wrong decision. 50-50s are allowed to pass. The timing is the only issue...the third umpire would have a limited timespan in which to place a "stay" on proceeedings pending further evaluation if he had a suspicion. Thus, tech experts would have to be on the ball advising third ump of technical feedback in real-time. He would require a team of a few tech-cricket experts around him, parameters on what to act on and what to let pass and the timeframe to do it in. This would eliminate 99% of the unsatisfactory decisions in play and make for better outcomes.

marvelous! gotta agree fully:two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up:

[Dinx - the Jinx]

Referrals are a thing of the future. They are here to stay. Not having referrals dint cost much this series, primarily because Australia were no match to us in this series. So, even some of the wrong decisions did not make a big impact on the outcome of the match or series. Had we played a better aussie side, which went on to capitalize on the umpiring errors, we might have been probably licking our wounds. So, i think its better to have referrals. Loss of a few minutes is something that we can live with. In any case, no team is managing to bowl the full quota of overs and losing a few overs due to referrals is not going to make a big difference. On the flipside, it gives a fair result...

[DomainK]

We need referral system back. If the result of that series are not in our favor, that does not mean that the system was wrong. We lost In Lanka because we played bad. We need to minimize human errors in Cricket......especially when ICC keeps on hiring incompetent umpires in the elite panel.

[King]

Umpiring barring Silly Billy antics has been of good standard. When you don''t talk about the umpires as much then the umpiring deemed to have been good. If they can maintain consistency there may not be any need for referrals but you know how they can stuff up games with their idiotic decisions. All you needed was Bucknor and Asoka DeSilva or Rudi umpire in tandem in a test match. If they did then we won't be having this thread questioning whether we need referrals.

[cowboysfan]

elimin ating mistakes in team sports is absolutely the right thing to do-especially in test cricket where one wrong decision can change the game completely.is it being impleted in the england series?

[fineleg]

we need referrals, this series may have been less controversial. But - we've seen enough crazy things in past series' by umpiring mistakes. referrals (with some tuning required) are the way to go forward.

[flamy]

Yep, we need referrals. And with Dhoni at the helm, there won't be any bumbles.

[DomainK]

Yep' date=' we need referrals. And with Dhoni at the helm, there won't be any bumbles.[/quote'] Really, JUmbo messed up big time with referrals. Dhoni would be smarter.

[The Outsider]

Just because this was a one sided series at the end of the day and the number of umpiring bloopers were also fewer, does and should not take away anything from the referral system. Sure there can be tweaks and twists to make it better, for example letting the on field umpires decide when to use it, but technology is the way forward. Imagine, a closer contest which had gone down to the wire and a decision like Clarke's leg before which was not given and Vijay's which was by the same umpire and the hue and cry it would have raised.

[Donny]

I groaned when I first heard Roebuck and others proposing this madness. The players or captain should have nothing to do with decisions once the appeal has been made. Apart from the time consumed (mentioned above) the whole idea is just stupid and hasn't been thought through - unfortunately, typical of the ICC. I haven't paid a lot of attention to how it works. Is it the case there are a certain number of referrals permitted by each team ? If so, we would still face the real possibility of a Test or whole series being decided (with referrals used up) by, say an lbw given in the last over of a Test where the batting side is 9 down and needing a draw to retain or regain the series trophy. The umpire makes his decision. The batting team, in the dressing room, the fans at the ground and at home all see the replay, showing an inside edge. Nothing can be done about it. Uproar. Pandemonium. Dismay. Outrage. Possible riot etc. Modern day technology has slashed the time it used to take for some replays to be available. Just look how quickly we (the viewing public) get to see slo-mo vision of a dismissal. Almost immediately. Two of the more common (and understandable as the ump has to decide straight away and with no tech help) mistakes are the 'ball pitched outside leg' lbws and the inside edge on to pads lbw. In both cases, the ump could think, "Mmm all the other things look right for that to be out so I'll just have a quick check with my colleague (the 3rd. umpy) re the tramlines or if the ball nicked the bat" 5 - 10 seconds to notify him. 3rd. ump quickly checks the superimposed tramlines replay. Ball piches just outside the line of leg. Relays the info to the field umpire who says, "Not out. Next ball please". In total, maybe 30 seconds. Similar with the other one. Things like Snicko, Hot Spot and Hawkeye are different propositions. Hawkeye seems to be available pretty quickly but the other two take a bit longer. These will be refined. The front foot no ball issue could easily be determined auotmatically with a Cyclops eye like they use in tennis. Two immediate plusses come to mind: The umpy wouldn't have to be watching for this and we would no longer see wickets from no balls which we've all experienced, under the present system. So, overall, I agree with the opening poster about referrals but can see quite a few areas where technology, used appropriately, will benifit the game and assist the umpires.

[bunny]

We should use referrals but we should not use the third umpires to make a decision based on the referral (I am talking about lbws here). Let's just use Hawkeye and anything which is marginally out is ruled as not out. (By marginally I mean balls that are just grazing the outside part or top of the stumps).

[The Outsider]

I haven't paid a lot of attention to how it works. Is it the case there are a certain number of referrals permitted by each team ?

Each team was allowed 3 incorrect decisions per innings(batting and bowling). So, yes it is possible for a team to run out of referrals before the close of an innings but would have only itself to blame for using them on wrong decisions.

Two of the more common (and understandable as the ump has to decide straight away and with no tech help) mistakes are the 'ball pitched outside leg' lbws and the inside edge on to pads lbw. In both cases, the ump could think, "Mmm all the other things look right for that to be out so I'll just have a quick check with my colleague (the 3rd. umpy) re the tramlines or if the ball nicked the bat"

Add to the above two whether the ball stuck in line of the stumps and caught behind edges and all major umpiring blunders would have been covered. All can be ascertained by simple replays and would eliminate all umpiring blunders. There would still be some decisions on which there would not be a consensus but none would be howlers. As long as howlers are eliminated with a minimum stoppage to the game, everyone should be happy.

[umpire]

If you don't want to use referral, the TV Broadcast should stop showing replays, super slo-mo, snickos Lets play the game as i was played in last century