Your views on the umpire referral technology...

[kabira]

total Bull$****. Who awards television rights to the bialateral series? The Home Board Who gets the money of television rights? The Home Board The Broadcasters already have spent on the technology. All they have to do is someway find amicable solution.

[Ram]

Define reasonably well. CBF = cowboysfan. Because as I remember' date= I've been deprived of watching my favorite batsman bat several times due to blind umpires, and unreasonable expectations of the umpires, and an incredibly incompetent ruling body. If they want to get past the incompetence, and reduce the errors due to blind umpires, I'm all for it.

As opposed to the umpire giving Sachin not out and then the decision being over-ruled by referrals? :P And since you're so intent on seeing your favorite batsmen batting, please also petition the ICC on creating pitches that dont deteriorate on days 4 and 5 and balls that dont swing on the first hour of a day.

[Ram]

Charm of Tendulkar actually batting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Charm of the game"

If you have a valid cricketing point, feel free to make it, rather than contstantly quoting other people's responses and saying the same thing over and over again, to the point where its mind-numbingly boring.

[graphic23]

As opposed to the umpire giving Sachin not out and then the decision being over-ruled by referrals? :P

I would assume that the third umpire has more time and better tools to make his decision than the on-field umpire, who has to check for a no-ball, look up see whether the ball is line, whether it edged the bat or not, etc. If the third umpire gives Tendulkar out, then he really did not deserve to go on. As opposed to watching ****tards like Bucknor (so many instances) give him out when there's daylight between bat and ball, this is heavenly.

And since you're so intent on seeing your favorite batsmen batting, please also petition the ICC on creating pitches that dont deteriorate on days 4 and 5 and balls that dont swing on the first hour of a day.

And your posts get more ridiculous by day. Since when does, "I want to watch Sachin bat" imply that I'd like him to never be dismissed? I am asking for some responsibility from the authority so that a player is not unfairly given out. Ultimately, the sport is about me wanting to watch my favorite players (or my favorite team) do well because the skill they present on the field - not how good the umpires are - which is what the game was about at Sydney.

[Mr. Wicket]

If you have a valid cricketing point' date=' feel free to make it, rather than contstantly quoting other people's responses and saying the same thing over and over again, to the point where its mind-numbingly boring.[/quote'] There is a clear point made, Sriram. It's worth reading this thread little more carefully than you have (esp. given your missing various other statements, suggested by comments like 'Who/what is CBF' when he's been a part of this thread for a while) and understanding more implicit statements, if you read it in the context of a follow-up to graphic's post. Some of us value the individual performances within a game (such as a fine Tendulkar innings, or a great spell from Kumble), and would rather sacrifice some of what is dubbed the "charm" of the game to allow the focus to remain on those (a contest between bat and ball NOT plagued or influenced by mediocre and incompetent umpires) aspects, rather than sacrificing moments of genius to let the game's traditions run front and center. Is that any clearer for you, or still mind-numbingly boring or inscrutable?

[Ram]

I would assume that the third umpire has more time and better tools to make his decision than the on-field umpire' date=' who has to check for a no-ball, look up see whether the ball is line, whether it edged the bat or not, etc. If the third umpire gives Tendulkar out, then he really did not deserve to go on. As opposed to watching ****tards like Bucknor (so many instances) give him out when there's daylight between bat and ball, this is heavenly. [/quote'] If someone like Bucknor makes a mistake, remove him. Give better training to umpires, give them technology aids that assists them in making better decisions, before deciding to totally over-rule his decision? Get my line of thinking, buddy?

And your posts get more ridiculous by day. Since when does, "I want to watch Sachin bat" imply that I'd like him to never be dismissed? I am asking for some responsibility from the authority so that a player is not unfairly given out. Ultimately, the sport is about me wanting to watch my favorite players (or my favors ite team) do well because the skill they present on the field - not how good the umpires are - which is what the game was about at Sydney.

Duh..Since when did 'make things more fairer for batsmen since its fairness you want' imply as 'Do whatever it takes to prevent a batsmen from getting dismissed...'? Ultimately, sport is about watching your favorite player (and i love the way you include the word 'team', as though team and players are two mutually exclusive entities..) do well right? And that maybe your view point, but please expect others to follow your line of thinking. For me, sports is about seeing two individuals/teams compete, the competitivness nature that comes with it, the drama, the tension, the moments of individual brilliance, all put together.

[yoda]

MM, you think the drama, tension and moments of individual brilliance have in anyway diminished in tennis for example since they introduced replay challenges? It doesn't take anything away from the game, just provides additional help to the umpires that's all.

[Mr. Wicket]

MM' date=' you think the drama, tension and moments of individual brilliance have in anyway diminished in tennis for example since they introduced replay challenges? It doesn't take anything away from the game, just provides additional help to the umpires that's all.[/quote'] Agreed. Remember the drama and tension of a game like the last Wimbledon final? At the end of it, the game came down to Roddick v. Federer, regardless of the use of a few referrals here or there. Amazing tension and drama (more than I have seen in any cricket match in quite a few years), a thrilling contest - and if anything, the role of technology would have facilitated it (in ensuring that in such a tight, nailbiting contest, the decisions went the right way to those who earned their points) rather than spoiled it.

[Ram]

There is a clear point made' date=' Sriram. It's worth reading this thread little more carefully than you have (esp. given your missing various other statements, suggested by comments like 'Who/what is CBF' when he's been a part of this thread for a while) [/quote'] Huh? Are you totally out of points to debate? How can you possibly expect me to know all the abbreviations people use to address each other? And why is it incumbent upon me to read every post made by every poster? I niether have the time or the patience to do so.

and understanding more implicit statements, if you read it in the context of a follow-up to graphic's post. Some of us value the individual performances within a game (such as a fine Tendulkar innings, or a great spell from Kumble), and would rather sacrifice some of what is dubbed the "charm" of the game to allow the focus to remain on those (a contest between bat and ball NOT plagued or influenced by mediocre and incompetent umpires) aspects, rather than sacrificing moments of genius to let the game's traditions run front and center.

If individual performances are what you guys after (which is fine, coz each of us have different expectations from sport), i am baffled by your complete blind-eye to those potential 'brilliant innings of Sachin's which maybe put to end by this referral sytems or how many times the same umpire has given Sachifn not out for those instances for which he was out. I suppose you guys should understand that it works both ways. I forget the exact date, but when Graeme Smith scored one of the all-time noteable 100s to lead South Africa to a fanstastic victory over England in England just over a year and a half ago, he was plumb lbw to Monty Panesar. If the referal system had been place, the so called 'individual performance' that you're talking about, would have been brutally cut-short. What about those instances?

Is that any clearer for you, or still mind-numbingly boring or inscrutable?

Yes, this is certainly more worthwhile than saying the same thing like a broken record, thanks.

[kabira]

As a cricket fan I want to see fair game. When its out, it should be out, when its not out it should be not out. I think thats achievable through technology

[Ram]

MM' date=' you think the drama, tension and moments of individual brilliance have in anyway diminished in tennis for example since they introduced replay challenges? It doesn't take anything away from the game, just provides additional help to the umpires that's all.[/quote'] You simply CANNOT compare across sports. There's a big difference between batsmen being given out/not-out to a simple line call being reversed (of course, that may very well be the match point or a crucial game point), because the scale of impact of the two are completely different.

[graphic23]

If someone like Bucknor makes a mistake, remove him. Give better training to umpires, give them technology aids that assists them in making better decisions, before deciding to totally over-rule his decision? Get my line of thinking, buddy?

As you have said earlier, the umpires have had time to look at various methods to improve their consistency - over a 100 years now. At the end of it, they're human beings. When you've got a stadium filled with noisy spectators, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect you catch close edges all the time. You're expecting human beings to do an unrealistic job - with extremely high expectations - and no amount of training is going to fix that for you. The referral system is a correction. If they were replacing on field umpires with machines, I'd understand your point. They're allowing for players to have a say in the decision. If Kumble's bowled really well, and Dhoni's got the stumping done in less than a second, I want to see them rewarded, damn it. Not have the umpire go, "not out", when its actually out!

Duh..Since when did 'make things more fairer for batsmen since its fairness you want' imply as 'Do whatever it takes to prevent a batsmen from getting dismissed...'?

I used the example of Tendulkar as he's someone that comes to mind immediately when bad umpiring decisions are concerned. Surely you're better than just assuming I meant make the game fairer only for batsmen.

Ultimately, sport is about watching your favorite player (and i love the way you include the word 'team', as though team and players are two mutually exclusive entities..) do well right?

Um, yes I included team because when I dont see, Symonds st. Dhoni b. Kumble, it affects the entire team. Maybe I just dont get cricket then?

And that maybe your view point, but please expect others to follow your line of thinking. For me, sports is about seeing two individuals/teams compete, the competitivness nature that comes with it, the drama, the tension, the moments of individual brilliance, all put together.

But you'd still compromise watching the individuals/teams compete for the sake of a tradition thats clearly not working?

[Ram]

As you have said earlier' date=' the umpires have had time to look at various methods to improve their consistency - over a 100 years now. At the end of it, they're human beings. When you've got a stadium filled with noisy spectators, it is unreasonable for anyone to expect you catch close edges [i']all the time. You're expecting human beings to do an unrealistic job - with extremely high expectations - and no amount of training is going to fix that for you.

Its utterly unreasonable to expect umpires to get every decisions of theirs right, but someone like Simon Taufel is certainly better at it than others, to the point when we hardly have a case of complaint against him. And why should i expect that umpires get it right all the time anyway? In my mind, the umpire is like a third participant in the match. You personally may not want any external influence whatsoever to have a say on the match (even though, as i have repeatedly point out, there is no such thing called 'fairness' or 'equal conditions' in sport), but i dont view it that way. I want an umpire to be able to influence the direction in which the match is heading in, either through his competence, or his incompetence. That, in my mind, adds an extra dimension to the game.

The referral system is a correction. If they were replacing on field umpires with machines, I'd understand your point. They're allowing for players to have a say in the decision. If Kumble's bowled really well, and Dhoni's got the stumping done in less than a second, I want to see them rewarded, damn it. Not have the umpire go, "not out", when its actually out!

I've clearly laid out (in another separate thread) a slew of measure that they can take to assist an umpire with his on-field decision making. I am sure that if those measure are implemented, we will see a dramatic decrease in the number of appaling decsions (of course, errors will still be made, but thats the nature of sport). All i have been saying right throughout this debate is that lets try them first and see what happens, before unilaterally deciding to completey over-rule the umpire, which in my opinion, is addressing the problem from the wrong end. If cricket's problem is with umpires making bad decisions, the solution is to first try to help them make correct decsions, not over-rule them completely to begin with.

I used the example of Tendulkar as he's someone that comes to mind immediately when bad umpiring decisions are concerned. Surely you're better than just assuming I meant make the game fairer only for batsmen.

You've missed the crux my point. You told me that you dont the incompetence of an umpire to brutally cut short any individual brilliance by your favorite player, when you know that so many factors too contribute to making or breaking an individual performance.

Um, yes I included team because when I dont see, Symonds st. Dhoni b. Kumble, it affects the entire team. Maybe I just dont get cricket then?

As opposed to Symonds being given lbw against Kumble in the 2nd innings of Perth, despite having a massive inside-edge? Let me think, I am guessing that contributed in a big way to your... whats the term i am looking for... hmmm... yes, TEAM's historic victory against top-ranked Aussies in a ground in which they hadnt beaten for a long time?

But you'd still compromise watching the individuals/teams compete for the sake of a tradition thats clearly not working?

Your confusing a broken system to broken actors. If the umpire is making too many errors, help him do a better job. Dont over-rule to begin with. And the biggest irony is the same Sachin Tenduldkar whose innings you dont want cut short by a bad umpiring decision has openly spoken against this referral system. Tells you a lot, does it not? I'd be more inclined to take his word over yours in this matter.

[yoda]

You simply CANNOT compare across sports. There's a big difference between batsmen being given out/not-out to a simple line call being reversed (of course' date=' that may very well be the match point or a crucial game point), because the scale of impact of the two are completely different.[/quote'] Ok, fair enough, but isn't that all the more reason why cricket needs to get it right as these blown calls can make a big big difference in a cricket match? I can understand why someone would be against technology if they think it is not mature enough or accurate enough when compared to humans, but if you feel it can only help the on-field and the 3rd ump to get the calls right more often than not, then there is no need to feel happy that it is getting shelved.

[graphic23]

Its utterly unreasonable to expect umpires to get every decisions of theirs right, but someone like Simon Taufel is certainly better at it than others, to the point when we hardly have a case of complaint against him. And why should i expect that umpires get it right all the time anyway? In my mind, the umpire is like a third participant in the match. You personally may not want any external influence whatsoever to have a say on the match (even though, as i have repeatedly point out, there is no such thing called 'fairness' or 'equal conditions' in sport), but i dont view it that way. I want an umpire to be able to influence the direction in which the match is heading in, either through his competence, or his incompetence. That, in my mind, adds an extra dimension to the game.

You may think I'm being "pedantic" here but Simon Taufel also gave Tendulkar out lbw for 91 against England at Nottingham, when the ball was going to hit the 2nd or 3rd stump outside off. IIRC (I could be wrong here), he also had a really bad decision when Tendulkar was in the 90s. But that is beside the point. I understand your point, and it may be a fair one (given that it is your opinion, I cannot say much else). But I very much disagree with the "3rd dimension" of the game. You've said that you want to watch the individuals compete. I agreed. You think a third (and generally irrelevant) factor should also contribute towards the result of the competition. I'm afraid we just dont agree on even the fundamentals of the issue to be having this debate. If you think that it adds a 3rd dimension, then what the line between "really bad decisions" vs. "marginally bad decisions" (i.e., why is Sydney not brushed under the fact that it added a 3rd dimension? ). That would be being hypocritical there.

I've clearly laid out (in another separate thread) a slew of measure that they can take to assist an umpire with his on-field decision making. I am sure that if those measure are implemented, we will see a dramatic decrease in the number of appaling decsions (of course, errors will still be made, but thats the nature of sport). All i have been saying right throughout this debate is that lets try them first and see what happens, before unilaterally deciding to completey over-rule the umpire, which in my opinion, is addressing the problem from the wrong end. If cricket's problem is with umpires making bad decisions, the solution is to first try to help them make correct decsions, not over-rule them completely to begin with.

The problem isn't *just* that they're making bad decisions. The problem is that their ability saturates at a certain level. Referrals adjust that.

You've missed the crux my point. You told me that you dont the incompetence of an umpire to brutally cut short any individual brilliance by your favorite player, when you know that so many factors too contribute to making or breaking an individual performance.

And my point was that those factors should come in from someone on the field - playing the game. Not the umpire.

As opposed to Symonds being given lbw against Kumble in the 2nd innings of Perth, despite having a massive inside-edge? Let me think, I am guessing that contributed in a big way to your... whats the term i am looking for... hmmm... yes, TEAM's historic victory against top-ranked Aussies in a ground in which they hadnt beaten for a long time?

And in both cases, the better judgment would've let the other team have a better chance.

Your confusing a broken system to broken actors. If the umpire is making too many errors, help him do a better job. Dont over-rule to begin with. And the biggest irony is the same Sachin Tenduldkar whose innings you dont want cut short by a bad umpiring decision has openly spoken against this referral system. Tells you a lot, does it not? I'd be more inclined to take his word over yours in this matter.

I never said you are not inclined to have your own opinion about it. I debated because I think it is an invalid argument to say that cricket should have a "human error" aspect to it. I think we get enough of that when the batsmen make errors and the bowlers make errors. Umpires should not be noticed on the field.

[Feed]

Reviews confirmed for New Zealand-Pakistan Tests New Zealand Cricket (NZC) has confirmed that the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) will be used in the upcoming home Test series against Pakistan. More... Umpire decision review system Review system to be used in New Zealand-Pakistan Tests Cricinfo staff November 18, 2009 New Zealand Cricket (NZC) has confirmed that the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) will be used in the upcoming home Test series against Pakistan. The announcement was made after an agreement was reached with Animation Research Limited, a Dunedin-based company, to supply their Virtual Eye ball-tracking technology. "It's exciting that the new decision review system will be up and running for this Test series," NZC chief executive Justin Vaughan said. "This will be the first series in the international calendar to use the new DRS - it's an important advance for international cricket." Following a series of trials at domestic and international level, the ICC announced in June that the review system would be implemented from October. Cricket's governing body is understood to have communicated that it would not be responsible for the cost burden of the system, leaving boards and/or broadcasters to foot the bill. This led to problems with broadcasters and national boards baulking at the implementation costs. As a result, the UDRS was scrapped for the forthcoming India-Sri Lanka, will not be used for the South Africa-England Test series, and might not be used in Australia during the West Indies tour either.

[kabira]

Angelo Mathews would have loved the technology help. Its not fair to get out when you are not out. And technology can help in this case.

[kabira]

Good.

[Ram]

But I very much disagree with the "3rd dimension" of the game. You've said that you want to watch the individuals compete. I agreed. You think a third (and generally irrelevant) factor should also contribute towards the result of the competition. I'm afraid we just dont agree on even the fundamentals of the issue to be having this debate.

You vehemently oppose the addition of a third dimension to the game, except for the fact that it happens not just in the sport of cricket, but other sports as well. Both football and rugby have HUGE human interference elements in the form of refereeing. Football referee errors are part of urban legends. Rugby world cups have been won and lost due to human indiscretion. The pattern can be seen in many other sports and disciplines.

If you think that it adds a 3rd dimension, then what the line between "really bad decisions" vs. "marginally bad decisions" (i.e., why is Sydney not brushed under the fact that it added a 3rd dimension? ). That would be being hypocritical there.

There is no hypo-criticality here, just a mere recognition of factors that have gone into making cricket the so called game of ‘glorious uncertainties’. Of course, I want to see my most favorite player/team do well and get the result they justifiably deserve, but the human element is what makes the game as exciting as it is. If you really want to eliminate umpiring errors, why have umpires at all? Why not just remove the man from the middle and allow the third umpire to take all the decisions?

The problem isn't *just* that they're making bad decisions. The problem is that their ability saturates at a certain level. Referrals adjust that.

With adequate technology aids, I am positive that we can reduce erroneous decisions to almost a minimum (it will never be zero, obviously). Lets try that approach first, before going the whole hog.

And my point was that those factors should come in from someone on the field - playing the game. Not the umpire.

Why that duplicity? If you’re ok with a terrible pitch that results in a ball absolutely scooting along the ground and castling the batsmen, something he has no control over whatsoever, why are you so loathe to having an extra-judiciary influence on the game in form of a human?

And in both cases, the better judgment would've let the other team have a better chance.

Totally irrelevant to this part of the argument. Your entire argument of ‘I don’t umpiring decisions to rob my tea of a chance of victory’ now lies in tatters, when I showed that the same umpiring error actually helped that very same team win a historic test match in Perth.

I never said you are not inclined to have your own opinion about it. I debated because I think it is an invalid argument to say that cricket should have a "human error" aspect to it. I think we get enough of that when the batsmen make errors and the bowlers make errors. Umpires should not be noticed on the field.

And they wont be, if only we implement a simple set of measures to make their jobs easier. For over a 100 years they were unnoticed, the game was fine. Its only due to technology that the perspectives have changed. But, the game hasn’t.

[The Outsider]

Morriz, you are completely lost and confused on the issue. Let me put it in a very simple way - you have two choices as things stand - a) continue with the crappy and shoddy umpiring on display today and b) introduce a referral system which will reduce these errors. There is no third option of giving the on field umpire more use of technology as things stand today. The inherent quality of umpires is also not going to go up as we have seen in practice over the last decade. Which option will you go for?