Your views on the umpire referral technology...

[Ram]

Morriz' date=' 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. [b']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?

There’s absolutely no confusion here. If people’s main grouse is about umpires making bad decisions on the cricket field, why not try to assist him in his decision making to reduce those errors, rather than just decide to over-rule him in the first place? Lets give him technology aids and see what happens. Please point out the flaw in that line of thinking. And just because there’s on third option of assisting umpires with technology, does not mean I cannot advocate for it or I have support on the existing options on the table. The inherent quality of umpires may not go up, but with proper aid and training i am sure their decision making will improve remarkably.

[The Outsider]

There’s absolutely no confusion here. If people’s main grouse is about umpires making bad decisions on the cricket field, why not try to assist him in his decision making to reduce those errors, rather than just decide to over-rule him in the first place? Lets give him technology aids and see what happens. Please point out the flaw in that line of thinking. And just because there’s on third option of assisting umpires with technology, does not mean I cannot advocate for it or I have support on the existing options on the table. The inherent quality of umpires may not go up, but with proper aid and training i am sure their decision making will improve remarkably.

The flaw in the line of thinking is that it's not even an option being considered by the ICC. I agree with you in principle that it would probably be the better way to go ie. let the on field umpires consult with the third umpire on their own or have some handheld aid for them etc. However, as things stand that is not an option - it's either we continue with the shambolic display we see these days or reduce the errors through referrals.

[Ram]

The flaw in the line of thinking is that it's not even an option being considered by the ICC. I agree with you in principle that it would probably be the better way to go ie. let the on field umpires consult with the third umpire on their own or have some handheld aid for them etc. However' date=' as things stand that is not an option - it's either we continue with the shambolic display we see these days or reduce the errors through referrals.[/quote'] You’re not going to get to me support something (Referrals), merely because, in your opinion, it is the better of the bad lot. In my eagerness to address some genuine concerns related umpiring errors (And I absolutely 100% agree that we must do all that we can do, to keep umpiring intervention in the natural flow of a game to a minimum), I am not going to declare my support for what I consider an inherently flawed system that will fundamentally alter the way the game has been played. Rather, I will keep campaigning against system of referrals in the hope that it does not become something systemic and campaign for more technology aids for the umpire. And you guys can criticize my standpoint as much as you want, but at the end of the day, my side of the argument is what is winning the battle. Day by day, the support for referrals is coming down and more and more and an increasong number of high profile players and officials have spoken out openly against it. And I can proudly say I was the ONLY guy who has been against this right from the get-go.

[The Outsider]

^ That's not true at all - there were many including me who did not have referrals as their first choice solution. Even now, I don't think it's the ideal solution. However, what I and I suspect many others as well are saying is that given the alternative of suffering through poor decisions it is an improvement and worth implementing. It has it's flaws of course, but a lot of them will be ironed out as the system is put in use. The umpires will also give it more acceptance once they realize it is merely a tool to help arrive at the right decision rather than a challenge to their fictional authority.

[Ram]

^ That's not true at all - there were many including me who did not have referrals as their first choice solution. Even now' date=' I don't think it's the ideal solution. [b']However, what I and I suspect many others as well are saying is that given the alternative of suffering through poor decisions it is an improvement and worth implementing. It has it's flaws of course, but a lot of them will be ironed out as the system is put in use. The umpires will also give it more acceptance once they realize it is merely a tool to help arrive at the right decision rather than a challenge to their fictional authority.

What flawed logic! If you have a problem, you don’t just implement a hurried solution in your desperation to get something done. You deliberate for a reasonable period of time and then come to a conclusion. This process may be painful and protracted. Even while it takes time to be implemented, errors will continue to be made, but at the end of the day, it will be worth the wait. All of us agree that we have a problem (umpires making too many errors on the field). What do you think is the way to go? To hurriedly implement an alternative system that even you have conceded to be not ideal (or), have a debate regarding all possible alternatives (and there are some really good ones) and then come to a decision

[The Outsider]

^ If you have a problem and have two solutions, one better than the other but for some reason implementing the better solution is not practical at that point of time, you will just sit there and do nothing and let the problem fester? Now that is a flawed logic. Who is saying to close the discussions and debate or not discuss the solution about the on field umpires being able to use more technology? But till that happens, there is a tested alternative, which proved to reduce the number of wrong decisions. Why not implement it till even better alternatives can be forged?

[kabira]

If somone is charged for Murder, to make sure he is guilty or otherwise, should jury use technology? In the end Sriram, its about being fair. I am guessing you have never played the game at highest level (club level) nor you have ever umpired. Game is between bat and ball. Game is between 11 of A team v/s 11 of B team. If bowler has got batsman out and only person i,e umpire thinks otherwise is not a fair game. Technology is must. As a batsman I don't want a bad decision. Yes I do get some decision in my favor, but that should not happen either. People keep saying it evens out. How does it even out. If Batsman A gets out to bad decision, Bowler B got rewarded (unfairly) next game Batsman A is out but not given, this time its Bowler C who should have earned that wicket. In terms of Batsman it evened out, but for bowlers it did not. as a fan who cares about umpires authority. All I am looking for is a fair game. In this fair game I want batsman that is out to be out and batsman that is not out to be not out. Bowlers getting theri worth, batsman getting their worth. A complete fair game. Its possible with technology

[The Outsider]

Think about Mathooze - the guy has just made his debut. What if he gets another couple of "charming" decisions in the series, feels the heat, loses confidence, fails a few times more. Potentially, his career comes on the line just on the basis of some charm. I would have loved to see Sriram's reaction if he failed a course in which might have got an A, because some professor thought it was "charming" to do so.

[kabira]

can Sriram guarantee me that match will be decided by abilities of the playrs not umpires errors??

[Ram]

Why do you guys intentionally ask rhetorical questions to which you know I don’t have verifiable answers for..!

Think about Mathooze - the guy has just made his debut. What if he gets another couple of "charming" decisions in the series' date=' feels the heat, loses confidence, fails a few times more. Potentially, his career comes on the line just on the basis of some charm. I would have loved to see Sriram's reaction if he failed a course in which might have got an A, because some professor thought it was "charming" to do so.[/quote'] Shwetabh, what about the careers of those players who got a lucky break in their debut series because of a favorable umpiring decision and went on to prosper from then onwards? And for pure arguments sake alone, if a player deflates just because he had an unpleasant debut series riddled with unlucky umpiring, he probably does not deserve to belong at the world stage at all. Now, I perfectly understand that careers can be broken by a single umpiring decision, but please, whenever you guys bring this ‘What if this player gets a bad decision’ type of scenario, I hope you pause at least for a moment to think about all those stories on the side of the coin.

can Sriram guarantee me that match will be decided by abilities of the playrs not umpires errors??

I obviously cannot guarantee that this will never happen, but I will like to respond to your question by posing a counter query. Till date, 10s of 1000s of test matches and ODI series/tournaments have been played. I’d like you to list just 10 such results where, in your opinion, umpiring errors have had the deciding say. Remember, the burden of proof to show that umpiring swings series results rests on you, not on me. And Kabira, you constantly bring the question of fairness, when quite plainly, there is no such thing in sport. I could write 10 more pages to elaborate this point, but please understand that sports, especially team sports, was designed in such a manner to provide entertainment to spectators and viewers and not give a sense of fairness to the teams. The outcomes of sports are decided by a collection of random variables (which includes, among other, the natural talent of the individual involved), not by some fictitious sense of fairness and justice. And this phenomenon cuts across different sports and disciplines. In football, a team can play a glorious game for 90 mins and yet be denied by the cross-bar on a dozen occasions, only to be pipped by penalties in the end. Do you think that is fair? In F1, the race leader could easily drive over piece debris on the track and puncture his tyre in the last lap of the race or have one of the back-markers crash into him and get eliminated. Do you think that’s fair? What do you think they should do in such a case? Re-start the race? Why is it that some teams have to bat first under extremely swing-friendly conditions just because they lost the toss? Do you think that’s fair?

[Ram]

Anyways, this is an open question to all those in favor of referrals. I’ve asked this question repeatedly but drew only blanks all the time. If you’re against umpiring errors influencing the end outcome of a game (or) cutting-short an outstanding show of individual brilliance, will you be in favor of the total elimination of on-field umpires and have technology (or) third umpire determine everything? If yes, why? If no, why? And if the concept of referrals makes so much sense to you, why do think, one leading cricketer after another has openly spoken out against it? I can easily post links to articles to some truly great cricketers expressing their reservation to it, but I’d have to spend 10-15 mins looking for it. But, off the top of my head, I know that all of Sachin, Ponting and Inzamam oppose it. That’s a collective weight of nearly 65,000 international runs and more than 45 years of cricket experience speaking right there. We also know that almost all members of the Indian team oppose it. Are these people plainly wrong? Are they not interested in ‘fairness and justice’?

[Mr. Wicket]

Why do you guys intentionally ask rhetorical questions to which you know I don’t have verifiable answers for..!

Don't stress about answering rhetorical questions Sriram, that's not what they are there for. :winky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[Ram]

Don't stress about answering rhetorical questions Sriram, that's not what they are there for. :winky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.. :((

[punjabi_khota]

Why do you guys intentionally ask rhetorical questions to which you know I don’t have verifiable answers for..! Shwetabh, what about the careers of those players who got a lucky break in their debut series because of a favorable umpiring decision and went on to prosper from then onwards? And for pure arguments sake alone, if a player deflates just because he had an unpleasant debut series riddled with unlucky umpiring, he probably does not deserve to belong at the world stage at all. Now, I perfectly understand that careers can be broken by a single umpiring decision, but please, whenever you guys bring this ‘What if this player gets a bad decision’ type of scenario, I hope you pause at least for a moment to think about all those stories on the side of the coin.

Those who are not good enough and are helped by decisions early in their careers, will eventually be sorted out. But the opposite is not true.

In football, a team can play a glorious game for 90 mins and yet be denied by the cross-bar on a dozen occasions, only to be pipped by penalties in the end. Do you think that is fair?

Why not. It is question of skill here.

[fineleg]

MM - Too many bad umpiring decisions have reduced the game to a farce on several occasions. Is there a better fix than Referral system? Maybe. Is there a better fix than Referral system available right now? Probably not (Training and getting truly elite umpires etc will take a longer time period). What about matches in the meanwhile? How can we ensure a reasonably correct umpiring process? - IMO - Referral System is long overdue.

[King]

Indian players are hypocrites ... full stop. They can't stop complaining about decisions but are not happy to embrace a full proof decision making system. ICC as usual is pretty silly. Wonder who's paying for the third umpire camera at the moment. Anyone that is paying (local board or ICC) for it currently should be the one footing the bill for the rest of the technology too.

[Guest Hiten.]

Indian players are hypocrites ... full stop. They can't stop complaining about decisions but are not happy to embrace a full proof decision making system. ICC as usual is pretty silly. Wonder who's paying for the third umpire camera at the moment. Anyone that is paying (local board or ICC) for it currently should be the one footing the bill for the rest of the technology too.

+ 1 Indian players have lost the right about moaning anything related to bad umpiring decisions. Option is available to avoid blunders, but if you do not want that to be implemented in the game then I guess it would serve justice. Totally stupid stance by our players. We don't have revolt everything that ICC proposes, WADA case was a different one and this is a different issue altogether.

[yoda]

+ 1 Indian players have lost the right about moaning anything related to bad umpiring decisions. Option is available to avoid blunders, but if you do not want that to be implemented in the game then I guess it would serve justice. Totally stupid stance by our players. We don't have revolt everything that ICC proposes, WADA case was a different one and this is a different issue altogether.

+1 Now just STFU and welcome the future bucknors with open arms.

[Guest Hiten.]

Today's match between Ireland and France was a fine example of how much of a need is the entire sporting fraternity when it comes to using technology. Any sane ref would have upheld the handball claim (let aside the offside decision missed by the blind linesmen). Ireland were robbed off a place in final 32 despite being the better side on both the ocassions they faced les blues. If "charm of the game" offers such surprises, I'd like to call on the technology immediately. I urge all those opposing referrals to please find a link for todays HL of the soccer game or visit other sports forum (WC qualifiers) to see it yourself. God forbid if anything like this happens to India that it would hurt our WC chances..I'd be heartbroken :((

[kabira]

Why do you guys intentionally ask rhetorical questions to which you know I don’t have verifiable answers for..! Shwetabh, what about the careers of those players who got a lucky break in their debut series because of a favorable umpiring decision and went on to prosper from then onwards? And for pure arguments sake alone, if a player deflates just because he had an unpleasant debut series riddled with unlucky umpiring, he probably does not deserve to belong at the world stage at all. Now, I perfectly understand that careers can be broken by a single umpiring decision, but please, whenever you guys bring this ‘What if this player gets a bad decision’ type of scenario, I hope you pause at least for a moment to think about all those stories on the side of the coin. I obviously cannot guarantee that this will never happen, but I will like to respond to your question by posing a counter query. Till date, 10s of 1000s of test matches and ODI series/tournaments have been played. I’d like you to list just 10 such results where, in your opinion, umpiring errors have had the deciding say. Remember, the burden of proof to show that umpiring swings series results rests on you, not on me. And Kabira, you constantly bring the question of fairness, when quite plainly, there is no such thing in sport. I could write 10 more pages to elaborate this point, but please understand that sports, especially team sports, was designed in such a manner to provide entertainment to spectators and viewers and not give a sense of fairness to the teams. The outcomes of sports are decided by a collection of random variables (which includes, among other, the natural talent of the individual involved), not by some fictitious sense of fairness and justice. And this phenomenon cuts across different sports and disciplines. In football, a team can play a glorious game for 90 mins and yet be denied by the cross-bar on a dozen occasions, only to be pipped by penalties in the end. Do you think that is fair? In F1, the race leader could easily drive over piece debris on the track and puncture his tyre in the last lap of the race or have one of the back-markers crash into him and get eliminated. Do you think that’s fair? What do you think they should do in such a case? Re-start the race? Why is it that some teams have to bat first under extremely swing-friendly conditions just because they lost the toss? Do you think that’s fair?

You being hypocrite here. I am talking about fairness in terms of human error. If footballer is not able to beat crossbars, its his ability, not referee's fault, if F1 drivers tires get punctured its just how it is, nothing can be done about it, Again your example of losing the toss in the bowler friendly conditions, is that fair? well it is matter of luck could have gone either way. so its fair in that sense. But here we have technology that can make right a right and wrong a wrong. Why not use it? It can guarantee clear edges will be given out (Symo's edge off Ishant in Sydney), It would have made sure Angelo Mathews was not out. It would have made sure Dhoni was not out in Guwahti test match. Those were obvious errors and we don't even need hi-fi technology for that. Just answer this question: In cricket, should out be out or not??