Your views on the umpire referral technology...

[kabira]

Dravid :omg::omg::omg::omg: Randomness :omg::omg::omg::omg

[King]

I don't understand why Rahul was at the crease suggesting he may not have been out... He's the one that thought the umpire is the best decision maker out there. I don't reckon the Indian team should have any issues with the decision whatsoever. In fact I'd say take the umpire to a dinner and laud his ability. :winky:

[Ram]

You being hypocrite here. I am talking about fairness in terms of human error. If footballer is not able to beat crossbars' date=' its his ability, not referee's fault, if F1 drivers tires get punctured its just how it is, nothing can be done about it, [/quote'] You’re the one being hypocritical here. You seem to have no problem in accepting that in an F1 race, the race leader can be eliminated by debris on the track or teams can be massively handicapped by adverse conditions due to losing the toss (both of which are, quite plainly, blatantly external influences that go in a loooooooong way in impacting the result), but you don’t want a human element in the form of an umpire having the same influence. Why? Either embrace all forms of external intervention, or oppose all of them. Don’t be selective in your opposition. It makes no difference whatsoever what form that external influence takes, whether it be debris on the track, weather conditions or a human in the form an umpire.

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.

Wrong. Just because something can happen to both parties involved, it does not make it fair. However, purely because it can happen to both parties, that makes it acceptable. People don’t protest about the toss because they know it can go either way. But lets say instead of an unbiased coin toss, if they used a computer program that seemed inherently biased to one side, there would have been lots of protest. Please make that differentiation, because it is in the centerpiece of why cricketers continue to accept umpiring errors as part and parcel of the game, because they understand it can happen to both teams.

Just answer this question: In cricket, should out be out or not??

I wish I can explain in more clearer terms, but it was NEVER meant to be in such black and white terms Kabira. I have told this before and I tell you again, the outcome of a random event (like a cricket match) is a complex solution that determined by the interplay of several variables. And ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ are NOT one of them.

[Ram]

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.

As ridiculous as it sounds, we just have to suck it up and endure some more bad decisions, while a more effective way of reducing umpiring errors without impacting the fabric of the game is developed. This is far more prudent that hurriedly implementing a stop-gap measure (like referrals) that has the potential to significantly alter the rules of the road. In a strict sense, that may not be such a taboo thing after all. The rules of any sport constantly evolve. But this sort of evolution (referrals) is one thing we can all live without, coz , if implemented, it will make the game worse.

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’?

Still waiting for answers.

[punjabi_khota]

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. Why not. It is question of skill here.

still waiting for your reply MM

[Guest Hiten.]

I don't understand why Rahul was at the crease suggesting he may not have been out... He's the one that thought the umpire is the best decision maker out there. I don't reckon the Indian team should have any issues with the decision whatsoever. In fact I'd say take the umpire to a dinner and laud his ability. :winky:

RSD was lucky to survive the charmness a bit longer infact. He clearly had padded one of the Murali's deliveries and the ball popped up safely behind dilshan. Had dilshan caught that, RD would have been on his way because the umpire did not give any signal (indicating it as a leg bye) when RD and GG managed to take a single off that. What more surprising is RD was shaking his head when umpire did not give any signal upon completion of the run :haha: Heck with technology, more charmness please :yay:

[kabira]

^yes that was brilliant random umpiring.

[Ram]

still waiting for your reply MM

Sorry for the delay, will reply as soon as possible.

[Ram]

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.

For that, I will come right back at you by saying those who were good enough, yet got unlucky early on their career (slew of bad umpiring decisions) will manage to find their way back into international cricket, if they really do have the class and talent. But besides that point, why are you guys even expecting that it should all be fair in the first place? Why should sports be FAIR? Why? Why are you guys trying in infuse a dose of morality into what is essentially a statistically random event? And this question of fairness keeps rising like the Phoenix every now and then, when I have clearly shown, repeatedly, that sports was NEVER meant to be a spectacle of fairness justice and evidence for that is everywhere, not just in other sports but also in cricket. I’ve repeatedly asked why some of you guys have no objections whatsoever with every single’s match outcome being MASSIVELY influenced by an unbiased coin-toss, but are loathe to umpires making errors. So, its ok if the external interference comes in the form of a coin, buts its not ok, if it comes in the form of an umpire. To be honest though, I already know the answer for this question. No one complaints about toss (however detrimental it is, to our team’s cause) because we know that it is unbiased. How can you possibly complain against something, if you know that its absolutely fair, even if it turns out against you most of the times? However, with the case of the umpire, all of us place an implicit faith on him, trusting him that he is going to make fair and balanced decisions on the field and that trust has been in place for a over a decade now. Unfortunately, with more and more technology coming into the game, more and more of errors made by umpires have come into the fore-front, casting doubts over the fairness of his decisions. And since he is human, there are always doubts cast over his allegiances. The ICC tried to address this by introducing the neutral umpire system, but that seems to have made the matters worse. And, if I can extend the coin toss-umpire analogy a little further, trying to tinker with the traditional form of umpiring just because he is making a lot of errors is like trying to find an alternate method to decide the toss, just because your captain is losing most of the tosses.

[The Outsider]

^ If sport doesn't have to be fair then why do all sports have things like someone not playing judging the game and in recent times ensuring that the person has to be neutral?

[Ram]

^ If sport doesn't have to be fair then why do all sports have things like someone not playing judging the game and in recent times ensuring that the person has to be neutral?

Every sport needs an 'administrative' authority, ensuring the veracity of the events on the field. Else, it will impossible to judge who actually won or in other extreme cases, players will just cheat left and right which is unacceptable.

[The Outsider]

Every sport needs an 'administrative' authority' date=' ensuring the veracity of the events on the field. Else, it will impossible to judge who actually won or in other extreme cases, players will just cheat left and right which is unacceptable.[/quote'] So, this administrative authority is supposed to fair or is it acceptable to have a corrupt and biased authority passing judgments?

[Ram]

So' date=' this administrative authority is supposed to fair or is it acceptable to have a corrupt and biased authority passing judgments?[/quote'] It is completely and unequivocally unacceptable for any judge/umpire/referee to be biased or corrupt. Their fundamental and most minimum obligation on the field is to be balanced in their judgements.

[The Outsider]

It is completely and unequivocally unacceptable for any judge/umpire/referee to be biased or corrupt. Their fundamental and most minimum obligation on the field is to be balanced in their judgements.

So all sports do inherently try to be fair to the extent possible to it's participants? Then why are you saying sports were not meant to be fair? Even when you play gully cricket, you want to be rewarded justly for your efforts - that's basic human nature.

[Ram]

So all sports do inherently try to be fair to the extent possible to it's participants? Then why are you saying sports were not meant to be fair? Even when you play gully cricket' date= you want to be rewarded justly for your efforts - that's basic human nature.

'Possible' is the operative word here. You can expect 'fairness', only if there is a logical and statistical expectation of that happening. All sports and disciplines clearly make that distinction. In F1, all teams have HUGE guideline restrictions on the size of engines, tyres, fuel, amount of practice etc. This is enforced to ensure a level playing field, else the richest team will simply spend the most and have a car 2,3 times faster than the rest of the field, reducing the race to a farce. But, when the race DOES begin, no one is going to make sure debris on the track does not impact race, no is going to re-start the race becuase rain came pouring down, significantly influencing the outcome. Dont confuse my request for a level playing field to a request for absolute fairness and equality everything anything that happens on a cricket field. The first one is quite easy to enforce, but the second one almost impossible to achieve. An umpire makes an error, declares a player out (or not-out). That is fine by me (and most of the cricketing world), because there's an implicit assumption that the mistake was inadvertant. But, if an umpire deliberately dishes out wrong decisions (for whatever reasons), that is absolutely unaccetable.

[The Outsider]

^ It's impossible to get across even simple and logical points to you on this subject..... please carry on - I'm out.

[Ram]

^ It's impossible to get across even simple and logical points to you on this subject..... please carry on - I'm out.

Its impossible for some of you guys to make some basic distinctions that govern the nature of sport. And again, you (and the rest of the referral crowd) can slander my view-point as much as you want, but bottom line is, support (if there was any) for this referral system is waning, not only among the administrative community of the cricketing world, but also among most players. I predicted, when the support for this system was at sky-high levels, that its only a matter of time before its ditched. I am seeing that happening now, slowly but surely. We’ll see who has the last laugh.

[The Outsider]

^ You don't even know why you support TV referrals for run outs and stumpings or additional aid for umpires to help them make the right decision if sport was never meant to be fair. I don't know about laughs but technology will be increasingly used in the future to make correct and fair judgments whether it is through player or umpire referral I don't care, as long as I get to see the maximum possible correct decisions.

[Feed]

Video referrals will be used in South Africa v England Tests Following intense pressure, England's Test series against South Africa is set to include video referrals. More...

[The Outsider]

The review system already has made a huge impact on the first day of it's inception - McCullum challenged the leg before call against him and the decision was reversed because the ball hit him outside off stump. Pakistan would have been in command if NZ were 270/7, instead Vettori and McCullum are still around to take the score past 350. And the entire process was conducted amicably by the umpires and players.