Your views on the umpire referral technology...

[Lord]

thats wat it is,a gimmick

[Macj]

Poor Garner , he would have been relegated to pedestrian had he played now. The ICC seriously cut WI wings when they started meddling with the short pitched bowling restrictions. Thats when cricket officially began its slant towards batting pissing on bowling.

[Feed]

DRS is a revolutionary experiement: Roebuck There is no doubt that the umpires review system (DRS) dominated the Adelaide Test between Australia and the West Indies, but noted cricket columnist Peter Roebuck is of the view that it was just a revolutionary experiment, and therefore, there was no need to consider a rolling of heads, notwithstanding the all-round unease felt about the system during the game. More... It has issues but don't dismiss raw referral system too soon PETER ROEBUCK December 11, 2009 Asked about the long-term impact of the French Revolution a Chinese premier of recent vintage replied: ''It's too early to tell.'' Much the same can be said about the review system that dominated last week's headlines from Adelaide. It is an experiment. Widespread unease was felt about its effect on proceedings in the second Test. By general consent it created as many problems as it solved. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease. However, that does not mean the idea itself is fatally flawed. It won't be possible to make any lasting judgment while it remains a work in progress. To recap, the first day of the match contained several contentious decisions and one surprising over-rule. All of the controversies involved Mark Benson, an umpire with a record of ill-health. Benson left the field at stumps that day never to be seen again. Amid all sorts of rumours, he flew back to England. Eventually he emerged to announce that he had been too sick to continue, and added that he supported reviews and that his withdrawal was unconnected with the over-ruling. Meanwhile journalists reported that he had raged in the umpire's room after play. Two of Benson's decisions were over-ruled by Asad Rauf, the third umpire, and one was supported. First he gave Shivnarine Chanderpaul not out after he flashed outside off stick. Convinced they had heard a snick and observing that bat was far from body, the Australians sought a review and were incensed at its rejection. And it showed. So much for the custom of playing hard ball but accepting the umpire's verdict. Microphones picked up a flat noise. It did not look like an edge but what else could it have been? Scientists argued that the proximity of ball and flashing bat creates noise in the same way as helicopter blades. Or perhaps it was a bat handle breaking. Next Benson gave Dwayne Bravo out leg before wicket. A single replay was enough to confirm that the ball was sailing over the bails so the decision was reversed. If Benson felt affronted, he had little cause. The game is not about umpires. It's about players. Moreover, an umpire whose blatant mistake is allowed to stand looks a much bigger goose than the fellow whose error is corrected, and does more damage. Now came the moment of highest contention. Chanderpaul reached a gritty 50 and appeared set in stone. Australia again appealed for a catch behind the wicket. Benson shook his head. Replays seemed inconclusive. Over-rules are only allowed when a decision is obviously wrong. Nevertheless, Rauf found enough evidence of guilt to send the batsman on his way. All concerned were surprised by the overturn but that does not mean Chanderpaul missed the ball. Benson left next morning, in a huff or unwell, it was anyone's guess. Inevitably the old school sprung to his defence. But an umpire's dignity is not of paramount importance. Sensitive souls ought not to pitch for the job. The important thing is to get as many decisions right as possible without unduly interrupting the flow of the game. If the system achieves that, it has merit. If not, it ought to be scrapped. An umpire's feelings are neither here nor there. They get well paid and can learn something from misjudgments. Moreover, Ian Gould emerged from the match with his reputation enhanced. It can be done. More significantly the captains also raised doubts. Chris Gayle has never favoured reviews. Ricky Ponting had become a tentative supporter but now has reservations. For the time being these leaders ought to pass on ideas for improving the scheme. Daniel Vettori has suggested one unsuccessful review a side was sufficient. Others say only the umpires themselves ought to be able to seek reviews. Clearly the system is imperfect. Adelaide exposed flaws of conception and application. Now there is talk of installing even more cameras for the Boxing Day Test. Apparently Hot Spot only lasts an instant and angled bats can render it redundant, even misleading. Are reviews worth the fuss and expense? The stakes are high in cricket these days. It lives and dies on the front line. Test-playing countries feature twice in the top six of the world's most dangerous countries for journalists. Provided only blatant blues are corrected, and swiftly, the system has a part to play. But all concerned reserve the right to change their minds. Let's suck it and see. And it is possible to say something about the French Revolution. Although imperfectly applied it was a good thing because it rid the country of the notion that some people are born to rule. Pity the same has not happened elsewhere.

[Lord]

McCullum today got out off a no ball.how the hell will a referral rectify that.n batsman r accused of wasting refferals.why would they waste a chance of extending thier innings.it may just be a no ball as it was today. the saner thing would be to give the no ball thing to third umpire to decide.n also to point out obvious mistakes

[DomainK]

McCullum today got out off a no ball.how the hell will a referral rectify that.n batsman r accused of wasting refferals.why would they waste a chance of extending thier innings.it may just be a no ball as it was today. the saner thing would be to give the no ball thing to third umpire to decide.n also to point out obvious mistakes

I agree. It will be better to empower the third umpire rather than let players challenge the umpires. The time taken for the batsman to walk back should be enough for a third umpire to make a decision.

[Temujin Khaghan]

imo it should be used

[bunny]

I think we need 2 referrals every 80 overs.

[Feed]

Decision Review System good for cricket, feel players New Delhi: A few players? resentment and concerns about dilution of authority of on-field officials notwithstanding, the Decision Review System (DRS) is a ?positive? innovation which has helped cut down umpiring errors, feel ... More... DRS good for cricket, feel players New Delhi: A few players’ resentment and concerns about dilution of authority of on-field officials notwithstanding, the Decision Review System (DRS) is a “positive” innovation which has helped cut down umpiring errors, feel the cricketers Associations of South Africa and New Zealand. “SACA and the general feeling of South African players towards the DRS is that it is positive for cricket provided that all the technology is made available and standardised for all matches. Technology in cricket is inevitable and it should be used as long as it is trusted and accurate,” said South African Cricket Association (SACA) CEO Tony Irish. New Zealand Cricket Players’ Association (NZCPA) CEO Heath Mills also gave a thumbs up to the DRS and said the initial problems will fade away once the system’s usage becomes more frequent. “I can only go on our experience in the current series against Pakistan. I have had nothing but positive feedback from our players. Daniel Vettori thinks it is very good and feels it has ensured that better decisions are being made out in the middle on a more consistent basis,” Mills said. “There will always be odd teething problem with something new but we feel it has gone well so far and is certainly worth continuing at the moment,” he added. Asked if DRS will slow down Test matches which are already faced with dwindling spectator interest, Irish said: “It does have the effect of taking extra time but I think it’s just a matter of getting used to it and it will become quicker and an accepted part of the game. DRS raised quite a furore after it was used in the ongoing Australia-West Indies Test series Down Under with the skipper of the Caribbean side Chris Gayle and former umpire Dickie Bird criticising the technology. Makes no sense Gayle went to the extent of saying that DRS “doesn’t make any sense” to him. However, Mills is of the view that DRS will not only ensure better decisions but will also add to spectator excitement. — PTI

[Feed]

Cricket: Vettori gives thumbs-up to umpire review tool Both New Zealand captain Dan Vettori and the boss of the technology provider were happy with the Umpires Decision Review System used during the three-test series against Pakistan.Over the 11 completed innings, plus 19 overs of... More...

[Feed]

"Referrals will generate better spirit" ICC President David Morgan justified the Umpires Decision Reviews System, saying the reviews will help in making better decisions. More...

[The Outsider]

Hussain made a good point about not leaving it in the umpires hand but keep it in the players hand. On a last day subcontinent pitch there might be a referral by the umpire every other over which would completely ruin the momentum of the game. And just adding on to what he said, if the shadows/rain is closing in on the last day and time is being spent in umpiring reviews it does more harm than good. I think two reviews should be cut down to just 1 and this system would be pretty damn good.

[kabira]

^no 2 reviews are fine.

[kabira]

also I would also employ penalties. If you just review it for the sack of review, and decision is not turned down, you lose review and also 10 runs. So ten or twenty run penalty. This will make players use the system when they are certain.

[Sachinism]

Yeh 2 is fine, 1 is too less. It could get used up and later in the game there could be a critical decision go the wrong way.

[The Outsider]

^no 2 reviews are fine.

I see a lot being taken just for the sake of it - like the one De Wet took now or the one taken by England against Kallis, just because he was the best batsman. I think it should be used only if the players involved are absolutely certain that there has been a mess up.

[Sachinism]

But 2 in a whole innings is not really that much. It may not even be a review taken for the sake of it, they may actually believe it was out. They've already brought it down from 3.

[The Outsider]

But 2 in a whole innings is not really that much. It may not even be a review taken for the sake of it' date=' they may actually believe it was out. They've already brought it down from 3.[/quote'] The review against Trott would not have been taken if there was only one available and to the naked eye it looked a good call from the umpire so would have been unfortunate if he was given out if the ball was a centimeter in.

[kabira]

I see a lot being taken just for the sake of it - like the one De Wet took now or the one taken by England against Kallis' date=' just because he was the best batsman. I think it should be used only if the players involved are absolutely certain that there has been a mess up.[/quote'] to stop that have run penalties.

[The Outsider]

to stop that have run penalties.

Why do you want to over complicate things by run penalties and what not when a simple reduction in the number of reviews can give the same result. Moreover, run penalties will depend on the context of the match - in a low scoring match a 10 run penalty can be huge and in a high scoring match it won't matter.

[Feed]

The rights and wrongs of the new appeal system The system, driven through with an almost evangelical zeal by the ICC general manager Dave Richardson, South Africa's former stumper, is very much in its formative stages, a principle being established with an opportunity to iron out wrinkles before it becomes standard practice in all international matches. More... The rights and wrongs of the new appeal system Dickie Bird would have struggled to maintain his reputation with a TV umpire scrutinising his decisions Two decisions, one of which reprieved a South Africa batsman, and the other that did not, encapsulated the iniquitous and anomalous nature of the umpire review system currently under trial. The first concerned AB de Villiers, struck on the pad by Graham Onions, vehement in his appeal, but with the umpire, Steve Davis, not sharing his view. England asked for a referral that showed, if Hawk-Eye, the tracking device, is to be believed (and remember it has a margin of error) was hitting leg stump substantially, if not quite to the middle-of-the-ball hitting-middle-of-stump degree required for an unequivocal electronic decision. So the umpire's original decision pertained, as per protocol in so-called fringe decisions, a bonus for De Villiers and tough on the bowler who knows that had it been given out, and the batsman sought clarification, he would have been on the way to the dressing room. The second involved the left-hander JP Duminy, given lbw to James Anderson, an outcome that prompted him to seek a review. This time, with all other credentials for lbw in place, Hawk-Eye showed the ball shaving the varnish from the bails. So Duminy was out, victim of a ball that was deemed to be hitting significantly less of the wicket than that from which De Villiers escaped. As if the game is not difficult enough to understand already. The system, driven through with an almost evangelical zeal by the ICC general manager Dave Richardson, South Africa's former stumper, is very much in its formative stages, a principle being established with an opportunity to iron out wrinkles before it becomes standard practice in all international matches. Thus far, the only strong objection (as opposed to natural frustration on the part of bowlers) has been in the length of time taken to decide whether or not to ask for a referral. Dressing rooms get a direct television feed into their laptops and can get instant replays, the result of which could be signalled. If, following an appeal, the clock is put on, for say 15 seconds, it would concentrate the mind wonderfully. But think for a moment of the effect on the umpires in all this, the fellows whose decision-making it is designed to enhance, but will also serve to expose. There was a time when umpires would be classified as "outers" or "not-outers" and while there was something strangely acceptable in the latter, to be called an "outer" was a pejorative term, implying too much of a readiness to get the game moving along. Consider the reputation of Dickie Bird, perhaps the most famous umpire of them all. With the exception of one gloriously aberrant match between West Indies and Pakistan, in which Dickie and Steve Bucknor were complicit in giving a world record 17 lbws, Dickie made a career out of avoiding controversy. Dickie was safe all right, but might have his reputation *****ed by today's scrutiny. It seems clear, though, simply through those two decisions , that in attempting to rid the game of howlers it might create a new generation of Dickies, umpires for whom the not-out decision is a better challengeable option than the opposite, and one that will increasingly give the benefit of the close decisions to the batsman rather than the bowler. Whether it be for catches or lbws, a not-out decision that is shown to be out is always considered less heinous than the other way round. When a team has used up its referrals, will the umpires be more inclined to give the benefit to the batsman, fearing such scrutiny? It could happen. Accepting that this is a work in progress, however, and by no means perfect, there are one or two further things for ICC to consider. It seems ridiculous that a protocol designed to eliminate obviously poor decisions does not include an automatic check on each dismissal to see whether the delivery is legitimate, a matter of a few seconds. Second, whatever the drive towards use of technology, every effort should be made to ensure that the standard of umpiring is enhanced, which, given that the technology is designed to rectify mistakes, should include scrapping the notion of neutrality. The best umpires should be allowed to umpire. For the Ashes next winter, England would be more than happy to see Davis and Simon Taufel, two Australians, in charge. Daryl Harper they might blanch at.