Johnson frustrated by referral system

[vvvslaxman]

http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cricket/world/johnson-frustrated-by-referral-system-1.1007827 Johnson frustrated by referral system January 4 2011 at 12:37pm Comment on this story AP Australian fast bowler Mitchell Johnson has hit out at the umpire referral system after Australia were again on the wrong end of a reviewed decision. Sydney – Mitchell Johnson hit out at the umpire referral system after Australia were again on the wrong end of a reviewed decision which kept England's Alastair Cook at the crease in the fifth Ashes Test on Tuesday. Debutant Michael Beer was celebrating what he thought was his first Test wicket after Cook, then on 45, skied to Ben Hilfenhaus at deep mid-on only for umpire Billy Bowden to ask the third umpire to check on a suspected no-ball. Replays showed the spinner had overstepped and Cook remained, finishing unbeaten on 61 at the close with England 167 for three and trailing Australia by 113 runs after the second day. It was the second time in the series that England had been handed a reprieve after a review by the third umpire after Matt Prior was recalled to the crease following a slip catch during last week's fourth Melbourne Test. Prior was on five at the time, but went on to score 85. England retained the Ashes thanks to their innings and 157-run win in Melbourne but Australia are out to level the series in Sydney this week. Johnson said umpires should call a no-ball when they see it rather than relying on a referral as in the case of Cook's 'life' on Tuesday. “I guess it can be frustrating. If the umpires know it's a no-ball, they should call it, instead of waiting to call it,†Johnson said. “Everyone is going to have different opinions on it. I suppose it's not a bad thing. But it can be frustrating. I suppose you've just got to get your foot behind the line.†The paceman said he felt for Beer, who was playing in his first Test and believed he had dismissed Cook, England's leading scorer in the series with 638 runs, currently at an average of 127.60. “It was disappointing for him that he didn't get his first wicket. It would have been a good wicket to get, too, being Cook,†Johnson said. “But the way he handled himself after that, and the way he bowled, were good signs for us. It looked like he spun the ball and got a bit of drift. “You could see the reaction on his face when he was called for it. It was a big moment for him.†But England spearhead James Anderson said he backed the umpires referral system if the correct decision was reached in the end. “I think it's great for cricket because the correct decision comes out of it,†he said. “We should do it more often, I don't think they use it enough. I think a no-ball is a no-ball and you should get the correct decision each ball.†Johnson said the Australian team set-up had to find answers to their costly no-balling. “We need to find a way to fix this problem – whether it's more centre wicket practice or to be more strict at training. It's obviously a problem and we need to fix it,†he said. – Sapa-AFP

[fineleg]

I dont see anything wrong if it was clearly a no ball after being reviewed on TV, and the umpire checked. Thats the advantage of technology and should be used that way. Infact, they should bring in technology 100% for no balls like they do for foot faults in Tennis.

[yoda]

“I guess it can be frustrating. If the umpires know it's a no-ball, they should call it, instead of waiting to call it,” Johnson said.

Well, DUH, if they knew it was a no-ball they would be calling it, like they usually do. Anyways, he seems to be more frustrated about them bowling the no balls than the referral issue, although that is what made it as the headline.

[Anakin]

Yep, I'm sure he along with all other ozs prefer blind chumps like Bucknor.

[The Outsider]

Problem is that if umpires start calling what they think is a marginal call as a no ball, a batsman gets out, and upon review they find it is not a no ball, the decision cannot (or at least should not) be reversed because the batsman can claim to change his shot on the no ball call. So, in marginal cases it makes sense for the umpires to let things continue and then check later in case of a wicket.

[f.b.m]

The only chink in the system is that the opposite case (umpire gives a no ball when it wasnt) is irretrievable. Hopefully technology takes over this no ball business altogether and we can forget about this problem.

[kabira]

is that even part of referral system/UDRS? They were doing in Ind v/s Aus and India v/s SAF. Its good to check some real close calls. But problem is if they call no bowl and batsman get out, no way they can reverse that...in such cases, just leave it...don't even show the replay..

[coffee_rules]

^^It is part of ICC rules now, that umpires can refer noball to third eye in dismissals