Counties drop referrel experiment

[Holysmoke]

Trust me , the excitement the game has to offer will be killed by this referral system. Imagine this situation. Australia is chasing India's total of 285. They are 225/6 in the 43rd over, with Symonds and Hogg putting on a decent 45 runs off 45 balls for the 7th wicket. Sreesanth bowls , raps Symonds on the pads , appeals for LBW. Umpire gives it out. Symonds refers, third umpire finds an inside-edge, reverses decision and Symonds goes on to win the game. You think that is exciting to watch ? You think that is actually proper cricket ? Bad umpiring decisions are part of cricketing fork lore.That is what makes the game what it is. I say , by all means , assist the umpire in his decision making. But to replace him totally is one stupid , short-sighted approach that shows lack of proper understanding of how the game works.

Yes. I think that is proper cricket! If there was an inside edge.. there was one.. symonds has done no wrong, and does not deserve to be given out. I would rather have symonds go on to win the game for his team, legally, as compared to australia being robbed off a victory by an incompetent umpire! I dont think that is stupid at all!, i mean.. sport should be fair, shouldnt it?.. Please explain to me how it is stupid, and how it is short sighted? what the hell are you talking about dude?

[Holysmoke]

If we were to be intent of making everything fair to everybody , then the pitch shouldnt deteriorate for the side batting second , the ball that was changed should swing only as much as it did for the other team, there must exactly the same amount of dew on outfield all the time. why arent you guys complaining when things like these affect a cricket match ?

We arent complaining about things like these because there is nothing that can be done about it!. Ball swinging depends on conditions.. we cannot control them!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

As the cliche goes , you lose some , you win some. Say for example the Kolkata test match against Australia in 2001. Gilchrist was clearly NOT OUT in the Aussie second inninga. Considering the form he was in , i would have backed him then to go on to make an atleast quickfire 30, instead of the first ball duck he made and Aus may well have saved the match. If they had referred that and the decision over-turned , we wouldnt all be talking of that match as one of the greatest Indian victories , or even see Laxman's innings in the magical light that we see it today. Even in the previous one-day series against Aus , in the 4th game, Sachin had clearly edged one to the keeper off Lee.He had wasted many balls by then and if he had been given out by the referral method , India would have been in dire straits. He went on to make 80-odd, India scored 290 odd and Aus lost the match by 8 runs. And in the last match too, Karthik edged one off Johnson to Gilchrist quite early in his innings. If he was given out by referral, we would have been 9 down and in all probability lost the match. Ever wondered how the series result would have looked then ? Maybe 6-0 and not the 4-2 it looks now. It is actually quite a pointless excercise to look at individual cases of when a team lost out or gained because of umpiring errors. But as i said , that is what makes cricket an interesting sport - The Human element that supercedes natural talent sometimes. You may be the best team , but that doesnt mean you will win always. There are other factors like pitch , afternoon dew , umpiring errors that go in a long way in deciding the fate of the match.

But Sriram, thats a totally unprofessional way to run the game. In this age of technology, why do we have to live with incompetence, however fair or unfair it may be! Besides, a let off means diff things to diff teams. A Zimbabwean bowling lineup, wouldnt want to trade a Hayden's wicket for a Tatenda Taibu's. Hayden had a let off early in the innings, on his way to his world record 380. Would letting Taibu bat once more, make up for it ? How does this make the game more colorful ? Technology must be used whenever possible. I dont care how much extra time it takes. Heck, we play this sport for five full days (thats five friggin days). Cant we spare another 30 mins per day ? Infact if you account for the results in referrals, we may even end up saving 30 mins due to early dismissals. Except for Hawkeye, which isnt perfect at this point, pretty much everything else can be referred. Even for LBWs, hawkeye can be handy to spot the line of the ball, if the umpire goofs it up. We could use technology to call no balls, to spot nicks etc. Am tired of getting sawed off by umpiring gaffes in key situations & feeling helpless about it.

[novpj]

I dont like the idea of referrals. Bad decisions due to incompetent umpiring and the effects it has is a part of cricket and adds to the aura/mystique/uncertainty that the game has to offer. Its like trying to implement a technology so that no batsman ever edges a ball , no bowler ever bowls a bad ball or no fielder ever drops a catch. As much as the varying degrees of talents of the players is what makes it interesting , the errors in judgment that the umpires make also adds to game's charm. Instead of coming up with some half-baked ideas like this, the ICC should do what it can in helping the umpire to improve his decision making. Whatever be the reasons , the umpire's decision is final.

SUch a BS argument. So incompetence should never be addressed becoz in the past there was no techonology to address it. There is no excuse for not trying to get a decision right be it a) delay in the game or some BS about aura and mistique. Uncovered pitches and the uncertainty that caused could also be called a part of aura of the yesteryears matches - lets go back to that or how about no helmets?

[Donny]

Bossby, you continue to be one BIG yawn on this subject. :boring: Repeating rubbish, incessantly, does NOT make it fact.

[yoda]

Excellent. What's the big deal about getting it correct. Like MM says it all evens out, doesn't matter for whom in what series in what decade. As long as everything evens out by the end of this Yuga for all teams, we should be fine.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

Excellent. What's the big deal about getting it correct. Like MM says it all evens out' date=' doesn't matter for whom in what series in what decade. As long as everything evens out by the end of this Yuga for all teams, we should be fine.[/quote'] :hysterical:

[Ram]

SUch a BS argument. So incompetence should never be addressed becoz in the past there was no techonology to address it. There is no excuse for not trying to get a decision right be it a) delay in the game or some BS about aura and mistique. Uncovered pitches and the uncertainty that caused could also be called a part of aura of the yesteryears matches - lets go back to that or how about no helmets?

What a totally irrelevant argument. Umpires - Are NOT threats to the life of a batsman. Uncovered pitches + No Helmets - Is a threat ! See the reason for helmets and covered pitches now ? :P

[Ram]

Excellent. What's the big deal about getting it correct. Like MM says it all evens out' date=' doesn't matter for whom in what series in what decade. As long as everything evens out by the end of this Yuga for all teams, we should be fine.[/quote'] The problem is , its just not about " getting it right " as you guys think. Its unfortunate that some of you still dont realize that. :P

[Holysmoke]

The problem is ' date=' its just not about " getting it right " as you guys think. Its unfortunate that some of you still dont realize that. :P[/quote'] Why? Why would you have daylight robbery against BOTH teams, and then say it evens out. Why have it in the first place, if you can prevent it?

[Ram]

Why? Why would you have daylight robbery against BOTH teams, and then say it evens out. Why have it in the first place, if you can prevent it?

How many times do i have to keep saying same thing again and again ? How far will you even out ? Will you play on a degradation-free pitch ? or a ball that never changes condition ? or a dew-less outfield ? or the same sunlight conditions for the fielders ? or a no bad bounce-less outfield ? Do you even see my point ?

[Holysmoke]

How many times do i have to keep saying same thing again and again ? How far will you even out ? Will you play on a degradation-free pitch ? or a ball that never changes condition ? or a dew-less outfield ? or the same sunlight conditions for the fielders ? or a no bad bounce-less outfield ? Do you even see my point ?

OK.. you dont understand the basic difference. What we are trying to prevent here is human ERROR! the things u mentioned above are natural, not ERRORS!! Btw, tell me this. Would you rather have the third umpire making a decision on run outs, or would u want the people in the center to take care of that too... wont it "even out??" :finger:

[Ram]

But Sriram, thats a totally unprofessional way to run the game. In this age of technology, why do we have to live with incompetence, however fair or unfair it may be! Besides, a let off means diff things to diff teams. A Zimbabwean bowling lineup, wouldnt want to trade a Hayden's wicket for a Tatenda Taibu's. Hayden had a let off early in the innings, on his way to his world record 380. Would letting Taibu bat once more, make up for it ? How does this make the game more colorful ? Technology must be used whenever possible. I dont care how much extra time it takes. Heck, we play this sport for five full days (thats five friggin days). Cant we spare another 30 mins per day ? Infact if you account for the results in referrals, we may even end up saving 30 mins due to early dismissals. Except for Hawkeye, which isnt perfect at this point, pretty much everything else can be referred. Even for LBWs, hawkeye can be handy to spot the line of the ball, if the umpire goofs it up. We could use technology to call no balls, to spot nicks etc. Am tired of getting sawed off by umpiring gaffes in key situations & feeling helpless about it.

For a change , i am relieved that someone is speaking sense on this debate ( other than BB). Bumps, dont you realize that "getting it right" everytime will kill the excitement in the sport ? If say an all-conquering Aussie team plays Zim , if we were to match them man for man, Aus will hammer them. And even worse , if we were to use technology to judge decisions , Zim would probably be all out for 85 every time. But the human element that is an on-field umpire is what evens out things i say. It is what helps Zim to get a not-out LBW against say Gilchrist. It was that helps them get away with one their openers get away with a thin outside edge to the keeper. Look at it this way , using on-field technology is probably the right to do , but it will rob the game of a lot of excitement , controversy , fun and uncertainty that is about now ? Would you want to watch such a cricket ? Cricket , as a visual medium , is just not about the better team winning. Its also about the uncertainties , the controversies. Replacing the on-field will rob it of all of this.

[Ram]

OK.. you dont understand the basic difference. What we are trying to prevent here is human ERROR! the things u mentioned above are natural, not ERRORS!! Btw, tell me this. Would you rather have the third umpire making a decision on run outs, or would u want the people in the center to take care of that too... wont it "even out??" :finger:

Hehe.. good try. If you refer to my previous posts , i have always maintained that we should do all we can to help the umpires minimize the errors. If that means, taking the help of third umpire to adjudicate line-calls , so be it. And just so that you really know how flimsy you run-out example is , no human could possibly say with any certainty if a batsman was out or not out , in such high-speeds. That is why they decided to use action replays for run-outs. Not because they felt they need to get the umpire replaced. I am all for using technlogy to assist the umpire, but am dead against over-ruling his decision, which is what referrals are about.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

Look at it this way , using on-field technology is probably the right to do , but it will rob the game of a lot of excitement , controversy , fun and uncertainty that is about now ? Would you want to watch such a cricket ? Cricket , as a visual medium , is just not about the better team winning. Its also about the uncertainties , the controversies. Replacing the on-field will rob it of all of this.

Yes!! I would rather watch a FAIR ALBEIT BORING sport, as compared to a UNFAIR BUT FUN sport. Isnt that what sport was all about?

[yoda]

How many times do i have to keep saying same thing again and again ? How far will you even out ? Will you play on a degradation-free pitch ? or a ball that never changes condition ? or a dew-less outfield ? or the same sunlight conditions for the fielders ? or a no bad bounce-less outfield ? Do you even see my point ?

Do you even have a point? :D

[Holysmoke]

Hehe.. good try. If you refer to my previous posts , i have always maintained that we should do all we can to help the umpires minimize the errors. If that means, taking the help of third umpire to adjudicate line-calls , so be it. And just so that you really know how flimsy you run-out example is , no human could possibly say with any certainty if a batsman was out or not out , in such high-speeds. That is why they decided to use action replays for run-outs. Not because they felt they need to get the umpire replaced. I am all for using technlogy to assist the umpire, but am dead against over-ruling his decision, which is what referrals are about.

Okay, thats a fair point. We should do all we can to help the umpires. So then, should we give the umpire authority to refer LBW's to the third umpire? He isnt making a decision, he is referring it, so being over-ruled does not come into the question. seems fair?