Counties drop referrel experiment

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

I desperately want to be convinced that you have a point MM ... so hence please go ahead and tell me how the muggings at Durban , SCG, B'lore etc made the game interesting ... and exciting ... and charming and it would have been the opposite had there been Technology. You cannot simply ask me to take your point at face value .... I prefer to go down to the nitty gritty ... and the specifics ... Fair ?

Ofcourse , if we are to have the present system , there will be instances where one team felt very hard done by. That is inevitable. But that doesnt mean we can scrap the present system, simply because the uncertainty/fun is BECAUSE of the present system. You keep asking to "get down to the nitty gritty" while i keep saying , the difference lies in how we see the game. In this case , for a change , the devil is NOT in the detail.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

How MM ? .. how is it fun .... please tell me.

I have BB , in many of the previous posts. I am tired of repeating the same point to multiple posters. But for your sake , i shall do it the one last time. If we are replace the on-field umpire with technology totally, the game will lose it zing. Teams wont last beyond 60 overs in any test-match innings. You wont have dramatic last ball chases where the batsman was out , yet given not out and then he goes on to win the game. You wont have on-field scruffs between players because the fielding side thought the batsman was out , yet didnt walk since the umpire made a mistake. You wont passionate appealing by bowlers on the field , you wont have the fielding side putting pressue on the umpire , staring at him , many of them running him towards him appealing for a dismissal in a close game. You wont have off the field controversies by batsman who complain about bad umpiring. You wont have ball-tampering controversies , nor chucking controversies. I can just go on and on and on... Its is these aspects that build the pressure of a cricket match, the fun. If they are gone , cricket will be boring to watch.

[MundaPakistani]

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.

Good to see some one look at the issue objectively. Having said that i think a challenge system should at least be given a chance in 1st class cricket with no more than 2 challenges per innings.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

BB , I am bit numb typing out the same thing again and again. I would have answered all of your questions at some point in this thread. Feel free to go and read them.

[MundaPakistani]

here is what i posted a few months ago Reasons why i think total reliance on technology is a bad idea because First of all it is not 100% accurate...there have been cases when batsman has been bowled yet the Hawk eye has the ball missing the stumps.... then there have been bat and pad cases where the batsman has admitted of hitting the ball yet if you look at the replays you will never know that. Secondly in the LBW decisions Hawkeye doesn't consider the shot the batsman was trying to play off the front or the back foot or if he was playing straight or if it was just ugly swipe across the line(yes i think it's important) . The law written in the book should only be used as a guide line e.g if i was the umpire then there will be quite a few cases in which even if i am not sure that the ball had hit the batsman in line with the stump but i am convinced that the bowler has 'defeated' the batsman then i will give the batsman out. Simiarly if i see the batsman has a decent stride forward and is willing to use his bat then i might not give him out...it's this human interpretation factor which should always be the part of the game.For hawk eye a batsman who is hit on the pad with a big stride forward and playing with a straight bat is the same thing as a batsman being caught at the crease playing an ugly swipe to the leg side...the only thing it really considers is if the ball is going to hit the stumps or not and that IMO is not good enough

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

To summarize here are some things that you have said but never provided any evidence as backup ...

Yes i have BB, if only you care to read properly

1. It evens out ... not one single Test series you could remember where we got overwhelming rub of green. You have agreed that we have been mugged often.

I have pointed to the previous one-day series In Aus we we definitely had the rub of the green. And as i have repeatedly said to the point boring you to death , just because i cant recollect any instance where we got some favorable decisions, didnt mean it didnt happen. Yet, you KEEP asking me , " show me the proof , show me the proof".. Surprising really.

2. Its boring with Technology. Again no evidence provided.

Did you even read what i had posted here ?

If we are replace the on-field umpire with technology totally, the game will lose it zing. Teams wont last beyond 60 overs in any test-match innings. You wont have dramatic last ball chases where the batsman was out , yet given not out and then he goes on to win the game. You wont have on-field scruffs between players because the fielding side thought the batsman was out , yet didnt walk since the umpire made a mistake. You wont passionate appealing by bowlers on the field , you wont have the fielding side putting pressue on the umpire , staring at him , many of them running him towards him appealing for a dismissal in a close game. You wont have off the field controversies by batsman who complain about bad umpiring. You wont have ball-tampering controversies , nor chucking controversies. I can just go on and on and on... Its is these aspects that build the pressure of a cricket match, the fun. If they are gone , cricket will be boring to watch.

3. Its charming to witness your team getting mugged more often than not. No explanation was forthcomming on how the Durban ' date=' SCG , B'lore tests were exciting spectacles other than just your opinion.[/quote'] I have said VERY clearly that , in the present system , there will be occassions when we felt things didnt go our way, that is inevitable. Yet , again , you keep pointing out to these matches saying - we were hard done. Why dont you make an effort to understand what i am saying ? Anyways, this debate has gone to a point where both of us are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Lets call it quits for now. We shall take up further , when one of us have new material to post.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

marirs & Boss, one of you will have to change your avtaar & sig. Both of yours look alike, makes for a confusing read, when i scan the thread quickly. I see that marirs is doing this to create some uncertainity on the thread (& therefore excitement :cantstop:)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[castled]

If we are replace the on-field umpire with technology totally, the game will lose it zing. Teams wont last beyond 60 overs in any test-match innings. You wont have dramatic last ball chases where the batsman was out , yet given not out and then he goes on to win the game. You wont have on-field scruffs between players because the fielding side thought the batsman was out , yet didnt walk since the umpire made a mistake. You wont passionate appealing by bowlers on the field , you wont have the fielding side putting pressue on the umpire , staring at him , many of them running him towards him appealing for a dismissal in a close game. You wont have off the field controversies by batsman who complain about bad umpiring. You wont have ball-tampering controversies , nor chucking controversies.

I can just go on and on and on... Its is these aspects that build the pressure of a cricket match, the fun. If they are gone , cricket will be boring to watch.

Good summary: Lets take it by points 1. Teams wont last beyond 60 overs: Not based on any facts. We simply don't know that until we have technology in place. 2. Dramatic chases etc: We will still have them: Even if you take a look at last few close finishes, there may not have been any umpiring errors. On the other hand, umpiring error might have resulted in a one sided affair instead of a close game. Already mentioned before about the 2001 and 2004 tests, as umpiring errors can go both ways resulting in one match being great and the other not. Umpiring errors may be resulting in more one sided affairs than great matches for all we know. So, you cannot argue that the errors result in great matches (as it could equally result in ruining a great match as well).

3. The rest: Yes, that could be lost.. but are there not already laws in the game in order to avoid those very issues?! Finally, about uncertainty.. its not mentioned in the above summary! Unless you are saying that its uncertain whether a game will result in a great match or not, but its already there to start with, without the umpiring errors. Lets look at the 2020 final. If Misbah was given out wrongly LBW by the umpire in the last over, how does it add to the excitement of the game? If Sreesanth dropped the catch, that I agree adds to the excitement. But I fail to see how an umpiring howler at that stage adds to the excitement! If you would like to call that excitement, I would say no thanks. I respect your opinion of getting excited about that, as you respect my opinion of getting frustrated (that why an umpiring howler has to decide such a great match!).

Its is these aspects that build the pressure of a cricket match' date=' the fun. If they are gone , cricket will be boring to watch.[/quote'] May be, may be not! But sure, we wont have all these pages of discussion! About the opening post: May be we should get all the english domestic umpires to the elite panel.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

BTW MM do you agree that we have the right to our share of absolutely crass umpiring working in our favour ... or do you think its ok for us to continually getting screwed as long as it is interesting ?

Well, that is what you feel BB. Surely i am all against biased umpiring, it has got no place in international cricket.

[Ram]

First , it is quite relieving to see atleast someone trying to see this issue from my point rather than just the " we must be fair" thingy.

1. Teams wont last beyond 60 overs: Not based on any facts. We simply don't know that until we have technology in place.

I am almost dead certain that test match totals will fall if we were use current technologies to judge LBWSs. A ball hitting the top of leg-stump will most certainly be given not-out by an umpire, but technology will rule that out.

2. Dramatic chases etc: We will still have them: Even if you take a look at last few close finishes, there may not have been any umpiring errors. On the other hand, umpiring error might have resulted in a one sided affair instead of a close game. Already mentioned before about the 2001 and 2004 tests, as umpiring errors can go both ways resulting in one match being great and the other not. Umpiring errors may be resulting in more one sided affairs than great matches for all we know. So, you cannot argue that the errors result in great matches (as it could equally result in ruining a great match as well).

I never said - No umpire , no dramatic chases. All i am saying is , umpires add to the tension in a close chase. Umpires add to the drama, which is what i want. And we can never prove either way , whether umpiring errors contribute or harm close finishes. As long we dont do that , status quo has to be maintained.

3. The rest: Yes, that could be lost.. but are there not already laws in the game in order to avoid those very issues?!

These laws have been there for years. Does that prevent the players from growling at the umpire if a decision wasnt given in their favor ? Does that prevent the fielding team from complaining loudly if the batsman got out , but didnt walk. And still, the laws of the game kick in AFTER the incident has happend in the field, which is what the entertainment is about. A player may be fined , only AFTER he misbehaved on the field, not before. Remove the umpire and see the human element vanish from the game , making it much more sedate to view.

Finally, about uncertainty.. its not mentioned in the above summary! Unless you are saying that its uncertain whether a game will result in a great match or not, but its already there to start with, without the umpiring errors.

Yes it does, only the presence of an on-field umpire adds to the number of variables that add to the uncertainty . Get my point ?

Lets look at the 2020 final. If Misbah was given out wrongly LBW by the umpire in the last over' date=' how does it add to the excitement of the game? If Sreesanth dropped the catch, that I agree adds to the excitement. But I fail to see how an umpiring howler at that stage adds to the excitement! If you would like to call that excitement, I would say no thanks. I respect your opinion of getting excited about that, as you respect my opinion of getting frustrated (that why an umpiring howler has to decide such a great match!).[/quote'] How could ever expect me to respond to a specific example. I can then quote a million examples where i think umpiring errors made an otherwise very exciting.We still wont get anywhere you see. As far i am concerned, Sport , as a visual medium , is just not a competition of talent and skill. More than anything , its about being a visual medium, the drama , the excitement , the emotions , the luck etc. That is what makes it good to watch. Have you ever enjoyed watching a golf tournament ? or a sailing tournament ? Mostly not , simply because its a pure competition of talents and skill and mental fortitude of the players alone. There arent enough of other variables that create uncertainty. However , a football match , or a cricket match is exciting to watch because the human element in it , sometimes supercedes the natural talent. That is what creates the tension and that is what my point has been always. Still, I appreciate your effort in trying to understand what i am saying. As i said before, i can understand why you feel what you feel and you maybe right , but i guess the judgment is still out.

May be' date=' may be not! But sure, we wont have all these pages of discussion![/quote'] I told ya , didnt i ? :D

[Ram]

marirs & Boss' date=' one of you will have to change your avtaar & sig. Both of yours look alike, makes for a confusing read, when i scan the thread quickly. I see that marirs is doing this to create some uncertainity on the thread (& therefore excitement :cantstop:)[/quote'] So , why have you been after me with this " he is trying to make this uncertain , hence more exciting" Bumps ? Wish i never said that.. :haha: