Its high time cricket goes the tennis way

[Guest Hiten.]

NEW DELHI, January 6: The debate on just how much technology should be used in cricket has been a never-ending one. Sydney 2008 should help convince the skeptics of the desperate need to use technology to ensure the umpires get their decisions right. But that means more than just allowing on-field umpires to refer more decisions to the third umpire. Merely enabling use of technology when the on-field umpires feel the need for it will still not eliminate the mistakes made when they are mistakenly confident about their own judgement but proved to be wrong by replays. This happens quite frequently, particularly in run-out and stumping decisions. A better solution, therefore, might be to borrow an idea from tennis, in which the players are allowed a fixed quota of challenges to line-calls. Why shouldn't each team in a match be allowed three challenges to the umpires decisions? If the challenge proves correct, the challenging team would still have as many left as before. If it proves wrong, it would lose one from its quota. The beauty of this idea is that it would force teams to use their challenges judiciously. Only when they genuinely believe they have been done in would they use their challenges. It would also lessen the pressure on umpire, since they would know that a seriously wrong judgement on their part would not have a major impact on the course of the game. It might well lead to better umpiring as a result. Even if it doesn't end up improving the quality of umpiring, the least it will achieve is that no team will be able to say after the game that it was done in by bad umpiring and no spectator will feel cheated by chance or bias. Traditionalists are liable to argue that this would take the human element out of the game. On the contrary, it will restore to the game the human element that really matters a true contest between the 11 players on either side. Chance, in the form of a non-player (the umpire), determining the outcome will go out of the window. Then, and only then, can we really say: May the best team win. At the moment, it is really a case of may the best team, or the luckiest one, win. So is the ICC interested in making cricket a fairer contest or will it remain true to its track record and let contests be swung by non-contestants? http://cricket.indiatimes.com/Cricket_should_go_the_tennis_way/articleshow/2679305.cms So far, the best read on TOI :haha:

[varun]

Traditionalists are liable to argue that this would take the human element out of the game. On the contrary, it will restore to the game the human element that really matters a true contest between the 11 players on either side. Chance, in the form of a non-player (the umpire), determining the outcome will go out of the window. Then, and only then, can we really say: May the best team win. At the moment, it is really a case of may the best team, or the luckiest one, win. So is the ICC interested in making cricket a fairer contest or will it remain true to its track record and let contests be swung by non-contestants?

:two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[varun]

screw the traditionalist .... NOT ONE SINGLE one of them has had the moral fortitude to come up with specifics on how the supposedly "human element" is soo precious and how cricket will never be quite interesting once the new system is implemented.

I do recall MM's argument regarding the human element. He argued that why have humans at all, just replace everyone with a bowling machine, batting machine etc. The point that I quoted in my post above addresses that, i.e. "the human element which really matters"

[kilroy]

my stance on this is a little different. what happened in sydney was the doing of 2 biased umpires, especially Bucknor (Benson was up there with him, but this was his 1st time.) I think the decisions made by them were rather deliberate & not genuine mistakes. it would be unfair to make the rest of the honest umpires pay for somebody else's mistakes. What ICC should be doing IMHO, is to give more powers to the 3rd umpire to overturn decisions made by the on field umpires, in case of nicks run-outs stumpings dubious catches & certain LBWs (like ricky's). Also, they should introduce new laws where in umpires could be penalised for an inexcusably bad show.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Anakin]

What sort of logic is the varun ? The umpires are never to be mistaken with players .... they have always been and will always be there to make correct decisions ... if them making incorrect decisions is now being equated to players commiting mistakes at the crease why does ICC engage in this tamasha of Elite Umpires ' date=' Neutral umpires, Third Umpires , then match ref then line calls and boundary calls and then provide a percentage of correct/incorrect decisions and allow for a captain to report against umpires ? Arent the traditionalist being just pedantic and pigheaded ?[/quote']Come on, they think so highly of themselves, let them live in that fantasy.

[fineleg]

Yes, MM has said the "human element" will be affected. This is a great article. It talks abt the human element "that matters" will be improved with the appeals/challenge system. I really really love to hear what MM (and others like CC) have to say to this. This human element umpiring crap has totally ruined the game of cricket. Bollocks to it!

[Ram]

I do recall MM's argument regarding the human element. He argued that why have humans at all, just replace everyone with a bowling machine, batting machine etc. The point that I quoted in my post above addresses that, i.e. "the human element which really matters"

I have said repeatedly said that i am comfortable with umpires influencing the match with their decisions, and sometimes the lack of it. But, in this case, they have not merely influenced the result, they have literally decided it, that is simply unacceptable. And i pity people who label some of us, who call for the continued role of umpiring in cricket as "traditionalists" and all other crap. You are either too dumb, or quite simply dont understand cricket enough to even get what i am talking about. Who cares !

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

^ Look, i have said repeatedly i dont want to engage you on this, yet you keep quoting me on this. I have found your responses either irrelevant, or downright dumb. Either way, i aint gonna respond, so save your energy and dont quote me any further. Keep whining, what you want will never happen, not because there is this big conspiracy against the brown man or something, but people who run this game whats good for the game and what isnt. Its indeed fortunate you have those people dont have a mindset like yours.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[varun]

What sort of logic is the varun ? The umpires are never to be mistaken with players .... they have always been and will always be there to make correct decisions ... if them making incorrect decisions is now being equated to players commiting mistakes at the crease why does ICC engage in this tamasha of Elite Umpires ' date=' Neutral umpires, Third Umpires , then match ref then line calls and boundary calls and then provide a percentage of correct/incorrect decisions and allow for a captain to report against umpires ? Arent the traditionalist being just pedantic and pigheaded ?[/quote'] :hysterical: Abbe kabhi to padh liya kar . Tere saath agree kar raha hoon pichli dono post mein :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

I do recall MM's argument regarding the human element. He argued that why have humans at all, just replace everyone with a bowling machine, batting machine etc. The point that I quoted in my post above addresses that, i.e. "the human element which really matters"

You are too charitable on Bucknor. A lamp post, with a marsupialesque pouch, which cannot see a cow in daylight, cant hear its own fart, has a trigger finger, activated on Aussie drawls, is hardly human.

[varun]

You are too charitable on Bucknor. A lamp post' date=' with a marsupialesque pouch, which cannot see a cow in daylight, cant hear its own fart, has a trigger finger, activated on Aussie drawls, is hardly human.[/quote'] I think everybody lost what I was talking about here. I'm referring to the players as the human element that really matters rather than the umpires which is oft bandied as so.

[fineleg]

If Elite Panel is A$$, then how come we cannot get tech into the game!?

[King]

Media can do squat if the players don't toe the same line. Last time I heard Rahul Dravid (If I remember right) trusted the umpires on field and wanted the technology not in place. I think I read his quote after the England test series. Unless the touring party openly mentions it's high time the technology is involved in decision making not much is going to happen. ICC is not going to change anything for better of the game or for the viewers.

[fineleg]

Media can do squat if the players don't toe the same line. Last time I heard Rahul Dravid (If I remember right) trusted the umpires on field and wanted the technology not in place. I think I read his quote after the England test series. Unless the touring party openly mentions it's high time the technology is involved in decision making not much is going to happen. ICC is not going to change anything for better of the game or for the viewers.

U are right, and I hated RD for this statement. Really hated it. (orange is for varun's sake...i do love varun and his tech skills, so will listen to his advice on red :P)