DRS - Umpire Psychology? ~ ~ and the fairest system is ... ?

On ol' TMS, the point was put (by Boycott especially) that it wouldn't solve any irregularities in DRS if the power of referral were put back in the umps' hands (*ump in doubt makes TV sign*).

Reasoning: Turkeys do not vote for Christmas - given back the authority of referral, most umps would tend to refer as little as possible because doing so might show them up more, undermine their standing (and perhaps suggest they are weak as well as increasingly fallible).

Sounds plausible enough.


And then it struck me:

On the same reasoning, most umps will give controversial cases to the side WITH referrals left, against the side with NO referrals left. Much better the risk of being more or less clearly indicated to have got it wrong by (unofficial) TV, than publicly "proved" wrong by an overturned decision.


So what IS the fairest, least prejudicial system?

The bottom line is that the umps will abdicate.

None even give routine run outs any more

Give each team 1 refferal each per innings, but also give the Umpire the option of referring anything he wants if he's not sure. Make it a form of dissent if the players ask an Umpire to refer something.

Henry wrote:Give each team 1 refferal each per innings, but also give the Umpire the option of referring anything he wants if he's not sure. Make it a form of dissent if the players ask an Umpire to refer something.

BS.

The system was brought in because umpires fark up

Call me old fashioned, but the old system when you accepted the umpire's decision seemed to work well. Admittedly with a few notable exceptions, though only if your last name was Grace or Bradman.

One of the problems with the referral system is that teams lose a challenge when the decision is borderline. It's fair enough that they lose it when they make frivolous appeals but for eg. the challenge against Trott which was actually hitting the stumps and the caught behind against Clarke which was inconclusive meant that captains lost valuable appeal rights.

It seemed a bit anomalous in view of this that Hussey could overturn a decision against him which wasn't a howler and batsmen have been accepting for years, yet England wasn't allowed to challeng an obvious howler. This wasn't what the DRS was introduced for.

In the case of the Hussey decision, Dar allegedly thought he heard two noises. That would be the perfect situation for an umpire to go upstairs on the ground that he wasn't sure. It would provide fairness all-round without making the umpire look foolish.

It seemed that he wasn't prepared to let Hussey challenge him again and possibly make him look silly knowing that England couldn't invoke the technology support.

You could perhaps give each team three, instead of two, to eliminate the unfairness when the lose one because it's borderline or inconclusive.

Crappy tits Red

Give each team three unsuccessful challenges, sure. Then when a few teams have used up three challenges for no good reason, the clamour will start for four for each team...

Personally, I could live with three challenges per team per innings, provided umpires weren't allowed to go upstairs under any circumstances. I think that might underscore how 'precious' they are, instead of something to be pissed away as they are at present.

Why don't we just review every decision. Then we won't need umpires

That's not what I'm saying taips, and you know it.

FFS Zatty, as much as I hate to use the dreaded NSR word.

It's hard to tell with you Jaapanese.

What you see is what you get

taipan wrote:Crappy tits Red

AB's chick - saffer women don't rate!

Never said that, but never mind, I'll let you work it out

Said it before - both teams should have one challenge. Gets rid of the frivilous appeal there and then.

But it's a bollocks system anyway. Dependent on the host broadcaster and their honesty/competence. How long before that's called into question when a certain replay isn't available to a certain sub-continental team that might've overturned some dubious whinge-worthy nugget of cricketing minutiae or other - aeroplane gassed and ready to roll.

If the game continues to worship at the altar of hawkeye and hotspot, if they are, as appears to be the case, the final word on decisions, then surely they're of equal importance as the umpires and, equally, should be operated by neutral broadcasters, no?

I mean, taking this muddled system to it's logical conclusion.

Personally ...I'd like the sytem better if the umpire called for the review ...or if all "out" decisions are reviewed ...

If the teams keep the challenge then a "non decision" should not count as a used challenge...and a team's challenges should be refreshed after 80 overs

embee wrote:Personally ...I'd like the sytem better if the umpire called for the review ...or if all "out" decisions are reviewed ...

If the teams keep the challenge then a "non decision" should not count as a used challenge...and a team's challenges should be refreshed after 80 overs

I think it's unbalanced to give the batting and fielding sides the same number of challenges per innings. The batting side only has to consider challenging when a batsman is given out (a rare occurrence), whereas the fielding side has to to consider challenging on every close appeal. I'd be happy to see the fielding team's challenges refreshed after 80 overs.

The current system isn't perfect, although I think it has reduced the amount of howlers. Some still get through the cracks, but that's life.

What if we allowed the third umpire to review every decision... without holding up play in the meantime?

IE. When the on-field umpire makes a decision play continues as normal. Meanwhile, the third umpire has a second look at it. If the decision is clearly wrong he raises the red flag and the decision is overturned.

Now, here's the hairy bit. Two balls may pass while the third umpire is reviewing the decision or a new batsman may have already come to the crease.

So what? If the decision was clearly wrong then send word down that the batsman has to go. Justice will be done... albeit two balls late.

If a batsman is already back in the pavillion allow him to return at the fall of the next wicket. It's not ideal having your innings interrupted by a bad decision - but it's better for it to be interrupted than terminated!

The idea is to let the umpires umpire, bad decisions and all, while still taking steps to ensure those bad decisions aren't permanent.

The current system works ok for me - provided that a total dickwad like Harper isn't third umpire.

Crikey, Hass, called out so go out but not out so go in again. You really will confuse the yanks.

I'm feel that if technology is there and we use it we should use it for everything or decide the umps decision is final and leave it at that. It's the half and half situation we're in at the moment that causes the most problems.

If we decide to use the technology available I think the umpires should ask the question if they are not sure not the players, there should be no shame in saying I'm not sure for them, it becomes a tool they can use to help make decisions not something to beat them up with.

eowyn wrote:If we decide to use the technology available I think the umpires should ask the question if they are not sure not the players, there should be no shame in saying I'm not sure for them, it becomes a tool they can use to help make decisions not something to beat them up with.

Sounds sensible

eowyn wrote:
If we decide to use the technology available I think the umpires should ask the question if they are not sure not the players, there should be no shame in saying I'm not sure for them, it becomes a tool they can use to help make decisions not something to beat them up with.

But, as someone earlier said, then they'd refer everything, just to be safe, like they now do with run-outs and stumpings.

In which case there'd be no need for on-field umpires. Just a couple of hatstands.

I'd rather see a hatstand than Billy Bowden in the middle.

Dello wrote:

eowyn wrote:
If we decide to use the technology available I think the umpires should ask the question if they are not sure not the players, there should be no shame in saying I'm not sure for them, it becomes a tool they can use to help make decisions not something to beat them up with.

But, as someone earlier said, then they'd refer everything, just to be safe, like they now do with run-outs and stumpings.

In which case there'd be no need for on-field umpires. Just a couple of hatstands.

In which case use umps with no technology or use your hatstands