Referral System - who's seen it in action then?

OK, there were a couple of referrals in the Ind/SrL match yesterday, who saw them?

Thee's no broadcast to Aus, so I have to go off cricifno's coverage which seems to suggest that the ICC has taken something potentially simple and screwed it right up.

Dilshan had made just 1 when Zaheer Khan slanted one across his bat. There was a big plume of dust as the ball passed over the top edge of the bat, and a sound as well. As the Indians appealed, Mark Benson thought for a moment and then raised his finger. The celebrations had already begun by the time the Indians suddenly realised that Dilshan had no intention of leaving the crease.

As Benson signalled for the replay, all eyes turned to the TV screens. Replay followed replay, yet no one could be absolutely sure whether there had been the thinnest of edges, or if the sound heard was merely bat striking ground...

With Rudi Koertzen, the third umpire, as undecided as anyone watching, Benson, who had no access to the replays, had little option but to change the decision.

To make the video referral system fair (note - not to make it work properly, that's impossible with 2D replays of 3D events) surely it should be the replay has to show conclusive video evidence to overturn the decision.

if crocinfo is right ....that is rather depressing news...agree benson's initial decison should stand...may have prompted a SL declaration too if the decision stood and made the game more interesting

Saw the first one, where Kumble seemed to just want to test it. LBW appeal, checked for a no-ball, checked to see whether it hit the bat, showed where the ball pitched, where it hit the pads, inconclusive and so the umpire's decision stood.

And I totally agree, if it doesn't definitely prove otherwise, the field umnpire's decision should stand.

The ICC should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Or maybe the second.

Zat wrote:

To make the video referral system fair (note - not to make it work properly, that's impossible with 2D replays of 3D events) surely it should be the replay has to show conclusive video evidence to overturn the decision.

Totally agree - that's how the system was in England when they trialled it. You had to prove that the umpire had conclusively made an error and if you couldn't the decision stood.

Doesn't sound right the way they are doing it at all.

Zat wrote:The BCCI should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Or maybe the second.

Fixed

I thought Mickey Arthur and Andre Nel were the first to request to use the referral system to overturn a correct decision, not a Sri Lankan.

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:The BCCI should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Or maybe the second.

Fixed

Careful taips, you'll upset a couple of cubi sunts. They'll say you're obsessed. (The stupid pillocks.)

Gary 111 wrote:I thought Mickey Arthur and Andre Nel were the first to request to use the referral system to overturn a correct decision, not a Sri Lankan.

Still sooking after all these years days

JKLever wrote:

Zat wrote:

To make the video referral system fair (note - not to make it work properly, that's impossible with 2D replays of 3D events) surely it should be the replay has to show conclusive video evidence to overturn the decision.

Totally agree - that's how the system was in England when they trialled it. You had to prove that the umpire had conclusively made an error and if you couldn't the decision stood.

Doesn't sound right the way they are doing it at all.

I haven't seen it JKL, so I live in hope that cricinfo's report isn't clear, or has made a booboo, after all, cricket authorities couldn't stuff up something so simple.


I'll get me coat.

Zat wrote:

JKLever wrote:

Zat wrote:

To make the video referral system fair (note - not to make it work properly, that's impossible with 2D replays of 3D events) surely it should be the replay has to show conclusive video evidence to overturn the decision.

Totally agree - that's how the system was in England when they trialled it. You had to prove that the umpire had conclusively made an error and if you couldn't the decision stood.

Doesn't sound right the way they are doing it at all.

I haven't seen it JKL, so I live in hope that cricinfo's report isn't clear, or has made a booboo, after all, cricket authorities couldn't stuff up something so simple.


I'll get me coat.

I can see it causing chaos with the caught behind decisions.

There are lots of time you are given out as a batsman and know you haven't hit it. But how can a 2D replay prove that a batsman definitely didn't hit it? Rarely is there a massive gap between bat and ball.

Then batsmen who get a very thin edge might start hanging around just to try their luck too.

And the umpire's authority is further eroded all the while...

Is it purely video that the 3rd umpire has at his disposal?
No Hot-spots, snickos, hawkeyes, stump mikes, wiz-wizzes, timtams or flimflots?

I think it's good. I didn't catch the Dilshan referral live, but later on when the commentators were mentioning it, didn't seem they thought it too controversial. Could be wrong as I was too depressed to see the discussion on TV after stumps.

With snicko, and hopefully they're using it as they said in that article thingy, the caught behind decisions should be clear 9 times out of 10.

Although if you want to be pedantic (and I do) you could argue that snicko doesn't prove that the batsman didn't hit it, only that it didn't make a noise...

The referral system will be very useful on the inside edge onto pads that are often given out LBW. This is often very difficult to detect with the naked eye, but with slow motion replays it becomes obvious.

Hopefully the system will be 'refined' following this series.

Somebody at the ICC should watch some NFL games and see how they do it with the video replays. It works there, FFS. And they're Seppos...

So, what do we think about it so far?

Don't think much more or less of it. It wasn't on offer in Aus over summer.

Why is it being offered to some and not others?

It's not universal yet - this is the first series that England have been involved in where it has been employed.

I believe it'll be used for the Aus matches in Jaapan.

[This is Rachel]

There are basically three sets of ultra demanding fans:

1. Indians. They had the first trial, back in July, and it seemed to go ok, bar some teething troubles.

2. English. Happening now.

3. Australians. Happening when they tour South Africa shortly.

Once these three groups have had a chance to rip into it (i.e. when its their team that is on the wrong end of an overturned decision), we'll see whether the system is any good or not. My guess is that it will take a while to bed down, but that if it is allowed to do so, it will simply blend into the scenery, like going to the third umpire for Run outs. Wasn't so long ago that they only did this for close ones - now it is rare to see anything but the very most obvious cases where the batsman is yards out being given on the field (although personally I think this is A Bad Thing).

The measure of success will be in a couple of years' time, all being well, when fora like this one let whole series pass them by without a single mention of an umpiring 'howler'.

[This is Rachel]

Demelza,

See my comment on the Eng WI match thread about the system being experimental. If you went to the I.C.C. website as I suggested, you could read all about which series it was being used in. The plan is to let every Test-playing nation trial it in as short a time as possible, then get I.C.C.'s Cricket Committee to consider the feedback from the teams and umpires.

Eric Air Emu wrote:Once these three groups have had a chance to rip into it (i.e. when its their team that is on the wrong end of an overturned decision), we'll see whether the system is any good or not.

So they're burying it on Aus matches in the middle of our night. Good move. Gotta love those qunts at the ICC.

[This is Rachel]

Zat,

Oh please. You're a nation of sports obsessives (your popular culture even references cricket - we have nothing like that in the UK). Like you won't be pointing out all the faults of the system in the finest detail even though it's on in the middle of the night? We'll hear nothing else for weeks!

I'll watch some of it, sure, but there are a whole host of casual sports fans who won't see it due to time difference, and because the tour is only available via pay TV here. I can't see why it wasn't trialled in Australia, in the flesh, in front of the biggest live crowds the game has to offer.