Umpires changing their decisions after seeing the replay

It happened again today when Michael Clarke was told not to walk off because the replay showed that he might not have actually been stumped. Umpire Shastri then felt obliged to belatedly call for the third umpire, even though his initial decision turned out to be correct.

A line needs to be drawn. Actually, players appealing to Umpires based on the big screen replay should be considered dissent. Does this mean that batsmen will hang around if they get given out LBW and the replay shows that they have edged it? It could get out of hand.

Todays incident was about the third time in 3 months that something like this has happened, and it needs to be stopped.

F**king Ravi Shastri, thinks he can do 10 things at once. There's 1 billion Indians and most of them are out of work because Shastri is hoarding all the jobs.

wgaf - as long as the right decision is made.

Ash wrote:wgaf - as long as the right decision is made.

Why have Umpires then? Lets have all decisions decided by the big screen, shall we?

Gary 111 wrote:F**king Ravi Shastri, thinks he can do 10 things at once. There's 1 billion Indians and most of them are out of work because Shastri is hoarding all the jobs.

Aye, he's a right barsteward ... and gobby with it.

Perhaps this is just an inevitable consequence of even mooting the merits of allowing batsmen and captains to appeal against the umpires' decisions?? ... it's the thin end of the wedge. Just get decent umpires, review their decision-making abilities regularly, and send those who make an unacceptable number of OBVIOUSLY incorrect decisions back to a lower level (at lower pay).

Cruel but fair.

And get rid of Asoka deSilva.

Asoka is at the nadir of the calibration scale, and - as such - is indispensible to any performance review process.

'Rudy, you're only functioning at 1.3 Asokas ... this is your final warning'.

lardbucket wrote:Perhaps this is just an inevitable consequence of even mooting the merits of allowing batsmen and captains to appeal against the umpires' decisions?? ... it's the thin end of the wedge. Just get decent umpires, review their decision-making abilities regularly, and send those who make an unacceptable number of OBVIOUSLY incorrect decisions back to a lower level (at lower pay).

Cruel but fair.

Exactly.

For all this stuff about technology supposedly advancing things, not all sports have gone down this route. Baseball doesn't allow technology to interfere, it's all down to the men on the field.

Trev's comments above are worth a revisit after the recent decision given by the man in the middle against Ganguly, and essentially overturned by Ganguly.

ICC to decide on umpire referral trials

Cricinfo staff

May 6, 2008

The ICC cricket committee, whose two-day meeting in Dubai finished today, has recommended that trials of umpire review systems be approved by the full ICC board when it meets in July.

The move was given approval in March and involves greater use of technology and the ability for teams to refer a maximum of three decisions to the third umpire. A similar experiment was tried in English domestic one-day cricket last season but was widely considered unsuccessful.

The committee recommended that players "should be permitted to ask the on-field umpire to review any aspect of any other decision in consultation with the third umpire", and that Hawk-Eye should be used - but only to determine the path of the ball, up to the point that it struck the batsman.


In addition, the committee cast its eye over a number of playing conditions, notably the so-called "comfort break" which fielding teams increasingly use. It was the committee's recommendation that substitute fielders "should only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons". The three other suggested changes to the playing conditions were:



In ODIs, the timing of one Powerplay should be decided by the batting side and three fielders should be permitted outside the fielding restriction circles for both the second and third Powerplays


The on-field umpires should be permitted to consult the third umpire as to whether a catch has been taken cleanly before making the final decision themselves


The bowl-out in the event of a tie in the ICC World Twenty20 or Champions Trophy should be replaced by a one-over-per-team play-off

The committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the chief executive's committee for approval, although that is no guarantee that they will be accepted as several made in 2007 were rejected out of hand.


The committee also held a lengthy debate on cricket's rapidly changing landscape, "in light of the fact that there are now three viable forms of the game at international level (Tests, ODIs and Twenty20 Internationals)". While accepting the one-dayers and Twenty20s have earned their place, the group identified Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport "and expressed the need for the best available participants (players, umpires, referees etc) to be involved in international cricket".

It also recommended the ICC considers a Test league, or periodic play-off for the top two sides in the Test Championship.


The group was chaired by Sunil Gavaskar and included Mark Taylor, the former Australia captain; South Africa's coach, Mickey Arthur and Michael Holding, the former West Indies fast bowler. Other notable attendees were Simon Taufel, the Australian umpire; Steve Tikolo, the Kenya captain and Tim May, the chief executive of the players' representative body, FICA.

© Cricinfo

There was no decision made against Ganguly in that incident.

Also, a better use for Hawkeye would be if the ball hits areas where even with the assumed maximum error of the device, the ball still is hitting the stumps, be given out, and the on-field umpires decision should be upheld in the 'grey areas' as far as hawkeye is concerned.

While accepting the one-dayers and Twenty20s have earned their place, the group identified Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport "and expressed the need for the best available participants (players, umpires, referees etc) to be involved in international cricket".

Great resolution. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Does lardy log on and start at page 30 of the forum?

October 2nd, eh. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.....

A few months ago I logged on to C4 and went to the very last page. Found some posts of mine from August 2006. I was in Europe at the time and sent a couple of posts from an internet cafe in Florence.

skully wrote:Does lardy log on and start at page 30 of the forum?

Read the current threads, then (if very bored) I have a look at the halfway point of the forum to see what's changed. At the moment it's around page 24. Occasionally if I'm REALLY bored I split the remaining pages and see what was happening and being said one forum half-life earlier ...

Well, it certainly serves to throw people's gyroscopes out of whack, old bean. Well done.

Baseball doesn't allow technology to interfere, it's all down to the men on the field.

More importantly, the networks covering games seem to have a "leave it alone & get on with the game" attitude. They don't rely on controverssssy to supplement the "colour" they can add to the action with their own positive observations and skills as communicators.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Baseball doesn't allow technology to interfere, it's all down to the men on the field.

More importantly, the networks covering games seem to have a "leave it alone & get on with the game" attitude. They don't rely on controverssssy to supplement the "colour" they can add to the action with their own positive observations and skills as communicators.

Indeed . . . they allow for the fact that different homeplate umpires have different strike zones, and are concerned with consistency of the calls rather than if the ball was clipping homeplate or not . . .

I think there should be some kind of squiggle/character on players' statistics acknowledging wrong umpiring decisions. I wonder who would have the most?

Bring in three 'incorrect' challenges per innings, but remove all other referrals to the video umpire.

"Todays incident was about the third time in 3 months that something like this has happened, and it needs to be stopped."


Fk, why?

If an umpire isn't sure then it is great that he has the humility to wait for a replay. Everyone wants more correct decisions.

Would have been nice if Dar had done this today.

And let them use ALL available technology, including the blue line.

OP Tipping wrote:Would have been nice if Dar had done this today.

But under the rules as they stand, he's not allowed to.

Demelza wrote:And let them use ALL available technology, including the blue line.

Don't see any justification for that TBH.

I've seen Hawk Eye lines that have clearly been wrong.

I'd rather it was still human error on a wrong decision than technology error.