Of the referral system, etc.

Never used colour in my threads.

OK, now, I've been seeing a lot of posts on the referral system lately, mostly not in support of it. I personally think it's a brilliant idea, but not exactly in the way the ICC have implemented it. The system needs massive adjustments.

Problem Number 1 would probably be the braindead way they use Hawkeye. They're basically making the 3rd umpire do the same thing as the on-field umpires but with different (probably not better) angles and speeds. Hawkeye, IMO, should only be used to the extent it's inside the margin of error, after that the 3rd ump should only convey basic things to the on-field umps like no-balls, or whether it pitched outside the line of the stumps.

Without conclusive evidence to the contrary, the on-field umps decision should be upheld.

So you want to cut out the predictive path element? I agree with this and it was what the experimental regulations said too, but now that we are "all referrals all the time", i.e. out of the trial stages, they have decided to use the predictive path. Blame HawkEye fans - I think the viewers should be able to see the "window of doubt" that shows the statistical margin of error either side.

First thing's first, every ground should get themselves a kid on minimum wage checking every single delivery to see if it's a no-ball. Do it live and there wouldn't even need to be a delay as the on-field ump gets a whisper in his ear 'no ball.'

On hawkeye - what do you trust more, a scientific system based on numerous points of view and a calculated trajectory (correct to 5% of doubt), or an Umpire with two eyes standing front-on who gets tired? Now, for me, an lbw decision should be given on the following basis:

- more than half of the ball should have pitched in line.
- more than half of the ball must be projected to be hitting the stumps (not the bail)

That removes the doubt factor from the equation as hawkeye is rarely so wrong as for the ball to be hitting leg when it would have hit off.

Agree on the no-ball thing. There's a camera trained on the crease exactly for this. I do think that hawkeye is a brilliant predictive tool, but yes it does have a margin of error. It is being utilised well as a guideline with certain criteria that it has to meet. I cannot see how it is being used as a definitive however, due to the evident shortcomings it has.

The trouble is, CA, that you don't actually know how accurate Hawkeye is on any given moment. So it shows it hitting leg - and what if it's wrong on that occasion?

The overturning of some decisions, such as the Ashwell Prince one, because after being given out Hawkeye says it's missing the top by a millimetre, is ridiculous. Who says Hawkeye is right?

The game has never been about such fine margins, it's about the umpire being confident. I don't mind a system to stop horrendous mistakes, but this one overturns things that aren't even necessarily mistakes, and then fails to overturn ones that might well be. It hasn't actually got us any further.

At least decisions are being based on consistency, even if there are odd decisions that are slightly wrong. Hawkeye is more consistent than an umpire. It is unbiased, it doesn't get tired. If something's clipping leg, you don't give it out.

Decisions are being painted as being based on near certainty whereas it's still guesswork. Sure, it doesn't get tired, but nor does it have the understanding of what's a reasonable decision and what isn't. According to Hawkeye, the fact a player has taken a big stride down the track is irrelevant. The fact that it's inside the line but only just is irrelevant. The fact that no umpire could possibly give it out with confidence is irrelevant. The fact that there is doubt all the way down the line doesn't enter into the equation, because the mighty Hawkeye, responsible to no-one, says it was hitting.

Shoeshine wrote:Decisions are being painted as being based on near certainty whereas it's still guesswork. Sure, it doesn't get tired, but nor does it have the understanding of what's a reasonable decision and what isn't. According to Hawkeye, the fact a player has taken a big stride down the track is irrelevant. The fact that it's inside the line but only just is irrelevant. The fact that no umpire could possibly give it out with confidence is irrelevant. The fact that there is doubt all the way down the line doesn't enter into the equation, because the mighty Hawkeye, responsible to no-one, says it was hitting.

The big stride down the wicket is taken into consideration in the referral process. During the Aus v Windies series a not-out decision was not overturned because of the distance the batsman was from the wickets. I think it was more than 2.6 metres.

WideWally wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Decisions are being painted as being based on near certainty whereas it's still guesswork. Sure, it doesn't get tired, but nor does it have the understanding of what's a reasonable decision and what isn't. According to Hawkeye, the fact a player has taken a big stride down the track is irrelevant. The fact that it's inside the line but only just is irrelevant. The fact that no umpire could possibly give it out with confidence is irrelevant. The fact that there is doubt all the way down the line doesn't enter into the equation, because the mighty Hawkeye, responsible to no-one, says it was hitting.

The big stride down the wicket is taken into consideration in the referral process. During the Aus v Windies series a not-out decision was not overturned because of the distance the batsman was from the wickets. I think it was more than 2.6 metres.

You simply can't do that by a measurement. The lbw law has never been about fractions of an inch and certainty within that. It's about whether or not you can be confident in giving it. Using Hawkeye is going to add dubious item on to dubious item, but if Hawkeye says it's hitting, that's what counts ultimately.

The on-field umpire originally gave it not out because of those reasons. The third umpire would not overturn it because of the distance despite the fact that it had the ball projected to hit the stumps.

Had the the on-field umpire given it out, it is also likely that the decision would not have been overturned unless there were other reasons to do so.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:At least decisions are being based on consistency, even if there are odd decisions that are slightly wrong. Hawkeye is more consistent than an umpire. It is unbiased, it doesn't get tired. If something's clipping leg, you don't give it out.

Question: Would Hawkeye have 'predicted' the balls that got Strausser first dig and Amla this afternoon?

Far too much emphasis and dependency is placed on a 2D machine and the man upstairs reading it IMO ...
I still standby the on-field umpire to make all LBW decisions - he stands 25 yards away and is acutely aware of what the ball is doing and how the wicket is playing.
Out of interest, how high up is the Hawkeye camera and are allowances made for that height and the fact it's no less than 80 yards from the pads at any given time of an LBW shout? or is the faith in its ability unquestioned because the technos decree that?

I do however agree with your no-ball scenario though ... perhaps a tiny peep in the on-feld umpires ear when the line's crossed might solve this dilema.... even if the call is made late.
After all, we do want the correct decision don't we ... KP included!

A no ball serves two purposes:
1. A batsman can’t be given out (except run out)
2. A batsman can freely hit the ball without fear of penalty.
Whereas an acoustic beep will take care of the first point, it won’t take care of the second – as long as the front foot no ball rule is in force. There is simply no way a batsman has enough time to react and take full advantage of the rule. Even an umps call, under prevailing rules, doesn’t allow a batsman – 90% of the time – to make full use of it.

I am convinced, however, no matter how flawed the available technology may be (which it really isn’t), it still isn’t as flawed as the ridiculously obvious errors some umpires make on the field. It’s the umpire’s job to rule on an appeal, not to affect the course of the match – or play a role in it, or be influenced by the raucousness of an appeal. Technology has no side-effects.

The batsmen doesn't remotely have time to react to a no-ball as things are now anyway. Absolutely not a prayer of reacting, not even to a spinner. So that's no loss at all by taking that out of the umps hands.

Shoeshine wrote:The batsmen doesn't remotely have time to react to a no-ball as things are now anyway. Absolutely not a prayer of reacting, not even to a spinner. So that's no loss at all by taking that out of the umps hands.

[richie] bring back the back foot rule [richie]

Interesting (unusually for him) suggestion from Jonathan Agnew about this - to allow teams as many reviews as they want, but penalise them 10 or 15 runs if they're wrong - the point being that only absolute howlers such as being given out lbw off a massive edge would be referred, rather than using it tactically. I like.

Bangladesh doth protest to much.

Shoeshine wrote:Interesting (unusually for him) suggestion from Jonathan Agnew about this - to allow teams as many reviews as they want, but penalise them 10 or 15 runs if they're wrong - the point being that only absolute howlers such as being given out lbw off a massive edge would be referred, rather than using it tactically. I like.

Or, as I've mentioned before, just one review per team.

Better make it count - don't waste it on some frivolous punt.

Dello wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Interesting (unusually for him) suggestion from Jonathan Agnew about this - to allow teams as many reviews as they want, but penalise them 10 or 15 runs if they're wrong - the point being that only absolute howlers such as being given out lbw off a massive edge would be referred, rather than using it tactically. I like.

Or, as I've mentioned before, just one review per team.

Better make it count - don't waste it on some frivolous punt.

You'd still get it used tactically though. Especially towards the end of an innings, like with the ridiculous (but entirely understandable given the circumstances) ones England used for Broad and Swann on the final evening of the first Test. One of those would still have gone for referral despite being plainly out.

Playing devil's advocate- how many duff decisions were actually made in the end? I make all 18 of the 19 dismissals genuinely out and the only one that wasn't was a missed no-ball with KP in the first innings.

No blatant nicks were missed and as far as I gathered for the most part only marginal LBs were turned down.

Random and inherently flawed it might seem but it seems to be doing a job...

Eric Air Emu wrote:Playing devil's advocate- how many duff decisions were actually made in the end? I make all 18 of the 19 dismissals genuinely out and the only one that wasn't was a missed no-ball with KP in the first innings.

No blatant nicks were missed and as far as I gathered for the most part only marginal LBs were turned down.

Random and inherently flawed it might seem but it seems to be doing a job...

Isn't that precisely the point? No horror decisions, so the review system wasn't actually needed - yet both sides still pretty much used them up in an attempt to gain an advantage. The Ashwell Prince decision that was overturned was a perfectly reasonable call, but Hawkeye ruled it was fractionally missing, so it was changed. But no-one would have regarded that as an error.

Actually Broad was given out correctly after the Saffies appealed and I believe Prince was reprieved also correctly in the 1st innings on appeal.

So if you then say there were 3 incorrect on field umpire decisions (including the KP one)- the video appeal reduced the final incorrect decision total by 2/3. Sure there was plenty of kerfuffle and a bit of bad feeling caused but I think the inconvenient truth is that even if poorly used, the video referral system will cut down on the duff decisions.

Personally I think bad decisions are part of the "fun" of the game and it's not healthy for lower reaches of the game to see umpires so obviously undermined at the top level. Cricket's a serious business now though and bad umpiring decisions can no longer be treated as an interesting quirk of the game and must be eliminated because Ian Botham says so.

The issue with the Broad one is that there were plenty of reasons for doubt when viewed live. Sure, looked at closely it was out, but I don't blame the umpire for giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman - a concept that seems to have vanished recently.

I don't regard the Prince "dismissal" as being necessarily wrong. Hawkeye showed it marginally missing the top of the stumps. So what? Looked out, might well have been out. Hardly a plainly wrong decision unless you imbue Hawkeye with being perfect and definitely correct. Interesting to note as an aside that Prince doesn't like the system.

The Pietersen one was only wrong because the review system doesn't take no balls into account. So the system actually fell flat on its face there. No referral system, no problem. Having a referral system makes it wrong because it plainly failed to cater for a no ball.

I don't like the referral system full stop. I don't like the way Hawkeye is viewed as infallible, but above all I really, really hate the way players are effectively encouraged to voice dissent to the umpire - only for everyone to then recoil with shock when a player shows even more dissent to the umpire.

Athers keeps his unhappiness with the system rather under wraps when he's commentating for Sky....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/mike_atherton/article6966851.ece

Anyone else think that the umpires are more prepared to give marginal LBW decisions knowing that it can be overturned on appeal if they get it wrong?

I seem to recall posting some months ago that we will see more LBW's with the referral system.