A sensible third umpire rule is a must

How can anyone seriously tell me the game of cricket is better because Sangakarra got sawn off today? When millions of viewers around the world knew before he was halfway off the field that he had been given out wrongly? When 30 seconds of viewing replays would have sufficed for the third ump to recall him?

It didn't affect the outcome of a match, and I'm not suggesting that. But the bloke played brilliantly, and deserved a double ton for his efforts. It makes a mockery of the great game of test cricket when one of the best bats in the world, having played one of the best innings I've seen, is left to walk off when before the player even crosses with his replacement, everyone watching knows he shouldn't have been given out.

The rule needs to be sensible: a limited number of appeals, and a limited time for the 3rd ump to review the on field umpire's decision; but it can and should be introduced.

FFS, sooking about umpiring is about as gay as it comes.

the icc is around 20 years behind the times. took them a while to use replays for line decisions, then for catches. i am sure we will (and should) see the 3rd ump getting more powers pretty soon. its a farce as it stands, the game is about the players, not men in white coats (or black as the case may be)

It is about getting the right decisions not about upholding so called traditions. Anything to help that is welcome.

Zim - try not to be a git.

Invader Zim wrote:FFS, sooking about umpiring is about as gay as it comes.

Absolutely, I reckon it's on a par with ignoring a players great career and bleating like a girl because said player happened to string a sentence together that in the heat of the moment happened to contain a few nasty words.

I think the point is that if the technology is available to get the decisions right, it must be used.

As things stand it is the umpires who are being made to look total idiots.

I thought exactly the same thing when I was watching Sanga get sawn off.

The sooner the ICC introduces a rule that gives teams a limited number of correct challenges the better.

Which piece of tv footage confirmed that Sanga got sawn off?

The hot spot (or lack of it) ....

or the super slo mo of the ball passing the bat ...

or "snicko ...?

How many Test countries use these in their tv coverage of games?

Yes , he got sawn off ...the ICC would have to make sure the technology is at every Test ...

The umpires make less mistakes than the players

embee wrote:
The umpires make less mistakes than the players

If a player makes a mistake there is no chance of it ending an umpires career.

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:
The umpires make less mistakes than the players

If a player makes a mistake there is no chance of it ending an umpires career.

After posting this, I remembered Inzi and Hair.

A 'sensible third umpire' rule could have grave repercussions for Billy Bowden's career.

taipan wrote:

taipan wrote:

embee wrote:
The umpires make less mistakes than the players

If a player makes a mistake there is no chance of it ending an umpires career.

After posting this, I remembered Inzi and Hair.

snigger ...


...and arjuna and emerson

embee wrote:Which piece of tv footage confirmed that Sanga got sawn off?

The hot spot (or lack of it) ....

or the super slo mo of the ball passing the bat ...

or "snicko ...?

How many Test countries use these in their tv coverage of games?

Yes , he got sawn off ...the ICC would have to make sure the technology is at every Test ...

The umpires make less mistakes than the players

I don't know why the technology would have to be available at every test. Currently we don't have light towers at every test ground.

Better, let's ban snicko, hawkeye and super slow replays. Show it real time with perhaps some freeze frame, and then see how many umpiring errors we complain about.

Leo wrote:Zim - try not to be a git.

That would be difficult in the extreme.

Leo -

Whilst agreeing in principle with your original post, my question would be - at which point, and for what particular decision would the onfield umpires call for the 3rd umps (techno) clarification?

If that's the route sought, then surely ALL decisions should then be taken to referrals - not just selective appeals which are deemed to be considered (by onfield umps) as borderline. And who then decides 'borderline' ?
A selective process would, ultimately run into a brick wall should the Umpires then decide NOT to refer a particular appeal, and once again, questions would be raised on the judgement of onfield umpires determining which appeals are close enough to refer and which aren't.
It's human nature to point the finger!

Therefore - QED, if it is then agreed to refer ALL decisions to the 3rd Umpire, whether close calls or not - pray tell, what need would there be for onfield umpires, save as abacusses and boundary signallers ?

It was tough on Sangakarra certainly - but post match he seemed perfectly relaxed about the error and gracefully accepted Rudi's apology; the match result would have not, ultimately, been affected and cricket's integrity remained in tact.

Take that "no" try in the last Rugby World Cup .... was the foot a millimeter's width into touch or wasn't it?
Who knows ... but if the try had been given, not one player nor fan would have queried it, the game will have continued and I'll wager the Final would have been a damned sight more exciting than it turned out to be.

It's not about the men in white coats and slo-mos from 50 different angles - it's about humans indulging in sporting activity that they happen to love, whatever that sport happens to be.

The moment the appliance of science is attached to the nuances of said sport with an absolute and irrevocable hold - we become the prisoners of precision-mad mechanical robots and that sporting nuance and mystery is lost.

tac wrote:Better, let's ban snicko, hawkeye and super slow replays. Show it real time with perhaps some freeze frame, and then see how many umpiring errors we complain about.

yes. and ban televisions and make sure everyone goes to the ground instead. that should make things right

the game is about batsmen, bowlers and fielders. dont care if the ump is carbon or silicon based as long as the correct decision is made as many times as possible

The One wrote:

tac wrote:Better, let's ban snicko, hawkeye and super slow replays. Show it real time with perhaps some freeze frame, and then see how many umpiring errors we complain about.

yes. and ban televisions and make sure everyone goes to the ground instead. that should make things right

the game is about batsmen, bowlers and fielders. dont care if the ump is carbon or silicon based as long as the correct decision is made as many times as possible

The game is best seen as an aesthetic whole . . . the overkill by commentators on each decision (correct or not) kills much of the joy I find in the game as do 3rd umpire referrals.

tac wrote:
The game is best seen as an aesthetic whole . . . the overkill by commentators on each decision (correct or not) kills much of the joy I find in the game as do 3rd umpire referrals.

Fair comment tac, however at the moment we are being a little bit pregnant.

Either we go the full hog with technology or we ban it entirely.

taipan wrote:

tac wrote:
The game is best seen as an aesthetic whole . . . the overkill by commentators on each decision (correct or not) kills much of the joy I find in the game as do 3rd umpire referrals.

Fair comment tac, however at the moment we are being a little bit pregnant.

Either we go the full hog with technology or we ban it entirely.

And the driving force behind this is the use (I say, overuse) of technology in the commentary box.

Merlin.

Leo's plan doesn't call for the on-field umpires to seek clarification.

It would involve players directly challenging an umpire's decision.

It would work in a similar way to the system in tennis. Each team would get something like two challenges a session.

Each side could challenge any decision they felt like. If they got it right they'd still have two challenges remaining. If they got it wrong they'd lose a challenge and only have one remaining.

If they got another challenge wrong they wouldn't have any remaining. So you could only challenge if you truly thought you'd been hard done by, not just out of frivolous hope.

It's all too sensible really.

Agree with Hass there.

Sounds like a good system of challenging on-field umpires' decisions.

The 3rd umpire was given a trial here last year with the proviso that the 3rd ump could only change the decision if it was a clear error.

And it was a farce because on every decision, even though the commentators agreed that some were debatable - the 3rd ump just backed the standing umpire all the time.

It was a bloody conspiracy I tell thee....

tac wrote:

The One wrote:

tac wrote:Better, let's ban snicko, hawkeye and super slow replays. Show it real time with perhaps some freeze frame, and then see how many umpiring errors we complain about.

yes. and ban televisions and make sure everyone goes to the ground instead. that should make things right

the game is about batsmen, bowlers and fielders. dont care if the ump is carbon or silicon based as long as the correct decision is made as many times as possible

The game is best seen as an aesthetic whole . . . the overkill by commentators on each decision (correct or not) kills much of the joy I find in the game as do 3rd umpire referrals.

lesser of two evils imo. a bad decision at a crucial time kills the game a lot more for me

JKLever wrote:The 3rd umpire was given a trial here last year with the proviso that the 3rd ump could only change the decision if it was a clear error.

And it was a farce because on every decision, even though the commentators agreed that some were debatable - the 3rd ump just backed the standing umpire all the time.

It was a bloody conspiracy I tell thee....

An interesting way to get around that might be to adopt the NFL's way of doing things.

They have a challenge rule, but the on-field referee actually reviews the decision himself (by looking at a screen on the sideline). They tend to be more willing to overturn their own decisions because they might see something on the replay which changes their opinion.

They also know that being stubborn won't get them anywhere. If it looks like they've got it wrong they know it's in their interest to get it right. People might forgive you for getting it wrong when you only have a split second, but they won't forgive you when you've been able to have a second look at it in slow motion.

Perhaps we could give on-field umpires hand-held monitors that double up as their notebook and ball counter?