A sensible third umpire rule is a must

The One wrote:

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

Hass wrote: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.

Merlin wrote:

Hass wrote: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.

Okay, seems both feasible and applicable.

However NOT 2 challenges a session please !! We could be then watching a 7 day Test match!
Two per Innings perhaps - ie., 8 per team in total over 5 days = 16 challenges!!
Jeez ... I pay to watch free flowing cricket ... not an interruption every now and again to witness challenges !!

And who is to say that, not having used the challenges, a team does so with their bottom 3 batsmen as a time waster to ensure bad light, a draw, tactical delay ... whatever.

My point is - WHO determines all this?

The players or the Umpires?

And if your answer is "the players" - then who is going to run the bloody game?
Impotent umpires who have been gelded in order to appease those who highlight a couple of minor erros - albeit human, and thus forgivable, as being so despicable as to open up the "challenge" debate.

Sorry Hass, I prefer human to android/robotic reaction.
Challenges? Phurt ... that's best kept to football and tennis!

Sangakarra's grace in forgiving Koersten ought to be the guideline ... not the hysterical fans who want change for change's sake.

Merlin wrote:Sangakarra's grace in forgiving Koersten ought to be the guideline ... not the hysterical fans who want change for change's sake.

Henry wrote:Didnt they try the appeal system in England this last season, but the third umpires refused to correct the decision of the on field umpires?

Wtf was that? Couldnt someone of importance have told the third umpires to buck up and do their job or else face the sack?

taipan wrote:

Merlin wrote:Sangakarra's grace in forgiving Koersten ought to be the guideline ... not the hysterical fans who want change for change's sake.

Some of us have been saying for some time that if the technology is available, use it, for some time.

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Merlin wrote:Sangakarra's grace in forgiving Koersten ought to be the guideline ... not the hysterical fans who want change for change's sake.

Some of us have been saying for some time that if the technology is available, use it, for some time.

For my sins, I'm not in that category - hence my reservations to go overboard with the techno.
It would be the thin end of the wedge IMHO with an end result that could ultimately ruin the overall pleasure of the game for both players and supporters.

Use some technology by all means - but at the same time, don't castrate the umpire's presence and authority whilst doing so.

Leo wrote:Personally, I would argue not only for a limited number of challenges, but for a limited 'review' period - no more than 90 seconds, say.

IMHO, the first two slo-mo replays showed beyond any reasonable doubt that Sanga had been given out wrongly. I wouldn't use hotspot, hawk-eye etc - just slow it down, and take a second look. We don't need to go crazy with this - marginal decisions can stand, arguing about them is part of the fun for hardcore fans (I think). But howlers like this one today, where everyone from all sides agrees it was wrong, can and should be reversed with minimal disruption to the game.

taipan wrote:

The point is that the umpires are already castrated. Look at the throwing furore. At the moment the umpires are made to look like twits because of the large screens at the ground.

IMHO you must use all the techno available or none of it.

I am sure the players would enjoy it more if they knew the correct decisions have been made. Ditto the spectators.

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

The point is that the umpires are already castrated. Look at the throwing furore. At the moment the umpires are made to look like twits because of the large screens at the ground.

IMHO you must use all the techno available or none of it.

I am sure the players would enjoy it more if they knew the correct decisions have been made. Ditto the spectators.

The throwing furore was created and supported by the inept intervention of the ICC.

They used techno to determine (Murali's) action, arm bend, arm straightening etc., and still came up with a cocked-up mish-mash of a decision that continues to cast serious doubt (on Murali).

IMHO - if it looks like a blatant chuck, the umpire calls it. Bringing geometry and politics into the equation, endorsed by a bunch of impotent money-grubbing leeches, just makes a mockery of the game.

Other decisions cannot be likened to the throwing furore.
They happen in an instant. Stop-starting a game to ensure that a micromillimeter decision is the "correct" one, again, IMO, takes the piss and spoils the continuity and enjoyment of the game.

It's an opinion - that's all.
Frankly, I do see techno taking over eventually on all so-called marginal decisions.
A sad day for cricket....

taipan wrote:

The way I understand the throwing rule is that the umpires cannot call it, only refer to the match referee.

The pause between deliveries allows for a quick look. We already have it for boundary decisions FFS. What is more important, a wicket ot an extra run?

It's sad that the correct decisions will be made?

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

The way I understand the throwing rule is that the umpires cannot call it, only refer to the match referee.

The pause between deliveries allows for a quick look. We already have it for boundary decisions FFS. What is more important, a wicket ot an extra run?

It's sad that the correct decisions will be made?

Practice what you preach taips.

You eulogise about getting "the right decision made through techno" - yet you (as I do) and several others on here, continue to rubbish Murali's action. His action was "technoed" to the nth degree ... several times .... AND PASSED !

So what's it to be?

I'm not splitting hairs re. boundaries vs an extra wicket ... you miss the point.

What I am saying is that techno could be taken to extremes once the floodgates open and thus ruin a free flowing game irrevocably. Once there, there's no turning back!

Common sense should prevail in most cases - however, ON THE RARE occasion when an umpire is uncertain - then, by all means, consult the 3rd umpire and TV slo-mos - BUT, not consult all the gimmickery that currently exists like snicko, hot spot etc (as Leo stresses) which are purely there for spectator entertainment .

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

The way I understand the throwing rule is that the umpires cannot call it, only refer to the match referee.

The pause between deliveries allows for a quick look. We already have it for boundary decisions FFS. What is more important, a wicket ot an extra run?

It's sad that the correct decisions will be made?

Practice what you preach taips.

You eulogise about getting "the right decision made through techno" - yet you (as I do) and several others on here, continue to rubbish Murali's action. His action was "technoed" to the nth degree ... several times !
So what's it to be?

I'm not splitting hairs re. boundaries vs an extra wicket ... you miss the point.

What I am saying is that techno could be taken to extremes once the floodgates open and thus ruin a free flowing game irrevocably. Once there, there's no turning back!

Common sense should prevail in most cases - however, ON THE RARE occasion when an umpire is uncertain - then, by all means, consult the 3rd umpire and TV slo-mos - BUT, not consult all the gimmickery that currently exists like snicko, hot spot etc (as Leo stresses) which are purely there for spectator entertainment .

Leo wrote: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.

noelene wrote:And who will watch that the proper footage is given to the 3rd umpire?Are we to rely on a person who may have an interest in the decision?

taipan wrote:

noelene wrote:And who will watch that the proper footage is given to the 3rd umpire?Are we to rely on a person who may have an interest in the decision?

And that evidence is fully available to TV. Such a person would not last long if they cheated.

tac wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Hass wrote: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.

Okay, seems both feasible and applicable.

However NOT 2 challenges a session please !! We could be then watching a 7 day Test match!
Two per Innings perhaps - ie., 8 per team in total over 5 days = 16 challenges!!
Jeez ... I pay to watch free flowing cricket ... not an interruption every now and again to witness challenges !!

And who is to say that, not having used the challenges, a team does so with their bottom 3 batsmen as a time waster to ensure bad light, a draw, tactical delay ... whatever.

My point is - WHO determines all this?

The players or the Umpires?

And if your answer is "the players" - then who is going to run the bloody game?
Impotent umpires who have been gelded in order to appease those who highlight a couple of minor erros - albeit human, and thus forgivable, as being so despicable as to open up the "challenge" debate.

Sorry Hass, I prefer human to android/robotic reaction.
Challenges? Phurt ... that's best kept to football and tennis!

Sangakarra's grace in forgiving Koersten ought to be the guideline ... not the hysterical fans who want change for change's sake.

That makes a lot of challenges.

taipan wrote:

So which is more important, a wicket or extra run?