Loading ...
equatorI am not a fan of the referral system. I wasn’t when Daryl Harper took a dump on it, and I’m not now.
Personally I think if you are going to use the technology, use it, don’t try and prove whether the umpire made a mistake, just give the decision based on the technology.
Last night Mitchell Johnson was given out caught behind. He clearly didn’t believe he hit it.
The replays from straight on showed he clipped his pad, but it didn’t show either way that he hit it.
Hawkeye couldn’t help out. Neither could hotspot. Mitchell didn’t think to play and miss and then show the edge of the bat to the hotspot to make sure he had an alibi. Although innocent people often don’t have alibis.
There was one angle from cover in which it look like there was a gap between bat and ball. That was shown once.
Then there were alot of different angles shown, and one thing you could tell, the noise was after the ball passed the bat.
Snicko was not used, but after 12 replays, it didn’t really need to be, the ball was 5 inches behind the bat when the noise occurred, and that was at the same time Mitchell hit his pad.
To me that was obvious, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t knick it.
The evidence couldn’t prove 100% that he didn’t hit it, and that is what the third umpire’s job was.
Without a referral Mitchell just would have looked disappointed going off, with it, we had a 5 minute wait to work out what had or hadn’t happened.
In the end it was pretty impossible to tell.
Had the incident been sent to the umpire to make an actual decision, Mitchell wouldn’t have been given out, as there was no proof he hit it.
It wasn’t a terrible decision by the umpire. In real time the noise was at roughly the right time, the ball was as close to the bat as it could be, and everything seemed to add up. Other than Mitchell no one would have been that angry at the decision.
To me, the referral system is a half assed way of doing things.
Mitchell’s mum said that there was no referral needed – he deserved to be given out for dating that slut.
She did not, she said, “It was not my fault hawkeye couldn’t clear him, the west Australian is a bunch of assholes”.
Richie already said it.
Nick, where did he say it?
The Nine Network, or Channel Nine, is an Australian television network with headquarters based in Willoughby, a suburb on the North Shore of Sydney. For 50 years between 1956 and 2006, it was the most watched television network in Australia.
Channel Nine broadcasts all sporting events under the Wide World of Sports brand. The flagship sports of the brand are Cricket…
-via wikipedia.
Nice touch, but I should have asked when, during play, or during a break?
define ‘play’
I give up.
I am absolutely supporting REFERRAL system!. I disagree with JROD. You have to be smart in how to use referral.
At present referral used mostly for Top batsman LBW.
Instead it should be used for people who did not knick the ball clearly. if there is a big gap between bat and ball , also grounded catches.
Using LBW appeal for Chris Gayle is a bad way when you know you are plumb!.
I still think referral give you an option that you never had. It is not GOD. It is not perfect.
It is just a tool , just like any tool if you use it correctly , you make profit.
if you misuse then you will be always be complaining!.
The referrals have been pretty decent in the India-SL series.
Rishabh´s last blog ..Mendis falls off the Mystery Machine
This is wrong.
http://www.cricinfo.com/nzvpak2009/content/current/story/436872.html
if team challenging a decision on LBW and it he overstepped which has not been challenged the team should not lose challenge.
It is not up to the teams . It is clearly bad Rule.
Also i am vehemently disgaree with all the people who disagree with Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) , simply because with this atleast Team has a choice. May be two choices better than nothing and depends on umpire to have correct decision all the time is sticking with old mismanagement.
we want steve bucknors( acts like he is a aristocrat , may be hair had an influence on him ) to decide on the fate of the game is bad bad and acception low quality.
We need to constantly improve on the umpiring. You will never have perfect software or perfect decision all the time.
We can only give choices for teams to minimize the mistakes. People say these review system takes valuable time in middle of the game. I say baloney. Teams waste time in so many ways.
I still can’t fathom why people disagree with Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS)
Alex, a question for you, how do you know if you have missed the ball by enough for the camera to show it?
Jrod you already nailed it. It will not be long before the players really do spin the bat around to show the edge to hot spot when they know they haven’t hit it. Shortly after that people will begin to work out that if the player doesn’t turn the bat he most likely did hit it and still thinks he might pull a fast one. Shortly after that the players will realise that trying to hide the edge won’t work and will cause them some grief from the media, so they will stop doing it and just walk off. Technology will work eventually and will speed up because the delay is not the fault of the technology, it is the fault of poor player behaviour. Gilly had it right all along. If you are out, walk off mate. Hey Gayle, hey Chanders – WALK OFF MATE.
I don’t think the system really solves anything, but I don’t agree with you Jrod. It’s not going to be good if we end up in a situation where you are only out if the cameras can show that you are out.
Jonathan´s last blog ..FWT: A start of 480
The choices are if umpire decides he is out , then we review only the challenged decision on the decision.
People losing chances because they asked to review lbw and found no ball should not make team lose their two chances.
That is wrong.
We do not have 3D camera , it can only show few angles. It is better than nothing.
“Had the incident been sent to the umpire to make an actual decision, Mitchell wouldn’t have been given out, as there was no proof he hit it.”
This is the crux of it. The third umpire is not making the decision even though he has all the technology and is the one looking at it. It really is a half-assed way of doing it. If a decision gets referred, then the third umpire should make the bloody decision.
That was the problem in the West Indies. They got decisions actually completely wrong on review as they were upholding the wrong original decision or in one memorable occasion, the third umpire overturned the correct decision..
Shit, it was funny.
The West Indies lower order are certainly giving it some thrash this morning.
Typical schizophrenic discussion guys – when its obvious to the naked eye but not to the camera, everyone trashes technology, and conversely. So half the time you argue for it, and the other half against.
Techno isnt going to significantly improve anything in cricket (like it doesnt in life either – surprise surprise), its largely cosmetic, and will just replace one set of errors with another.
The best one can hope for, and should hope for, is neutral, unbiased umpiring.
Dont expect technology to be neutral, its inherently biased towards measurable, simplified, abstracted events – it could never handle reality too well, and it shows.
Sorry Jogesh but if technology hasn’t improved anything in real life how is it that I am hearing your thoughts? Telepathy?
What makes you think thats an improvement Ned?