Referral System
I unfortunately don't have Sky Sports so I can't really give a proper opinion on this referral system without seeing the incidents, but the notion of this doesn't seem right.
The idea that players can formally disagree with the on-field umpire just erodes the authority these umpires have, which will lead to more cases of dissent. I do think there is a case that the 3rd umpire can over-rule the on-field umpires, but only when they are certain, not when there is a shadow of doubt. But for this to happen the 3rd umpire has to be good at his job which I'm afraid to say Daryl Harper certainly isn't!
8 comments:
Ooh, Ed won't like that! :-)
He he. What I'm interested in is getting the right decision wherever humanly or technologically possible, and I feel sorry for the TV umpire at the moment as they aren't allowed to see all of what the TV viewers see. I didn't see any of the Test and listened to very little, but it does sound like Harper over-ruled decisions that weren't definitely wrong, and that would appear to be a human error.
The bit I did listen to was when Harmison and Panesar both contested their decisions. The fact that they were just "using up" the "spare" appeals against umpiring decisions needs to be looked at - not sure if I have a solution as yet!
It might be better if the onfield umpires are the ones who look at the TV then they have the benefit of both being there and the TV pictures. Whether this is done by walking off to a screen like in american football or by carrying a small screen on their person.
Totally agree, but I'd add that they don't need to come away from where they are standing - it could be a PDA style piece of equipment allowing them to choose the camera angle they want, or view Hawkeye or the equivalent, hotspot etc.
The only danger I can see with that is that the players might gather round the umpire so that would need to be legislated against.
I should add that this PDA style solution could have been considered and developed to be live for use by now, had the ICC shown a bit of foresight! It's not new technology!
At present, the system is clearly very wrong as it thoroughly undermines the fundamental principle of The Laws of Cricket and The Spirit that the umpire's decision is final.
The decision to refer should rest with the umpire and the players should have no say in what decisions are referred.
Quite simple, stick to established principles they are right!
Other sports manage to refer to video officials without undermining the official's responsibility. Tennis and the major US sports don't seem to have any less respect for officials after bringing the system in, and as long as it's another umpire giving the decision, then you're keeping faith in umpires in general. Without the referrals, the same replays will still exist and be shown on tv, and the same mistakes will be made, but at least this way you can rectify them, and send everyone away happy(ish).
The problem is that I'm not sure that the decision making was improved whilst the confusion certainly was with the benefit of the doubt switching from the batsman to the on field umpires original view ( I know I'm simplifying). Looked to me as if The Sarwan decision was still wrong as was one other later in the W I innings.But it sounds like they are proposing to move to the 'Stamford' system so at least one good thing might come out of that embarassment.
I think once the ICC get their heads round how to implement it, the improvement will be obvious to everyone. But as is tradition, they've been late to implement change, and then done it in an ill-thought out way.
As I think I've mentioned more than a few times before, in a business context leaders showing such poor ability to produce the goods wouldn't survive, but in sports administration it seems acceptable....
Post a Comment