LBW referrals

[Owzat]

This is one aspect of the new referral system that I dislike, how can anyone including the batsman and bowler be sure if it is hitting? The only genuine reason I can think of that you could be sure an error was made is if the batsman hit it, if it pitched outside leg stump or if it was plumb. In those cases even then there has to be doubt with where it pitched and if it was soooooooooooooo plumb beyond any doubt surely the umpire wouldn't have called it wrong.

So do you think LBW referrals are workable as the system were intended? Or do you feel they are more a tactic, where the captain/team decide to chance it with a big reward of a (key) wicket?

For me one big farce is the self-imposed ruling about how much of the ball is hitting the stumps according to a system (dorkeye) that is not entirely convincing in its own right. Either we accept what is presented us, that the ball would hit the wicket/knock the bails, or we don't. To take it that the ball would have hit the stumps, but not enough that we'll accept the accuracy is a joke. We trust the accuracy enough if it says the ball would miss the stumps by let's say a hair's breadth, but we won't trust it if it says the ball would clip the stumps?!?!?

 

[darthlewis1]

I have to agree about the how much of the ball is hitting the stumps, I think that if even 1/4 of the ball is hitting the stumps it should be out as hawk-eye is meant have a margin of error of 3.6 mm.

 

[Owzat]

Trott's referral yesterday is a prime example for me. I could see by the look on his face that he was going to refer it, even though he couldn't have really known enough about it to know ie he was guessing/hoping.

If he were referring it on the basis of an edge, on height, or the various parameters whereby where it pitched/hit meant he couldn't be out, then fair enough. I could tell he didn't want to be out so it was a selfish waste of a referral. Maybe for LBW referrals should have to be ordered by the captain/someone in the dressing room or on the balcony with a TV set who should have a slightly better basis on which to make the appeal - bar edges which (only) the batsman might know about.

I'd be annoyed with Trott for that, especially if they run out of referrals and someone gets a duff call.

 

[darthlewis1]

I don't think someone in the dressing room could do it as they could easily look at the replay quickly then decide wether to refer it. But if batsmen are choosing to refer lbw's simply because they don't want to be out then they can do that but they'll simply be wasting an appeal for the team. I think the non-striker has a good enough view for lbw's.

 

[Sureshot]

I don't think allowing captain/team in the dressing room with a TV is a good idea at all, it's just way too undermining of the umpire and that just wouldn't pass the ICC. If you want to go that far, you might as well remove it as team referrals and just use the system for each appeal. Having an element of tactic in the decision makes the system a bit more "friendly" to the fans.

Does it work in it's current format?

Yes, it's improved the amount of correct decisions in Cricket, the standard in general of umpires has improved and the system is re-inforcing that.

Is it perfect?

Of course not, but I think it'd be shocking to ditch it because it isn't perfect. People moan about hawkeye being inaccurate, it's always going to be a prediction, you cannot make it 100% it doesn't work like that, still a damn sight more accurate than the human eye is or ever will be.

There are tactics involved, I cannot think of a way of removing that, if a team wants to throw away an appeal, then let them, it's up to them to use their referrals as they see fit. If the ball is hitting half way up middle, then it's their own fault and not one of the system.

With links in Umpire circles, it's gone down well, it doesn't undermine the umpires and the umpires want correct decisions, even it shows they are wrong. They've made improvements to it, I still think the 2.5m rule needs tweaking and they will continue to tweak it. It's here to stay and cricket is better off with it.

Eventually we'll come to a point where we can use Snicko in reviews too, that's the next big step in the process.

With regards to honing what we currently have. A more definitive time limit in making the decision to review.

No doubt it can be better, but I'm delighted with the amount it has brought to the game.

-------

The system needs to be expanded, in international cricket no-balls should be dealt with by the third umpire through TV cameras. The technology is there, use it.

 

[aussie1st]

The batsmen tend to have a very good idea if it's going to hit the stumps or not so it's not just the ball hitting too high or pitching outside offstump. Of course they aren't going to pick up on the ones where it is just clipping but that was never the purpose of the system.

How teams use it is up to them, one thing for sure is the captain won't be happy if you do waste it.

 

[Owzat]

The batsmen tend to have a very good idea if it's going to hit the stumps or not so it's not just the ball hitting too high or pitching outside offstump. Of course they aren't going to pick up on the ones where it is just clipping but that was never the purpose of the system.

The purpose of the system needs absolute clarification, originally it was to prevent clangers like LBW when there's an edge, not out when it was edged and caught etc. It is being used to effectively question umpiring decisions, or if you like a tactic to try and save/get a wicket. The big danger of the way the system has been implimented is that teams will use it as a tactic rather than for its intended purpose. In tennis they use it properly, where they are sure the ball was in/out, but then in tennis the calls aren't nearly as pivotal as wicket fall. Makes it even more farcical that tennis go EXACTLY with the computer simulation unquestioningly and they get three per set not two per innings.

I see no reason why 'out' calls can't all be reviewed. Wouldn't make sense to do that with 'not out' calls. If it were at the discretion of the umpires I'd be easier about it, certainly would then not be challenging or questioning their authority but them showing they are human and happy to admit it by being open to changing their calls or asking for help in making them

How teams use it is up to them, one thing for sure is the captain won't be happy if you do waste it.

When they are wasted the point of the system is defeated, to prevent clangers. It is exacerbated when a team runs out of referrals and then suffer a clanger. Of course TV analyses all dismissals so we get a call on what was a good or bad referral, and when a referral wasn't used but would have had a decision reversed. Is that a good thing? For me the system should be all or nothing, you either refer all close decisions or none at all. It shouldn't be limited to two 'lives'.

 

[cricket_icon]

Personally I think the inclusion of LBW referrals has helped teh game alot and made the Umpires that bit more professional and on point. There can no longer be biased. We can't go back to the dark ages where bowlers of certain teams couldnt get an LBW decision no matter how plumb it was or was not, or batsmen were given out over ridiculous shouts. All of that has been irradicated from the game and when an Umpire does have such a faff it is almost immediately rectified.

 

[aussie1st]

If it were at the discretion of the umpires I'd be easier about it, certainly would then not be challenging or questioning their authority but them showing they are human and happy to admit it by being open to changing their calls or asking for help in making them

That would be the ideal way however the big question mark with that method has always been will the umpire refer their decision that they obviously thought was right. And we have the time issue, in rugby they pretty much refer everything to the video ref that is close, so if you are referring every close decision then you probably add another hour onto the scheduled play waiting for the decision.

 

[Owzat]

I think time is a laughable excuse for not using referrals more, how often do sides trundle through their overs at as few as 12 per hour...................?

In fact it could speed games up, close LBWs that maybe should have been out get given out and wickets fall (slightly) more regularly.

For me a system is either worth using or isn't, and if it is worth using then you don't part use it. That's like having stereo on your TV and switching it to mono for long periods - why?!?!? Or putting your car half through a car wash and doing the other half by hand.

It's not as sad as proposed use of "goalline technology" in football, for the half dozen times it might be used a season compared to the number of bad calls on penalties, red card incidents etc which happen half a dozen times a week