Review System Yes or No?

[Collingwood50]

Being a traditionalist, an opening batsman who is more boycott than Tavar?, I hate the referral system. I think that it was good the way it was, TV's for run out's but thats it. Personally I prefer the descions to be as human as possible. I think that the referral system slows down the game, and hasn't of yet solved any of the problems that it has meant to...

 

[Dr. Pepper]

No. It takes forever and is still not always the correct decision. I agree that it should be as human as possible. I don't like the technology taking over thing, keep it for the public to see on T.V. but not for the umpires.

 

[TruSachFan]

LBW Decisions should be left up to the umpires. No referral on that. The only thing that should be referred is some of the catches and the stumpings. As long as the umpires are consistent in referring on a consistent basis, then I have no problem with that. But when in one match, one of the umpires refer a close catch, and in the next match the other ump doesnt refer to a similiar catch, then you have a problem.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

What do you mean umpire refers it? It's the players who do.

 

[barmyarmy]

I have little or no respect for Boycott's views - he's an awful man.
The trouble with traditionalists is that because they oppose any change on principle their opinions aren't particularly helpful. If we listened to Boycott and his ilk, tests would still be timeless, wickets would have only two stumps, ODI and Twenty20 wouldn't exist, players wouldn't be allowed to wear helmets, replays would be out the window and games being shown on TV unlikely and there would only be 2 or 3 test playing nations as the others wouldn't have been allowed in.
Referrals are clearly a good idea and an over-due one but, as I've said in the main thread, they have yet to find the best way of using them.

edit - I like the lbw's not being referred idea - those are the ones that take the time.

 

[shravi]

A yes from me.

 

[Leggie]

Yes from me also. Will help crack down on controversial matches.

 

[Collingwood50]

I have little or no respect for Boycott's views - he's an awful man.
The trouble with traditionalists is that because they oppose any change on principle their opinions aren't particularly helpful. If we listened to Boycott and his ilk, tests would still be timeless, wickets would have only two stumps, ODI and Twenty20 wouldn't exist, players wouldn't be allowed to wear helmets, replays would be out the window and games being shown on TV unlikely and there would only be 2 or 3 test playing nations as the others wouldn't have been allowed in.
Referrals are clearly a good idea and an over-due one but, as I've said in the main thread, they have yet to find the best way of using them.

edit - I like the lbw's not being referred idea - those are the ones that take the time.

I mean my playing style is like Boycott and Taver? - not my views


though it is entertaining listening to him on TMS

 

[manee]

Yes, I vehemently agree with the referral system in Test cricket.

Any system to cut down the number of poor decisions is desirable, especially considering the recent media attention given to poor umpiring decisions. We have the technology and there is no good reason not to use it in order to gain the right decision. The current half-arsed approach to not use the predictive aspect of hawkeye, snicko or hotspot is absolute bollocks, in my opinion. This technology may not be totally accurate, but it certainly is better than the human eye, something which can be easily and often deceived.

The only reasonable argument I have heard is that it disrupts the flow of the game and this can be a valid argument. Teams are often left with one referral in the bag for an innings as more than one shocker per innings is uncommon (as it should be) and the way to counter this is to give teams just one unsuccessful referral per innings, this should not be a highly contentious issue as technology will find if a decision is out. If a decision is out but it cannot be proved by technology, the captain could not have been going on more than a hunch and so the punishment of losing the referral may be justified. Moreover, the third umpire should have an unwritten obligation to attempt to reach a decision as quickly as possible as to not completely drain any momentum from the match.

 

[Skater]

No. I would like to see technology come into the game, I don't think it takes too long to make the decision. My problems with the referral system are:

1. The umpires should decide when to refer a decision, not the players. The umpires would feel more comfortable referring their own decisions and not feel violated by the players objecting to their calls.
2. The basis of the referral should not be on finding clear evidence that the umpire was wrong, it should be on making the correct decision. Even if it was touch and go, the correct decision should be made, and that means going the whole way and using Hot Spot and Snickometer.

 

[King Pietersen]

They were discussing this on the South Africa broadcast, HotSpot's an expensive piece of equipment, that's why only 2 of the TV companies in the world currently use it, those being Channel Nine in Australia and Sky Sports in the UK. It's just not financially viable for every TV station in the world to pay for this technology, meaning if they were to implement it into the referral system, the system would only be in full use in 2 countries.

I like the referral system at the minute, it may be a little slow, but it's in the early days of use. I do think the umpires should be able to use the predictive hawkeye, it's 99% accurate, so shouldn't be used as the only basis to give a batsman out, but it should be used to assist the umpire in making a decision, as ultimately we're looking to make as many correct decisions as possible.

 

[sohum]

I like the referral system. Like manee, I think we need to cut down the number of referrals available. 1-2 unsuccessful ones should be enough. It'll prevent the fielding side from referring every time they feel they have a chance, and only reserve their referrals when the umpires have gotten in completely wrong.

 

[barmyarmy]

Certainly doesn't do the system any favours when we get dismissals like Chanderpaul's there.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yeh exactly, but there wasn't irrefutable evidence from those replays to show it was 100% going over the top of the stumps, and that's why the predictive element of hawk-eye should be used, as it would have shown the ball going comfortably over the top.

 

[barmyarmy]

It looked pretty clear even without Hawkeye. I'd be quite happy taking the lbw's out of the system and just using it for catches.