Reviews in Cricket: TBC or Not

[Skater]

should bring Referals like the F/P Trophy

That's exactly what they did in the India-Sri Lanka series. The problem with the FP trophy trial was that there had to be an obvious mistake, and that is crap IMO, it should be the wrong decision changed to the correct one.

 

[metallics2006]

There should be Unlimited Referals but only 2 wrong referals for a batsman. If he uses both then the other players except that batsman should still be able to use it. And the third umpire should be statistically better than the on field umpires i.e more correct decisions to his name. (:crying Sleepy)

 

[SciD]

Get some decent third umpire and continue with it. Kumble had no brains when to use it effectively and Jayawardena took punt on close bat pad decisions in LBW scenaarios which are always not out if Umpire judge on field.

 

[angryangy]

I reckon it's a soft point that Chappell makes simply because in the sort of team that Chappell might have led, god help you if you went and did that. I suppose it is an extra burden on teams, but really what it comes down to is the job being done properly. If a player doesn't do their job, you're at a disadvantage one way or another. Well led and disciplined teams will use referrals to best value.

 

[metallics2006]

If they dont want bad decisions made in matches why not make the field umpires signal to the third umpire if they have the slightest of doubts when making a decision instead of waiting for a review sign from the captain? We have seen runouts being given by the tv umpire for more than a decade. If someone brings up the time factor, well, you have to sacrifice something to get the best of things.

 

[sohum]

I mostly liked it. I don't think there should be unlimited referrals because then you would see every single turned-down appeal being challenged and that would take a lot of time out. It puts a lot of onus on the captain to use his head when making decisions. On the plus side, spinners will probably benefit from this because of the many bat-pad appeals that get turned down regularly, especially in the subcontinent.

 

[metallics2006]

Well it should atleast be 5 per side.

 

[sohum]

Well it should atleast be 5 per side.

I disagree. Too many reviews would completely dilute the responsibility of the umpires. As Geoff Boycott had said a while back (in reference to Hawk-Eye), if we start applying the technology to every single decision, matches will be over in 2-3 days.

In my mind, the review system is in place to get rid of the grossly erroneous mistakes. The umpires are still good enough to get most of them right, but on the occasions that they don't, the review system has their back.

If a team uses up their reviews to find a bad decision go against them, that's just a matter of poor execution of strategy.

 

[Insomniac]

If a team uses up their reviews to find a bad decision go against them, that's just a matter of poor execution of strategy.

Which is what I think happened to India and Kumble in this recent test series

Shame we're not seeing them in the one-day game, as a couple of late-order decisions could have been reversed for India

Although it doesn't look like the result would have changed, but some of the batsmen may have recorded new high scores

 

[lightbulb]

Well it should atleast be 5 per side.

I like the format as it is now with referrals being kept if you are successful in it, except there should be 3 a side.