Umpires being blamed

[m_vaughan]

Explain to me why Pietersen wandered back out. The umpire had made his decision. It was final!

Don't get me wrong, i'm happy it was corrected. But why the inconsistency? Why let some people do it and not others.

That was an inconsistency definately. Since the law clearly states that an umpires decision is final, no matter what the replays say, Pietersen should not have been allowed to continue his innings.

So instead of using this case as an example or a case for future use, it would be better to admit that as a wrong and an inconsistency and ensure nothing of this sort happens again.

At the end of the day, its not so much about right and wrong, but about consistency. I think its fair to say decisions against and for a team eventually cancel each other out, and teams/players/commentators who keep referring to mistakes by the umpires, are imo - whiners.

And its not about using technology to assist umpires, its about the time that is lost as a result. Yes, you might say, how will a few minutes make any difference. But people tend to forget, that once the option is made available, it will be used a number of times, and the total time lost as a result, would just make an already long game of cricket even longer.

Somethings cannot be changed, no matter how logical they seem. People have been debating the use of goal-line technology in Football for ages now, but till date, nothing has happened on a world wide basis.

 

[Kev]

Is your argument that sticking to protocol more important than getting the right decisions in?

Yes, the code of laws were laid down in 1787 and they have mostly stood the test of time. If you want to change them then the place to do it is not on the field of play, players should know the laws (and importantly the spirit in which the game is to be played in), if they don't agree to them then they shouldn't be playing.

As Sid says, incidents like this should not be used as president.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yes, the code of laws were laid down in 1787 and they have mostly stood the test of time. If you want to change them then the place to do it is not on the field of play, players should know the laws (and importantly the spirit in which the game is to be played in), if they don't agree to them then they shouldn't be playing.

As Sid says, incidents like this should not be used as president.

Pretty much agree with this, except I'm open to an incident running for President.

 

[harishankar]

Yes, the code of laws were laid down in 1787 and they have mostly stood the test of time. If you want to change them then the place to do it is not on the field of play, players should know the laws (and importantly the spirit in which the game is to be played in), if they don't agree to them then they shouldn't be playing.

As Sid says, incidents like this should not be used as president.

You call it standing the test of time. I call it outdated.

No wonder cricket hasn't really spread to other countries apart from a handful of former British colonies. It cannot change fast enough...

If technology cannot be used to help umpires make decisions and ancient rules are used as a barrier for adopting technology, that's just rubbish rules to be honest and is harming the game more than helping it. The rules were framed in an era way, way back when television was not even invented.

 

[Kev]

I'm not saying rules can't be updated, but you don't update them by throwing your toys out of the pram. Having said that I think the on-field questioning of umpires should absolutely never be changed, ever. Introduce aids to help them but their word should be absolute.

 

[harishankar]

In that case, the on-field umpire should probably contact the third umpire or the third umpire should contact the on-field umpire who can then take the decision.

I don't care about the protocol to be followed here - it could be anything. So long as the correct decision under the circumstances can be taken, I've no problem with that. It doesn't matter if the on-field umpire raises his finger or the one off the ground shows the red light.

But once it's established, it should be followed consistently. Just like with run-out referrals to the third umpire.

Of course we cannot have perfection, but there should be a reasonable level to which existing technology can help umpires reduce errors.

 

[Sureshot]

It's a precedent not a president.
...

And its not about using technology to assist umpires, its about the time that is lost as a result. Yes, you might say, how will a few minutes make any difference. But people tend to forget, that once the option is made available, it will be used a number of times, and the total time lost as a result, would just make an already long game of cricket even longer.

Maybe if we made it so that bowlers bowl 15 overs an hour minimum (it's not that hard) then you might be able to introduce something like that.

 

[Kev]

It's a precedent not a president.
...





Maybe if we made it so that bowlers bowl 15 overs an hour minimum (it's not that hard) then you might be able to introduce something like that.

Ooops, and they should reach 15 overs per hour there really is no excuse, if 16 overs per hour is possible for CCh matches (minimum) then they test match bowlers have no excuse. In my opinion 16 ov/hr is still too slow. Time-wasting is something that has crept into the game and nobody seems to want to do anything about it, despite there being rules laid down to deal with it.

 

[Sureshot]

The best option, which has been mentioned often is simple. Ban captains for a game or two after it. It'd soon stop. Just tonight in the 20/20 the WI bowlers, were barely walking back to their mark, let alone being 'quick' about it.

 

[iloveireland]

I think mistakes make the game more fun. I like the suspense when your thinking what the umpire gonna saying. Plus technology can be wrong.

 

[harishankar]

I think mistakes make the game more fun. I like the suspense when your thinking what the umpire gonna saying. Plus technology can be wrong.

But one bad decision can spell the end of a career or cost a world cup and lots of money.

Cricket is highly commercialized today, so it's not just a "game" anymore for a lot of people. I think it's in everybody's interests to see that umpiring mistakes are minimized. Obviously 100% accuracy is impossible, but where technology is reliable it should be used.

 

[Sureshot]

Remember, one bad decision could also start a career. Let's say a bowler gets a wicket first ball despite having an inside edge, it might just help his career. It's all playing with fire though. If a player is good enough then they'll be good enough.

 

[Sureshot]

Remember, one bad decision could also start a career. Let's say a bowler gets a wicket first ball despite having an inside edge, it might just help his career. It's all playing with fire though. If a player is good enough then they'll be good enough.

 

[harishankar]

Remember, one bad decision could also start a career. Let's say a bowler gets a wicket first ball despite having an inside edge, it might just help his career. It's all playing with fire though. If a player is good enough then they'll be good enough.

It doesn't matter either way. That's my point too. But let not an umpiring mistake be the cause. The stakes are too high... that was my point.

We need to reduce the mistakes. Period. There is already too much bad blood about bad umpiring among teams and it just takes the sheen off a victory if that happens. It's in everybody's interest to see that umpiring doesn't become the main headline news.

 

[Sureshot]

I think if the umpires had more rest they'd improve, they have to do a lot of work and need to rest their minds. I don't like having different umpires for a series either, let's say you have a 3 Test series, I'd like the two same umpires for that series.

Can we use technology?

It was tried in the FPT and flopped like a dead seal.