As I watched the third's day play, a couple of thoughts crossed my mind on the referral. One is the neutrality of the third umpire (nothing against this specific umpire). In test cricket, the on-field umpires are from neutral countries. But with the new referral system, the third umpire plays a more important role, as the most crucial and close decisions are likely to be referred. So it calls for one of two solutions, all the umpires be neutral or remove the restriction all together? Otherwise the neutrality serves no purpose.
Second is the amount of time taken to request a referral. In tennis for example, they ask for a call to be checked almost immediately. However Jayawardene today took a lot of time asking for referrals, even talking to the umpire (the one against Dravid comes to mind).
I think the umpire should not be consulted (the captain can judge his odds of getting a verdict in his favor based on the umpire's response). Also, shouldn't the captain make the request within 10-15 seconds? After all he just needs a aye or nay from the close-in fielders, not a group discussion.
What are your thoughts on referrals so far?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Labels
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(85)
-
▼
August
(21)
- Congrats to Saina
- Repechage!
- I congratulate...
- Vijender Kumar reaches medal round
- Bronze medal for Indian Wrestler
- Olympics: Tidbits
- Boxing questions
- The "official" squad
- Two medal prospects out
- Lost in Sri Lanka
- Mittal helps create history
- 2008 Olympics: Gold For Indian Shooter - Abhinav B...
- Olympics Indian Contingent Miscellany
- The opening ceremony
- Of crows, bears and kites
- India Olympics: Boxing
- India Olympics: the racket sports
- Knowing your Indian Olympians
- Names and Faces of Indian Olympic contingent
- Referrals
- Viru
-
▼
August
(21)
About Me
- RS
- A female sports fan based in Chennai. Follow most sports (except boxing, wrestling and similar ones). Tried my hand at all the sports I watch, and am not very good at any of them :-) So the opinions/thoughts are strictly and unashamedly as a viewer/fan and not an expert. I also blog at ipl08
10 comments:
its in its nascent stage...they will definitely review it after some time...
i think lbw should be restricted to obvious decisions like inside edges to pads or ball pitching outside leg stump etc...
otherwise ump verdict needed to be upheld...sehwags dismissal of lbw comes to mind when TU failed to spot the deviation of front pad...
i also agree with you that all umpires should be netral to make system more acceptable and less prone to controversies...
RS,
The third umpire or the referral umpire is a neutral. For this Test it was Benson. Unfortunately, Koertzen the on field umpire is sick for the last two days and hence the Sri Lankan as the replacement.
However, this did not stop me from wondering about the neutrality of this particular umpire. :)
The time taken is an interesting question. If we are believe Sanjay Manjrekar, there is no such thing for referrals.
However, the questioning of the umpire is what is believed to have upset Dravid.BTW, a Captain is within his rights to question an umpire on why he gave out or not out as the case may be.
Going by what little I saw the referral in action, I think Kumble is a poor user, whereas Mahela seems to given much thought.
BTW, how is that you are blogging on Saturday? :)
Yeah, thought that was a bit nasty. There needs to be a time limit both for the on-field captain and the third umpire giving the decision. Why did it take him so long to give it out? Shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go to the batsmen? There seemed to be a lot of doubt.
sp: in general I like the reviews. Sehwag's decision shows technology/third umpire are not perfect.
ott: I did not know the 3rd umpire was just "subbing". Where there other decisions for the home side? I am not on break from blogging on weekends :-)
vmm: I agree - a time-limit for the umpire as well is a must. But if he cannot decide within that, should the benefit go to the batsman or to the the on-field decision?
RS,
The time for requesting a referral shud definetely be limited. The captain cannot take ages to decide..
Also the captain shud not be allowed to ask the umpire.. infact the umpire is not expected to answer the captain even if he asks.. its only upto the umpire whether he wants to explain his decision or not...
Neutrality of the umpires is somethin that ICC shud think about. its a valid point raised by u...
@trideep:
Agreed on all points -
Apparently Kumble met with the officials (http://www.cricketnext.com/news/is-india-unhappy-over-new-referral-system/33188-13.html)
Maybe he is clarifying rules... or figuring out how to use them better :-)
Your concerns are well placed, I think experience and awareness will get rid of these loopholes in this system
@RS, in that case, I would say the batsman should get the benefit.
@ a bisht: if they don't resolve these issues (& define guidelines), instead of Sydney controversies we will just end up with new ones..
@vmm: I see both sides - but if a batsman has been out and there is not enough evidence to give him not-out either - maybe the on-field decision should stand to give a role to the on-field ones?
@RS, then wouldn't that be almost the same as having no referral at all? I see your point that this is in the case where no one is sure, and it seems like a good way to go to save the umpire's ego also. But this referral system's loopholes and concerns aren't over yet. I think we will see more of this sort of stuff, it is persisted with. I'm still ambivalent.
Post a Comment