Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

UMP vision

More wrongs than rights: should cricket follow the new referral system introduced in tennis?
 
Ehtesham Hasan In London
 
 
When Simon Taufel’s finger stopped Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly in their tracks as they inched steadily towards their centuries in the second test, the pundits, with two shakes of a duck's tail, dismissed it as part of the game.

Tendulkar had battled intensely and was nine short of his 38th test hundred when the shocking lbw decision came as a bitter pill. We're more than sure, after reflecting over all the wrong decisions he has been received in the last few years he must have surely felt that it has become a part of life for him.

Ganguly, too, mustn’t be feeling any different after the cruel finger of fate was shown to him on the first day of The Oval test when Ian Howell failed to detect an inside edge.

Ganguly, in prime touch this season, smiled at his misfortune and swung his bat like a windmill and as he took the long walk back it started to sink and goodness knows if the Indian dressing room was left unharmed after he was seen with his shirt-off and a seething face in the gallery.

Nasser Hussain, standing at the Third Man for Sky Sports, pulled out the Kevin Pietersen clip from the Lord’s test and raised a very valid point: Why didn’t anyone in the dressing room ask Ganguly to stay back and demand a referral, just like England batsman did after almost being a few yards away from the Pavilion.

Pietersen was held on the bounce by Mahender Singh Dhoni and Taufel, who has never umpired so poorly in his career, raised his finger only to withdraw his decision after the batsman stood yards away from the boundary.

The match referee did not dock Pietersen’s match-fees nor was he given a rap on the knuckles and had Ganguly refused to walk, forcing Howell to go upstairs, on what premises would have Madugalle taken an action when he agreed with what the England batsman had done?

ALL IN THE GAME?

There were probably couple of reasons why the Indian dressing room did not react. Either they were too slow on the uptake or they’re too stricken with the Spirit of the Game bug, which hasn't exactly been the central theme of this ill-tempered series.

Besides that, the role of the match referee should once again come under scrutiny. The umpires that are in the elite panel are judged primarily on their decision making with the match referee logging the time and nature of every appeal and the decision and whether it was right or wrong based on all available information, including the technology.

The results are then collated on the basis of that the ICC pats its back and says 92 per cent of the decision are correct though the figures maybe misleading as the frivolous appeals the teams launch into these days are also taken into account. The votes of captains and match referee’s too are taken into consideration and the umpires who do commit mistakes are fined by the ICC.

But it is difficult to comprehend why things can’t be simpler just as in tennis where a player is allowed a certain number of referrals or the match-referee should be given powers to overrule the umpire. If the idea is to weed out errors then there couldn’t be a better way to go forward than this.
 
 http://www.mumbaimirror.com/net/mmpaper.aspx?page=article&sectid=59&contentid=20070811200708110325475622fa62899

[broadbat]

A bit late for Ehtesham Hassan to come up with this. I have suggested the same thing a couple of times during the past month on this DG.

[broadbat]

And as for the 92% I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

[pipsqueak]

And as for the 92% I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

92% in itself is quite shoddy - this means that on an average, they get one out of every 10 decisions wrong - one every innings! 

[achutank]

the argument against the referral system is the time delay, in tennis its easier, here given the distance and walkietalkies and the like its a bit more difficult, in tennis the screen is on the ref's chair, if they can provide a simple easy to carry screen with enough width to judge accurately then you wont need a reffereal system becoz the umpires can chk directly

[broadbat]

And as for the 92% I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

92% in itself is quite shoddy - this means that on an average, they get one out of every 10 decisions wrong - one every innings! 

Yeah especially if it has a crucial bearing on the course of the match or even the career of a player.

[broadbat]

the argument against the referral system is the time delay, in tennis its easier, here given the distance and walkietalkies and the like its a bit more difficult, in tennis the screen is on the ref's chair, if they can provide a simple easy to carry screen with enough width to judge accurately then you wont need a reffereal system becoz the umpires can chk directly

You dont refer all the decisions. Only when the player challenges like in tennis. Allow 2 or 3 per team per innings. Not more than 5 minutes extra per innings if all challenges are taken up. And we have seen there are doubts on only 3 or 4 during the entire match.

[achutank]

the argument against the referral system is the time delay, in tennis its easier, here given the distance and walkietalkies and the like its a bit more difficult, in tennis the screen is on the ref's chair, if they can provide a simple easy to carry screen with enough width to judge accurately then you wont need a reffereal system becoz the umpires can chk directly

You dont refer all the decisions. Only when the player challenges like in tennis. Allow 2 or 3 per team per innings. Not more than 5 minutes extra per innings if all challenges are taken up. And we have seen there are doubts on only 3 or 4 during the entire match.

almost impossible to do broadbat on a spinning track in an india-pak encounter

[broadbat]

the argument against the referral system is the time delay, in tennis its easier, here given the distance and walkietalkies and the like its a bit more difficult, in tennis the screen is on the ref's chair, if they can provide a simple easy to carry screen with enough width to judge accurately then you wont need a reffereal system becoz the umpires can chk directly

You dont refer all the decisions. Only when the player challenges like in tennis. Allow 2 or 3 per team per innings. Not more than 5 minutes extra per innings if all challenges are taken up. And we have seen there are doubts on only 3 or 4 during the entire match.

almost impossible to do broadbat on a spinning track in an india-pak encounter

Try before you discard. It will only help and not hinder.

[achutank]

i agree with you on use of technology, my point is the limiting of appeals, appeals should be as many, but the discretion of using it should be with the umpire like the 3rd umpire thing

[feverpitch]

Nasser Hussain, standing at the Third Man for Sky Sports, pulled out the Kevin Pietersen clip from the Lord’s test and raised a very valid point: Why didn’t anyone in the dressing room ask Ganguly to stay back and demand a referral, just like England batsman did after almost being a few yards away from the Pavilion.

Are our players really THAT slow and daft that such elementary tricks NEVER occur to them, or is this another instance of the friendly dressing room?

[broadbat]

Nasser Hussain, standing at the Third Man for Sky Sports, pulled out the Kevin Pietersen clip from the Lord’s test and raised a very valid point: Why didn’t anyone in the dressing room ask Ganguly to stay back and demand a referral, just like England batsman did after almost being a few yards away from the Pavilion.

Are our players really THAT slow and daft that such elementary tricks NEVER occur to them, or is this another instance of the friendly dressing room?

Actually I am not too sure but I feel you can not ask for a third umpire referral for inside edges. However to verify the legality of a catch is possible. Umpires on their own ask for it sometimes but I have never seen an umpire ask one for edges. IMO it should be there in the playing conditions for nay such action.

[kban1]

i agree with you on use of technology, my point is the limiting of appeals, appeals should be as many, but the discretion of using it should be with the umpire like the 3rd umpire thing

The umpire's discretion (wrt invoking technology - replays) has been tried before (Aus vs ICC XI) but it did not work -- simply because of self referent bias and the egos involved on the part of the umpires.

So chances of it working in the future will always be impeded by the same factors.

An appeal system is better - along the lines of tennis or NFL, maybe  a mixture of both.

As for the current case, there are no rules currently in place that bring lbws (inside edge or not) under the purview of 3rd umpire reviews.

[achutank]

i agree with you on use of technology, my point is the limiting of appeals, appeals should be as many, but the discretion of using it should be with the umpire like the 3rd umpire thing

The umpire's discretion (wrt invoking technology - replays) has been tried before (Aus vs ICC XI) but it did not work -- simply because of self referent bias and the egos involved on the part of the umpires.

So chances of it working in the future will always be impeded by the same factors.

An appeal system is better - along the lines of tennis or NFL, maybe  a mixture of both.

As for the current case, there are no rules currently in place that bring lbws (inside edge or not) under the purview of 3rd umpire reviews.

whcih brings us back to the point of bat-pad on spinning tracks where there is a close one every over, then what? what happens to the overrate?

[kban1]

Achutank:

limit the number of appeals per day / per innings.

Have a system similar to the NFL - make the team lose some priveleges (maybe a reduction in the number of challenges) if the replay shows that the challenge was frivolous. Make the team challenging it be judicious about their appeals.

Anything along those lines is a huge step forward from where we are now.

And it cant make a huge dent to the overrate anyways -- one less over a day, if that.

[achutank]

Achutank:

limit the number of appeals per day / per innings.

Have a system similar to the NFL - make the team lose some priveleges (maybe a reduction in the number of challenges) if the replay shows that the challenge was frivolous. Make the team challenging it be judicious about their appeals.

Anything along those lines is a huge step forward from where we are now.

And it cant make a huge dent to the overrate anyways -- one less over a day, if that.

however the issue then becomes what do you do if the umpire is rauf or bucknor who are clearly wolves in white coats oreying on innocent indian wickets? what if the bad appeals exceeds the quota but the bad decsiions continue?

[kban1]

well instead of 3 bad decisions, now dont you have 1 bad decision ? -- assuming the quota is set at 2 ?

Isnt that an improvement over status quo ?

[achutank]

kban the point of this system is to have zero errors not reduce injustices. in tennis today you can safely say that they have achieved near six sigma but in your above reply you are saying ok you can have kartick and jaffer called back but if dravid gets the lone bad decision well too bad. the problem still remains. itsnot just bad decisions its bad decisons coming at crucial stages

[kban1]

kban the point of this system is to have zero errors not reduce injustices. in tennis today you can safely say that they have achieved near six sigma but in your above reply you are saying ok you can have kartick and jaffer called back but if dravid gets the lone bad decision well too bad. the problem still remains. itsnot just bad decisions its bad decisons coming at crucial stages

I want to see the players playing, not the umpires goofing up. To me correctable error = injustice. And no, I am not interested in zero error or the 6 sigma because it is impracticable -- Nothing is fool proof, and given the nature of cricket you will never achieve zero errors (even 6 sigma is not zero error).

And the appeals system controlled by the appealing time is important exactly for that reason -- you have to be judicious in its usage.

If you get KKD and Jaffer called back because the initial calls were wrong, then obviously you have not lost your appeals -- you are free to use them on RD or SRT. If you got them wrong, then you have lost them.

[achutank]

kban the point of this system is to have zero errors not reduce injustices. in tennis today you can safely say that they have achieved near six sigma but in your above reply you are saying ok you can have kartick and jaffer called back but if dravid gets the lone bad decision well too bad. the problem still remains. itsnot just bad decisions its bad decisons coming at crucial stages

I want to see the players playing, not the umpires goofing up. To me correctable error = injustice. And no, I am not interested in zero error or the 6 sigma because it is impracticable -- Nothing is fool proof, and given the nature of cricket you will never achieve zero errors (even 6 sigma is not zero error).

And the appeals system controlled by the appealing time is important exactly for that reason -- you have to be judicious in its usage.

If you get KKD and Jaffer called back because the initial calls were wrong, then obviously you have not lost your appeals -- you are free to use them on RD or SRT. If you got them wrong, then you have lost them.

i know six sigma is not error free

but what you have turned this into is almost a lottery or a joker system. so you lost your appeals too bad mate. cmon thats not why we bring technology into umpriing. its to ensure you have almost zero bad calls

[kban1]

but what you have turned this into is almost a lottery or a joker system. so you lost your appeals too bad mate. cmon thats not why we bring technology into umpriing. its to ensure you have almost zero bad calls

You want all decisions to be adjudicated by the umpires. Its a given that self referent bias will not allow that.

Now you want all appeals to be heard because of your utopian zero error goal but are arguing against it in the same breath as it will screw up the over rate.

So essentially you have  a goal and you have constraints. But you want to be a stickler for the constraints and yet want the goal met and as long as they are both not met (which is practically impossible) you continue to shoot down every alternative presented.

This is not a lottery system. Its a system in place in another organized sport and it works quite well -the goal being reduction of errors subject to time constraints.

You set a number of appeals per innings or day. The team challenging the decision does not extinguish the appeal if their appeal is upheld. If it is denied, you lose one out of your quota.

Improve the system within the limitations.

Your suggestion seems to be finding the ultimate solution barring which no improvements should even be attempted.

[achutank]

but what you have turned this into is almost a lottery or a joker system. so you lost your appeals too bad mate. cmon thats not why we bring technology into umpriing. its to ensure you have almost zero bad calls

You want all decisions to be adjudicated by the umpires. Its a given that self referent bias will not allow that.

Now you want all appeals to be heard because of your utopian zero error goal but are arguing against it in the same breath as it will screw up the over rate.

So essentially you have  a goal and you have constraints. But you want to be a stickler for the constraints and yet want the goal met and as long as they are both not met (which is practically impossible) you continue to shoot down every alternative presented.

This is not a lottery system. Its a system in place in another organized sport and it works quite well -the goal being reduction of errors subject to time constraints.

You set a number of appeals per innings or day. The team challenging the decision does not extinguish the appeal if their appeal is upheld. If it is denied, you lose one out of your quota.

Improve the system within the limitations.

Your suggestion seems to be finding the ultimate solution barring which no improvements should even be attempted.

my answer to all mine and your questions is buried somewhere ina  post above which advocated the droppig of the third umpire all together and empowering the umpire on the field with screen technology thats easy to carry and is non-reflective so that it can be used in any light conditions

[kban1]

so how is your solution any different from what I suggested ? I did not argue for a 3rd umpire at any point.

[achutank]

because it gets us back to the umpire's discretion, except now its easier and faster, therefore the TV replay has to be given to the umpire on the field and he takes a call anytime he wants. so would you still go witha  cap on the number of appeals? because in tennis there is no cap on it.

[justforkix]

because it gets us back to the umpire's discretion, except now its easier and faster, therefore the TV replay has to be given to the umpire on the field and he takes a call anytime he wants. so would you still go witha  cap on the number of appeals? because in tennis there is no cap on it.

I thought there was a cap in tennis - 3 per player per set.

[achutank]

because it gets us back to the umpire's discretion, except now its easier and faster, therefore the TV replay has to be given to the umpire on the field and he takes a call anytime he wants. so would you still go witha  cap on the number of appeals? because in tennis there is no cap on it.

I thought there was a cap in tennis - 3 per player per set.

if it is then i stand corrected. but also because the ping system on service has eliminated one whole area of grey calls. plus in tennis there are three line umpires on both sides. in cricket there is only one umpire. and the other at square leg

[achutank]

also the line umpire in tennis has to look at only thing, he also in tournaments has the refree sitting on the chair who has a tv screen i am sure, which is not the case in cricket wehre th umpire ahs to look at multiple things

[kban1]

because it gets us back to the umpire's discretion, except now its easier and faster, therefore the TV replay has to be given to the umpire on the field and he takes a call anytime he wants. so would you still go witha  cap on the number of appeals? because in tennis there is no cap on it.

I am not explaining this correctly am I ?

technology permitting, you have the umpires onfield with the device and the TV feed. So they can adjudicate and reverse their decision if need be. So far we both agree.

Now if the umpire has to wait for the replay of every decision to adjudicate, then we run into the same time problem you alluded to.

Its a given that they will check on some decisions, but its also likely that they will be bull headed enough not to check every decision (time constraints, sure of their call, self referent bias) --this intransignience was amply demonstrated in the Aus-ICC series, which is exactly why you need the appeals sytem to make the system as fool proff as possible while also keeping in mind the time constraints (over rate)

[achutank]

because it gets us back to the umpire's discretion, except now its easier and faster, therefore the TV replay has to be given to the umpire on the field and he takes a call anytime he wants. so would you still go witha  cap on the number of appeals? because in tennis there is no cap on it.

I am not explaining this correctly am I ?

technology permitting, you have the umpires onfield with the device and the TV feed. So they can adjudicate and reverse their decision if need be. So far we both agree.

Now if the umpire has to wait for the replay of every decision to adjudicate, then we run into the same time problem you alluded to.

Its a given that they will check on some decisions, but its also likely that they will be bull headed enough not to check every decision (time constraints, sure of their call, self referent bias) --this intransignience was amply demonstrated in the Aus-ICC series, which is exactly why you need the appeals sytem to make the system as fool proff as possible while also keeping in mind the time constraints (over rate)

yes sounds logical but

unlike tennis here every bad decision is crucial , there the players may argue about crucial points like set points or break points, but heres its not like that