Comments on: Referral system is just not cricket

By: Anathi

Anathi — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:34:46 +0000

I believe they should be limited to how many times they can make/issue a challenge. Once a control is implemented then that would bring balance to the game. I believe technology is good for the game but it must be controlled.I think the NFL has a good system where coachs may issue a challenge to a call/ruling on the field. If the coach gets it right the call is overturned but if they are wrong the team is charged with a time-out. The coach is also limited to I think 2 or 3 challenges per game. The referees are also permitted to make their own reviews on shaky calls. Umps could possibly do that as well.

(Report abuse)

By: Paddy II

Paddy II — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:39:16 +0000

On the other hand (naas):

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/391295.html

(Report abuse)

By: Cricket » Sports Leader » Lungani Zama » Referral system is just not cricket

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:34:35 +0000

[…] Lungani Zama wrote an interesting post today on Sports Leader Â» Lungani Zama Â» Referral system is just not cricketHere’s a quick excerptThis much-vaunted referral system the International Cricket Council (ICC) has implemented is a terrible decision. For one it has turned the hallowed grail of Test cricket into a stop-start contest, complete with all the hollow tension … […]

(Report abuse)

By: Paddy II

Paddy II — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:15:26 +0000

For spectators like ourselves, the ‘argument from money’ isn’t a very appealing (ha) one. Money alone may serve to explain the motivations behind changes in the game, but it also reveals that the motivations stink.

So, frankly, fuck endorsements and other monetary motivations for changes to umpiring. Let’s identify ourselves correctly as spectators, who are only interested in money insofar as it correlates with Quality of Cricket, which is our prime indicator.

Besides, I think it is true that umpiring errors average out in the long term, it is probably no bad thing. And the umpires with the replays also make mistakes with their own rules, like in the WI vs ENG first test.

(Report abuse)

By: Gerry

Gerry — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:36:51 +0000

“The technology is there, let’s use it”.

Erm, no. let’s not. I agree 100%, it’s a game of wits as much as anything else, and while the umpires should be made mandatory supporters of the Guide Dog Association (I know the Gauteng Umpires have a monthly “white stick award” for the ump who made the biggest boo-boo!), its all part of fun and games – its what test cricket is all about!

Or is it? Guys like Punter and Biff aren’t playing for chicken-feed, you know. Some of the world greats are millionaires plenty of times over – Tendulkar comes to mind. There is a LOT of money at stake, and an untimely, unfortunate and erroneous out could mean the difference of, literally, millions. A career-saving century may net a player more than you and me will make in 3 lifetimes in the long run, and no one wants to gamble that amount of money on whether Umpire Fred did not get any nookie last night and gave the guy out when his bat was over the line by a half-inch.

Sadly – the era of professionalism has also heralded the era of technology. We need to be sure. It’s sad in many ways, and I’m personally a stickler for the “amateur” days where it was the ump and only the ump and nothing else. But if its endorsements and careers that depend on the lift of a bail, we just cannot allow human error, can we?

(Report abuse)