What next? Shoaib Malik given out Leg before Wicket by the third umpire - Rudi Koetsen. Is there any need for the Umpires in the middle any more?

No No No No No!!

What next? Mechanical batsmen?

Frustrating umpiring decisions are as part of the game as rain in Melbourne! Some traditions should NOT be fiddled with.

Luckily, it's only an experiment, and will be disregarded after the Champions' Trophy (I HOPE).
One of the things that really gets up my nose is that these Umpires are still getting paid top dollar for being able to palm decisions off to someone else. If they continue with their 'automation' of the Umpire's role, then you'll find that the best Umpire in the world will no longer be the guy doing the Test match, it will be the guy doing his local First Grade competition, away from cameras and publicity.
And how , exactly, can that be good for the game?

Sadly the best umpire in the world was retired - eccentric, outspoken, not afraid to make a decision, not afraid to say he got it wrong - where are the Dickey Birds of this world now? Anyone who stands in judgement at a sport which travels at 90 miles an hour (yes I am talking about cricket) will make mistakes -The umpire makes the game - if he's respected the players play the game properly - Cliche - like gentlemen!

Ozz and Dalgleish I could agree with you more - Cricket is a game for sportsman - If you know you hit it and you know it was caught - you walk! If there's an element of doubt you leave it to the umpire - if the finger is raised you walk, fling the bat across the changing room call him all the names under the sun .... and have a friendly pint and a chat in the bar after the game. Money has a lot to answer for!

In reply to:

---

What next? Mechanical batsmen?

---

Or, even, aluminium bats? ...........DL?

Hopefully, as has happened in the 'Gentleman's game' of cricket before, some amendments are attempted and discounted and others (you'll probably have to ask Channel 4 about them) have become an accepted part of the game.

Hopefully, judging by the uproar from cricket fans such as ourselves, this will be a non-succesful 'upgrade'!

In reply to:

---

Cricket is a game for sportsman - If you know you hit it and you know it was caught - you walk!

---

I, as you, always have. Mind you............can't remember Boonie doin' the decent thing?

The ICCB will never let this happen will they?

wez

In reply to:

---

Or, even, aluminium bats? ...........DL?

---

Lillie was a bowler, what was he ever to know about batting or the equipment involved?? lol


I agree with you all but I think that with so much money being involved in the sport nowadays they think they have to get it right. And doesn't it help the atmosphere a bit when the players and the crowd are anxiously awaiting a decision?

While it does seem a bit radical to have this 'trial law' in cricket, what if it were to happen in soccer? How many times has your team scored a goal then been disallowed for off-side when it clearly wasn't? If there was a 'third referee' then this matter could be resolved. Or could it?

wildgeart, I understand the frustrations of bad decisions in ANY sport, but I think that if we get too over-umpired, sport will become too clinical. Wrong decisions will even themselves out in the long run.

Video replays are used extensively in Rugby League here, and waiting for decisions from video referees who have to view 5 or 6 different camera angles, makes me feel I am watching a computer game.

I say, let us humans, with all our frailties, take back control of sport...

At the risk of upsetting anyone from th US, isn't that the problem with gridiron? That so many plays are looked at and the game ends up running for hours and hours?

Well, all I have to say is that if they want to give Ibws after replays, its better than allowing Hawk -Eye, which was the initial proposal.
With Hawk-Eye, we would had baseball scores!

I couldn't agree more with not using Hawk-eye , if a batsman can't spot an off spinners - googly(Bosy) or - arm ball then how the heck does a piece of computer software do it?. With a pitch giving uneven bounce how does Hawkeye determine how high the ball will bounce. I speak from experience I played as a Wicket-Keeper, I've gone for balls which have passed the bat and then swung so violently, dipped or carried on rising they've gone for byes (to me- flat out diving as far as I can - wides!) -how does Hawk-eye show them (a nice even bounce just missing the bat and continuing on in a nice geometric trajectory, In real life that happens about 1 in a hundred times if your lucky. The Lbw decision should be made by the standing umpire without any hesitation - he should be appealing with the bowler(Inside) and the finger goes up. (Right or Wrong) . A very famous umpire once gave someone out and the someone said "but that wasn't out sir" to which the Umpire said - "look in the scorebook tomorrow son!" THAT'S CRICKET!

I just watched some highlights of the Sri Lanka v Pakistan game, and two instances that happened in very close proximity to each other highlighted to me the farcical nature of this 'experiment'.
The first one was a 'caught behind' appeal from Wasim Akram to Darryl Harper. Harper didn't even go to the third Umpire. He just knocked the decision back, even though my first reaction (as well as Akram's, the batsman Jayasuriya, everyone else on the park etc etc) was that he slogged it. Replays proved that Harper made the wrong decision, so the first point is, what is the good of the most intricate technology if the one guy that matters isn't going to use it?
Not long after that, a run out decision was referred to the third Umpire by Steve Bucknor. The third Umpire could not make up his mind, so he referred it back to Bucknor, who gave the batsman out.
Need I comment on this?

Hey Quizcall!
I may agree to a certain extent that Dickie was one of the best. I think people would be hard-pressed to come up with more than a couple of memorable mistakes during his whole career (well, except for the time that he forgot to record in his notebook which batsman was facing the first over on the following day, and the ground authorities had to replay the last over on the big screen to work it out. My guess is that he wrote 'Waugh' in his book, but the trouble was, both Mark and Steve were batting at the time!).
I'm probably telling tales out of school here, but I'm led to believe that he wasn't a particularly popular bloke to umpire with. Apparently, it became a bit of 'The Dickie Show', and the other Umpire was relegated to 'bit-part' status. (Yes, even we Umpires have egos!).

In reply to:

---

The third Umpire could not make up his mind, so he referred it back to Bucknor, who gave the batsman out.

---

What happened to giving the batsmen the benefit of the doubt? If he was unsure enough to go the third umpire then, when the decision was given back to him, shouldn't he have said not out?

Dalgleish - I wasn't commenting on the man's personality just that he was one of the old school, he made his decision and stuck by it wether it was right or wrong (and I think having been both a player and pressed into service umpire) players would rather have someone like him than the lily-livered, afraid to be seen to be wrong umpires of today.

Copago - I think that was the whole point of starting the thread if any umpire isn't sure, the benefit of the doubt should always go to the batsman. If any decision needs the benefit of extremely slow replays, snickometers, "Hawkeye" etc then the batsman should always be given Not Out. I'll agree that the Run-Out decisions are hard to judge but even so if there's an element of doubt it should always go to the batsman. Perhaps if they did away with the Third Umpire and just accepted that the two men in the white coats were human then we might just get back to Cricket being played in the way it should be.