View Full Version : LBW decisions set to be judged by technology. Will it be good for us?
May 4, 2006, 08:34 PM
LBW decisions set to be judged by technology
ABU DHABI, May 4 (Internet) - In a revolutionary proposal by International Cricket Council (ICC), players dissatisfied with umpires' decisions could ask for technology help for all 10 modes of dismissals, including the controversial leg before wicket (LBW), by October.
Batsmen, after being given out, could ask the on-field umpires to refer their decision to the TV/third umpire, who could overrule the decision. Similarly, the fielding side could also appeal against a decision that had not gone in their favour.
If the ICC Cricket Committee, headed by Sunil Gavaskar, approves its management's proposal in total over the weekend here, the changes could be implemented in the 10-nation Champions Trophy to be held in India in October-November.
"The proposal is that run out and stumping decisions will stay as they are. The on-field umpire will consult the third umpire in the normal way. Every other decision, including leg before the wicket, can be checked - every aspect of every decision," ICC's general manager (cricket) David Richardson said in an interview.
"The proposal is that if your appeal is unsuccessful then you lose that appeal and you are allowed only a certain number. We haven't decided on the number yet. It could be two or four per team per innings," Richardson, 46, a former South African Test wicket keeper, disclosed, who represented the Proteas in 42 Test matches and 122 one-day internationals.
He said it was a compromise formula arrived at after weighing the pros and cons of a research on umpires' decisions.
"It's not easy to find a compromise, but by having tried various things over the years we are in a good position now to see what works and what doesn't. We are ready for a final push in the direction we want to go, which is a compromise position that satisfies both the traditionalists and those who are for greater use of technology," he said.
Over the years, ICC tried ping lines (imaginary wicket to wicket lines), earpieces linked to the stump microphones to help on-field umpires make decisions.
Source: Bangladesh Observer Net Edition
It will be good for BD if this passes. It seems that we are always in the short end of close calls. It will bring back some fairness into officiating. One may also argue that the it will spell a slow death of human element in cricket.
Good........Icc behaving with brain now.
May 4, 2006, 09:50 PM
good for us...bad calls go agains us far more often than not.
they should do it like the challeges in NFL, where if you win, its not counted against you.
e.g. you have 3 challenges per innings. when you it incorrectly, you lose that challenge. so if you are wrong on the first appeal, then you can only use 2 more challenges that innings. and if you are correct, you still have 3 appeals left.
May 4, 2006, 10:16 PM
From Wiki: NFL instant reply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay#National_Football_League)
If they follow the NFL model, that means the coach will make calls (makes sense to me, say for LBW decision, the batsman can never be too sure to make an appeal). That also means the coach has to be provided TV replys too.
May 4, 2006, 10:30 PM
Is the coach gonna be shouting from the boundary line all day, especially when Shane Warne or Murali is bowling?.. although it does seem like a good idea, it's kinda unrealistic for a cricket match, even for an ODI.
May 4, 2006, 10:31 PM
That means umpires will do almost nothing. :p Its bad for cricket as it will lose its uncertainty and good for Bangladesh as a lot odf decisions go against Bangladesh in international cricket specially when Billy Bowden, Hariharan, Ghouri, Ian Howell and CO are umpires.
May 4, 2006, 10:59 PM
Is the coach gonna be shouting from the boundary line all day, especially when Shane Warne or Murali is bowling?
No, he won't, because he will be limited to 2/3 appeals per innings.
Like it or not, the number of matches is increasing every year while the number of quality umpires is decreasing, ICC does not have much option here but to rely more on technology to mantain the standard of the game.
May 5, 2006, 12:06 AM
From ICC website (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-media/content/story/246180.html)
The use of technology, establishing consistent criteria for the assessment of bad light, assessments of playing conditions for various forms of the game and cricket bat specifications are among the subjects set to be discussed at the meeting of the ICC Cricket Committee, in Dubai on Friday and Saturday.
The Committee will debate whether or not to allow players a certain number of appeals - to be determined - per innings if they feel a decision made by the on-field umpire may be incorrect.
If the Committee supports the idea and it is accepted by the Chief Executives' Committee and the ICC Board, the process would be adopted at this year's ICC Champions Trophy in India and, if the trial proves successful, it would be repeated at next year's ICC Cricket World Cup.
The appeals system has been used in American Football for several years and, earlier this year, was trialed in an event on the professional tennis circuit.
May 5, 2006, 12:19 AM
I think it will be better for us and for cricket as well. And I agree that it should be something like NFL style coach's challenge. If you win you don't loose you quota of challenges and also meaningful if it is called by someone who is closely observing (an official) the match on TV. In addition to this, ICC should also use umpire grading system as well:-)
May 5, 2006, 03:15 AM
how about putting some robots? wrong decision is part of cricket culture. why evrything should be americanized? The game is already slow. putting all those techo gimmick would make it more slow. ICC sold is soul to commercial firms. this would give them more time for ad. I hv enough of this.
May 5, 2006, 03:48 AM
Good for BD but still I agree with many of you that it will take away the natural art of cricket. Limited appeals mean that a wrong decision after the quota will be always overlooked. Saying that I also don't want to say not to restrict the number of appeals. It may slow down the game if unlimited appeals go on.
By any means, of course we can test it for a tournament or two how it goes. Provided that the result and feedback is good, we can definitely continue. Otherwise NOT.
May 5, 2006, 04:34 AM
Haha. Warne is going to be using this to his advantage twice or so every over.
May 5, 2006, 09:16 AM
There has to be a limit imposed on how many each side can appeal for. exceding the limit should be penalized. This way no extensive abuse by warne and co.
Money talk. The more time for commercials, the more sponsorship, more money for the board, better for cricketing cultivation. This is not americanizing. This is to save the game from extinction. watch how many people are in the stands in test cricket that don't involve australia.
Change is good. Techno can only help. Yes it takes time but less incident with the players and umpires, less rioting incentives for the uncivilized fans by a single wrong decision. To watch a replay it should not take more than 1 min. 6 calls per innings 3 by each side should take less than 6 mins. Not a big price to pay if we can limit confrontation and escalating hatred between players and umpires.
May 5, 2006, 09:41 AM
Good for us. Good for everyone (except JO).
May 5, 2006, 10:16 AM
If someone like Mahbubur Rahman does the job of 3rd umpire, then I wonder what kind of good it will do to us!
May 5, 2006, 10:43 AM
Good idea. I think batsman will make the call, not the coach. I mean as a batsman, you know whether you nicked it or not and you should be able to make the call... same thing goes with LBW decision... most batsman know whether they are out or not.... bat-pad decision will be easier with this... I like the idea... can only make the game fair
May 5, 2006, 11:03 AM
Batsman can only tell if he nicked the ball but not the line and length the ball hit him. The whole method can backfire on us if our batsmen really do get LBWs but can't escape by luck anymore. Experienced bowlers will find a way to use this to their advantage.
May 5, 2006, 11:27 AM
From my own experience, I can say this. Most of the time, a batsman know whether he is out or not. Its not so hard to have an idea since you know where the ball hit you and the line.
May 5, 2006, 02:22 PM
I hope we are not misunderstanding the meaning of normal appeals and challenge appeals. There should be no limit for normal appealing. However, challenge appeals should be limited and only then the game won't become too slow.
Those who are ridiculing the idea asking about putting a robot on field, they should think about the feeling of players and fans when ridiculous decisions go against them as well. One horrible decision can make or break a game; can spoil someone career.
May 5, 2006, 02:43 PM
I dont thnk so
May 5, 2006, 02:51 PM
I think ICC should try it out just as they did with supersub. In this way they can asses the impact on the game bith interms of farness and time penalty. ODI is the format where they can sart with.
May 5, 2006, 08:42 PM
Ok lets make something clear. Undoubtly soccer is the most popular game of the world. The reason is it for its simplicity. Wrong/doubtful decision had even decided world cup. But it did not make FIFA to change or go for video technology. I give you 3 examples Hurst Goal in 1966 final; Maradona's 'hand of god' goal in 1986; Klinsmans blatant dive to earn penalty in 1990 final. There is always claim/counter claim of off-side goal; earning/denying penalty for diving/not diving. But did FIFA change the rule? No because that is part of the game. As long as umpire/referree is fair it eventually even out. Even after 3rd umpire how many times we have proved wrong from the first time we saw an out. I think less than 10%. Dicky Bird did not need 3rd umpire evn when it was availble . He was so good tht he did not need tech. While Shaheen, Mahboob would be poor whether he had technology or not. Remember Aftab's out. We are talking so much abt SN's LBW what about the one we got of Gilly. Instead of taking the proper action of preparing good umpire ICC is looking at the profitable/cheaper idea. They are more interested in Asoka, Hariharan, Mahboob than a Dicky Bird, Shephard.
May 5, 2006, 08:51 PM
If nothing else, this rule will provide transparency on the number of umpiring errors. I suspect that you'll find that no one teams gets excessively bad calls per creatable chance. When we cheer for our teams we tend to remember every single dodgy call that went against our team but it's harder to remember good calls we received (it's human nature).
I support this change as it will provide transparency on the amount of umpiring errors per game, and end the whinging about bad/biased calls. The next step for me would be to eliminate the on-field umpires completely, and let the TV umpire adjudicate on all decisions.
May 6, 2006, 09:45 AM
Aaah this is a tricky situation isn't it. Umpires will be often overstepped on their calls. This may not seem to be such a good idea. It would make sense if the umpires themselves refer the decision to the TV replays... There is not point in putting the umpires on the line everytime.
However, I strongly believe an effective Umpiring Review Board shud be placed for all those wretched umpires who have absolutely no clue abt giving dismissal decisions. Certain SL and PAK umpires would be the first ones on the firing line.
May 6, 2006, 10:19 AM
It's a good move particluarly for us. No. of appeals should be limited.
May 6, 2006, 09:09 PM
Excerp from ICC report (http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-media/content/story/246366.html)
The Committee agreed to recommend players be allowed three appeals per innings to the third umpire if they feel a decision made by the on-field umpire is incorrect.
The recommendation was for the measure to be trialed at this year's ICC Champions Trophy in India and then be reviewed after that tournament.
The recommendation was, however, made by the narrowest possible margin (six votes to five) with reservations expressed over what it will mean for The Spirit of Cricket, the fabric of the game and the role and authority of the on-field umpire.
Explaining how the new appeals system might work, ICC General Manager - Cricket, David Richardson said: "Each team will be allowed three appeals to the third umpire per innings. If the appeal is successful they will retain the right to three appeals but if not, then it is lost.
"Only the captain from the fielding side will be entitled to make the appeal by approaching the on-field umpire making the sign of a TV with his hands. For the batting side, only the batsman involved in the decision would be able to make the appeal, which he would do in the same way."
The trial would not include the use of technology such as Hawkeye or the Snickometer but would include the LBW mat, the solid line super-imposed on the screen between the two sets of stumps and used by broadcasters to determine where the ball pitches and the point of impact on the batsman's pads.
The Committee recommended umpires should be equipped with earpieces in all international matches to allow them to listen to the stump microphones, something that will help them hear edges much more easily.
That has already been trialed during the ICC Champions Trophy in 2004 and the Pakistan - India Test series in 2005 and ICC management will now assess the financial implications ahead of a decision by the Chief Executives' Committee.
May 6, 2006, 10:15 PM
I like the appeal system in NFL. Despite loud cries from the opponents at its inception, it is a huge success and there is now of going back. I do not think it seriously undermines the authorities of the umps. I will, however, limit the maximum number challenges to three whther upheld or not.
May 6, 2006, 11:30 PM
On the bright side great move by icc....
but, on the dull side it will take more time....and make games bouring and lengthy...and with bowlers like shane warne one hour will be needed of confering....
So I would like ICC to start a new rule for over appeling..!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.