It’s a dilemma, isn’t it? To have UDRS or not to have UDRS?

Scrap the system, it’s unfair in its current form. I have nothing against the use of technology in sports but calling the decisions of the umpires into question only for some “overlord” sitting in a box to overturn them is wrong. With the third umpire on run outs it was only ever when the field umpires weren’t certain, it was never there to correct the decisions being made.

Benson’s not happy and I can certainly understand why.

Prior to jumping from Blue to Red, the PB was around 120, but since then the 5th Test live blog hit 212, and a recent piece on the ACT Govt pulling out of the FIFA World Cup bid got to 155. This one would easily be among the higher scores though..

How we have diverted from the topic of UDRS! By the way, you are heading for a century of comments. What’s your highest “score”?

By the way, I mentioned to Vinay somewhere on The Roar recently about catching up during the SCG Test. I’ll send you an email in the next week or so to check your movements, and if a few of us are going to be in attendance, we’ll see if we can tee something up.

(if any of you guys watch Family Guy, you’ll know what I mean by “I want my money…”)

I was in the waiting room at an opthalmologist. And my eyes popped out (without the dilating drops!) on reading your name. It was from The Weekly. The Sydney Directory does not mention The Weekly but lists The Weekly Times, published in Ryde. You may ring them. It was published in the sports section in either the first week of November or the last week of October.

Royalty is nothing compared to the Right Regal Honour bestowed on a fellow Roar contributor!

Do I get royalties for this?!?!

The real act of sportsmanship was shown by skipper GR Viswanath during the Golden Jubilee Test between India and England in Bombay (now Mumbai) in February 1980. England was 5-58 in reply to India’s 242 when rescued by Ian Botham and Bob Taylor adding 171 for the 6th wicket and England went on to win by 10 wickets.

However, the stand of 171 could have been much smaller when Taylor was declared caught behind by wicket-keeper Kirmani. As Taylor started walking back disappointed, Vishwanath called him back. Good on you, Vishy!

Brett,
Now to something entirely different. Do you know that you were quoted in The Weekly magazine of November for your Roar column? This was after NSW won the Champions T20 League when you had written, “A champion team can defeat a team full of champions.” Something to ROAR about!

However fruitless and windmill despair moments do not deter me. The churlish will say Gilchrist walked only when he knew he was blatantly out. I prefer to think he walked even when it was not so obvious to the umpire,like in the 2003 match against Sri Lanka. I think Aravinda walked up to him from mid on and shook his hand and I am not sure who the umpire was but I think he was applauded.Polly Umrigar was another walker and if memory serves me right Doug Walters was also one to leave without a fuss.

I was also not suggesting that the competitions i played in were run by Mother Teresa. Conversely they were not run by Stalin.

We agree on the big picture and that is important. Keep well

Have I made myself clear, my friend?

And thanks for the Taylor-Martyn clarification – I get it now.

The average Test over takes about 3-4 minutes to bowl, so around 30-40 seconds per ball. If there’s an LBW shout given not out, even with some time for head shaking and cursing under the breath, the bowler would be back at the top of his mark ready to run in again within 20 seconds or so. I just don’t think that’s enough time to get a good enough look.

And that only has to happen five or six times in a day for yet another over of time to be lost..

However my idea will not remove the power of the on-field umpire. All line ball decision will have to be adjudicate on the spot. If the decision isn’t so clear cut that the 3rd umpire can’t intervene before the next delivery is bowled, then the decision of the on-field umpire will stand (which may solve the over-rate issue). Therefore dismissal have more time for the 3rd umpire to decide whether to review the decision then a non-dismissal (which is fair enough as the benefit of the doubt generally goes to the batsman). Only when the 3rd umpire initiates the review process, only then the game is stopped and the 30 second wait will proceed. I also never said that the umpires can reverse a decision when there is no appeal.

The way I see it, the 3 umpires are working as a team rather then working independently.

Within 30 seconds a spinner has already bowled his next delivery and a quick bowler would be at the top of his run, your idea would totally screw up the dynamics of cricket.

I’m all for free thinking but let’s keep it realistic. Your suggestion does away with on-field umpires, ruins the timing and emotion of the game and would leave the rules entirely in the hands of a man watching TV.

From what I have heard and seen in the two tests in NZ and AUS it hasnt been the system at fault but the players.

This strikes me as a little poetic given the current hysteria – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Ms37yt3lg

Chris Gayle take note!

The 3rd umpire will watch the game live similar to how the commentators and the tv viewers watch the game live. If he sees a mistakes, he will call the umpire on the pitch and say he is reviewing the decision. only then will the 30 seconds review will be done.

All 4 points that Freud makes will become irrelevant if it is implementing that way especially the umpire having an impossible job (it’s still an easier job then umpiring on the pitch).

If it is implemented that way there should be no increase time wasting or tactical appeals. There would only be a marginal delay in the game.

It must really burn those guys, they get few chances to show everyone they can do it. And then no-one gives a toss when they get ’stiffed’.

Yes there was that reversal.It did have an effect.

Further, there are certain players that are affected by their technique. We all know Ponting loves to plant that front foot early in his innings and try to play to leg but it’s just screaming LBW-opportunity.

I’m sure someone like Ponting would be more vulnerable to the umpires for looking somewhat goofy in his technique than someone like Martyn whose feet were more or less always in the right place.

Also, there are the bunnies who seem to get a hard deal, I remember seeing McGrath given out at least 3-4 times to very poor lbw’s, as always he was fuming but no-one took him serious because he was a number 11, generally however he was correct.

Off the top of my head, there was at least one umpiring reversal, and it was crucial: McCullum was given out lbw on the second last ball of day 1, but on appeal it was overturned. The next day he and Vettori put on another hundred runs, and that was crucial in setting up NZ’s win.

Now whether that lbw reversal was correct is another matter indeed …

I think the best way to go around it, is that umpires from the countries involve can adjudicate the match as long as both sides agree to that before hand.

Therefore volatile matches such as India and australia or India and Pakistan can have the neutral umpire status.
Other matches we can have the best umpires available and the side can’t complain about bias because they agree to let the umpire stand beforehand.

The game goes on regardless until the 3rd umpire intervenes.

If the next delivery is bowled before the 3rd umpire can intervene then bad luck to the players who were wrong done. If the 3rd umpire needs that long to overule the decision then it’s not an obvious mistake

Therefore there is no tactical delays etc

3rd umpire has the impossible job?

Not really. He has the job of what normal cricket fans do. Watch the game and point of obvious mistakes.

As Tony Grieg said, only way you are going to get rid of obvious mistakes is if you give the 3rd umpire power to overule the umpire on the pitch without referrals.

I think Freud interpretation of video reviews is the current one. We stopped the game. The crowd waits before the umpire makes the decision.

I’m changing that to the game goes on, the 3rd umpire work with the decision in the background., calls the umpire on the pitch if there is a mistake.

Freud
My other article on football was not about stopping the game. It’s about reviewing every goal or penalty.
There are natural breaks in the game. There’s on’y an average of about 2-3 goals a game. Why not make all the goal decision right. It often takes about 2-3 minutes after a goal been scored before the game is restarted, about a minute when a penalty is awarded and the kick is set up. Why not take advantages of the time it takes to set things up.

None of the studies conclude, as far as I am aware, that it is a conscious favoring of one team by another by the umpires. Indeed, one of the recent studies has shown that neutral umpires have made little difference to bias in LBW decisions.

Nevertheless there exists measurable and statistically significant differences between the rate of LBW’s for certain teams in certain countries. And I am by no means excluding Australia from this.

However, I suggest it is on a player by player basis we should be concerned. Ie. Warne seemed to get a massive amount of dodgy decisions in his favour. Tendulkar seems to need a good few plumb LBW’s before he gets given out LBW. And so on.

We should also be concerned with the PERCEPTION of bias. All should not only be fair but it should be seen to be fair.

Healy might have said tongue-in-cheek about the batsmen turning their bat to show no nick on hotspot – but I think they’ll learn to do that quick smart!