Is there anything more significant than the new ‘review’ laws being trialled in India and the West Indies right now? The ability for a team, batting or bowling to undermine or challenge the umpire’s decisions, has changed the game as we know it.
It is Ian Healy’s opinion that it throws the whole integrity of the ruling umpire’s decision into chaos and rebuke, particularly when parents are adjudicating the game.
Every kid can dispute, even if there is no means to.
And even if the third umpire gets to review the play in slow motion over and again and from various angles, it doesn’t mean they get it right. Harmison was wrongly awarded the ‘caught behind’ of the Windies tailender. The general public got to see the same footage as the third umpire and, unbelievably, he managed to call it incorrectly.
Astounding!
And as far as the credibility of being a ‘walker’, most players should adopt this honourable principle, otherwise risk losing any integrity they thought they had.
Brett McKay
Expert
Phil, to answer your first question, yes, there are PLENTY of things more significant than the new ‘review’ laws being trialled in India and the West Indies right now. I know what you're getting at, but a bit more context was needed for your question. Anything more significant in world cricket? Apart from Zimbabwe still being a Test nation, maybe there's not... Semantics.... To your main point, the review system could become as important as the third umpire IF it's done properly, and i don't think it was in the recent NZ-WI series. For me, anything that relies on prediction and projection technology like Hawkeye is still open to flaws and has a margin for error. The way to make the referrals work is to use exact, clear-cut technology like Hotspot, which removes the margin for error. It should be simple and obvious, and for mine, they've gone down the wrong path. JohnB is onto something when he says "the umpire who intends to give the batsman out should ask if there is any reason not to do so", but for general referrals, it should be quite simple: For an LBW appeal/referral: the vision is replayed and frozen at the points of the ball pitching, and the ball striking pad. Projected stump/pitch maps can be used to determine if the ball pitched and hit in line. No Hawkeye "trail". A side-on view could be taken to determine height if need be. From there, and only if there's doubt, Hotspot could be used to determine the presence of bat (or not). Once all this is done, it should be a clear cut decision, and without Hawkeye and its unreliability. While ever Hawkeye technology remains part of the process, the referral system will always have a question mark over it, in my opinion..
JohnB
Guest
For LBWs it should be a bit like rugby where the on-field referee asks the television match official if there is any reason why he shouldn't award a try - the umpire who intends to give the batsman out should ask if there is any reason not to do so - the third umpire can then look at line decisions (where the ball pitched and whether it struck the batsman in line if he is playing a shot) and whether the batsman appears to have hit the ball. I think it should be left to the umpire whether the ball is going to hit the stumps at least until there is a consensus that the predicting technology is accurate. Therefore, the umpire would not need to refer any decision which he intends to give not out on the basis that he doesn't think it will hit the stumps. For catches, again I think the umpire should have the power to refer any decisions, in these case whether he intends to give out or not out. Bat pad and caught behind decisions can of course be very close and can be got wrong either way. While technology is not perfect for seeing the ball hit bat or glove, it's helpful frequently. The umpires should be encouraged to refer these decisions for confirmation/clarification. Runouts and stumpings are already referred, and rightly so. Should no-balls be automatically monitored by a third umpire? And Phil, good luck in the campaign to bring back walking! Not holding my breath I'm afraid.