Icc - Nuts?, When is an umpire not an umpire? Options

[Shane]

At the next meeting of the ICC Cricket Committee which will take place in Dubai on 16-17 May, the committee will consider whether to trial a new initiative.

Quote: The CC will receive an update on recent technology trials including umpire earpiece technology. It will also consider proposals for the increased use of television replays in official decision-making including whether to recommend a trial that would allow the batsman or fielding captain to appeal against a decision of the on-field umpire to the TV umpire.

Now I must say, what fool would sanction allow a player to appeal against an umpires decision! Can you simply imagine the amount of delays this would add to a match.

When are these fools at the ICC going to let an umpire do his job as governed by the Laws of Cricket?

Such an intitiative is just total plain stupidity.

So, with the Laws of Cricket in mind, if such a scenario is implemented, what would happen to players who dispute an umpires decision?

[mrsingh]

Thanks for the invite to the discussion, Admin.

The ICC will receive an update on recent technology trials including umpire earpiece technology. It will also consider proposals for the increased use of television replays in official decision-making including whether to recommend a trial that would allow the batsman or fielding captain to appeal against a decision of the on-field umpire to the TV umpire.

This proposal, to allow an appeal by the captain of the fielding side and/or the batsman, has been around for some time now but has not found any supporters for obvious reasons.

Inordinate delays in the game apart, I think the ICC should also be concerned with the eroding away of the authority of the umpire. This has been happening in other ways for some time now. I might be repeating myself in this forum, but the Match Referee, who, in my view, should act as a catalyst between the Captains on the one hand and the Umpires on the other, is increasingly becoming a barrier between the two. And this after the Match Referee is instructed in plain terms that hs is not to interfere in the traditional role of the umpires.This could have subtle long-term consequences. The earlier this trend is reversed the better it will be for the game.

As of now there is no substitute for the man in the middle for many of the duties he has to perform like adjudging no balls, LBWs (a failed experiment), catch decisions (another failed experiment), maintaining player discipline, adjudging acts of unfair play, a thrown delivery(I'm not sure this remains within the domain of the field umpire anymore) faint snicks (limited success with the snickometer -which was never official anyway) and others.

Therefore, it is my view that the ICC must reinforce the authority of the umpire and not let it be eroded any further as, I fear, this present proposal will.

Once you admit the proposal for an appeal against the umpire's decision, I don't know where it will all end. One of the things that is woven into the very fabric of the game is respect for and unqualified obedience for the umpire's decision. This, I think, is also a very useful lesson in life. But take this thread away and the fabric might fall apart.

Admittedly, there have been several instances where the umpire has not referred and the TV cameras have shown that the batsman was out. The umpires have to be made to realise is that, when there is the slightest doubt about a decision it better to err on the side of caution and refer than not.

I understand that the percentage of correct decisions is around 93% and the ICC's aim to reduce the errors further is commendable. But aiming at zero error is an impossible ideal.

Let the man in the middle do his job. And take the good with the bad.

[Guest_Thorpey_*]

Let the man in the middle do his job. And take the good with the bad.

I totally agree