Should the ICC replace look to replace umpires with a technological solution?

[CricFan2012]

In the age of technology it seems redundant to have all these umpires who tend to make mistakes which can shift the balance of the game.

Have a look at the recently concluded Bangladesh vs England series, there were around a dozen overturned decisions. One particular umpire error costed Bangladesh the match and the series.

The decision review system does provide some relief but sometimes that's not enough due to the limited amount available.

Should ICC remove human umpires and incorporate technological umpires If given the opportunity in the fear future?

What are your views?

 

[HateKiller]

I agree. Technology should overtake now considering the number of mistakes umpires make. Reviewing a decision takes a lot of time, so technology will need to be faster. All lbws should go to technology. Only drawback as I said is that using technology slows the game.

 

[hashimafzal]

Get rid of DRS?

After hearing the criticism Michael Holding had of the umpires during the West Indies - Australia game, I propose a new concept.

How about we get rid of DRS?

As absurd as it may sound, do we really need a system where the captains decide when and where they want to use their referrals?

A bad decision is a bad decision and it shouldn't matter if you have any reviews to refute an umpires decision.

Looking at VAR, the system employed by FIFA, I think we can implement a new model to minimize the impact poor decisions can have on a cricket game.

First we abolish the review system.

We have the third umpire oversee the game, and if he feels an incorrect call has been made, he steps in and takes a quick look. If it is a close call, the third umpire signals to the umpire to halt play as he's needs another angle/replay etc.

If there is evidence to overturn, the call is overturned. If its close stick with umpires call.

Captains and batsmen should focus on playing cricket. Their focus shouldn't be on the umpires.

 

[Pakpak]

After hearing the criticism Michael Holding had of the umpires during the West Indies - Australia game, I propose a new concept.

How about we get rid of DRS?

As absurd as it may sound, do we really need a system where the captains decide when and where they want to use their referrals?

A bad decision is a bad decision and it shouldn't matter if you have any reviews to refute an umpires decision.

Looking at VAR, the system employed by FIFA, I think we can implement a new model to minimize the impact poor decisions can have on a cricket game.

First we abolish the review system.

We have the third umpire oversee the game, and if he feels an incorrect call has been made, he steps in and takes a quick look. If it is a close call, the third umpire signals to the umpire to halt play as he's needs another angle/replay etc.

If there is evidence to overturn, the call is overturned. If its close stick with umpires call.

Captains and batsmen should focus on playing cricket. Their focus shouldn't be on the umpires.

That's a very good I think. Between each ball the TV umpire should have enough time to quickly review a dodgy decision.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Why not give umpires 15 seconds to review their own decisions?

 

[Ronaldo7]

Why not give umpires 15 seconds to review their own decisions?

Wouldn't they want all of their decisions to be reviewed?

 

[hashimafzal]

That's a very good I think. Between each ball the TV umpire should have enough time to quickly review a dodgy decision.

Exactly. By the time the bowler walks back for the next delivery, the TV umpire should already have his mind made up if he needs a second look or not.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Problem will be timing. Most likely more than 90% of LBWs in a game will have to be reviewed. It's not football where VAR comes to play whenever there's just a goal

 

[hashimafzal]

Problem will be timing. Most likely more than 90% of LBWs in a game will have to be reviewed. It's not football where VAR comes to play whenever there's just a goal

Yeah I figured timing would be an issue, but most times one look at an LBW will determine if it was a completely bad decision or not. If it isn't touching the bat, most times you're able to take one look at ball tracking and the decision can be made instantly .

 

[hadi123]

No. DRS is fine. VAR works in football as it's an end to end fast paced game unlike cricket. DRS system in cricket is fine the way it is

 

[gazza619]

The best thing really would be to get umpires who are actually neutral. DRS is a brilliant concept (i hate umpires call though)

 

[Visaal-E-Yaar]

They can update to new technologies. DRS is best solution we have so far. VAR is a lenghty procedure for cricket.

 

[CricFan2012]

Instead of trying to censor Holding, ICC needs to remove umpires and get on with the age, every LBW, no ball decision should be made by robots in the coming years so we can have a fair game.

 

[zulfiqar]

I am a bit confused about one particular thing in DRS - what's with the "umpire's call" option? SO for example, when Wahab Riaz was caught behind vs Australia, and the umpire says not out, how come that decision was overturned even when the evidence for the nick was marginal at best? I say marginal because the snick-o picked up the most tiniest of noises and there was no visible deviation in the ball, etc. What is the strength of evidence required to overturn the decision?

Contrast this to the 1st innings where we appealed for LBW and it showed that the ball was hitting the batsman in line, pitched in line, and was going to go on and marginally hit the stumps. Very similar circumstances in my opinion, but the it was given as "umpire's call" which means that the umpire should stay with his decision because even though the batsman was actually out? Pakistan was also allowed to keep their review - apparently because the review wasn't a bad review, but just not enough to overturn the decision.

Just wanted to know for my information!

 

[Ronaldo7]

I am a bit confused about one particular thing in DRS - what's with the "umpire's call" option? SO for example, when Wahab Riaz was caught behind vs Australia, and the umpire says not out, how come that decision was overturned even when the evidence for the nick was marginal at best? I say marginal because the snick-o picked up the most tiniest of noises and there was no visible deviation in the ball, etc. What is the strength of evidence required to overturn the decision?

Contrast this to the 1st innings where we appealed for LBW and it showed that the ball was hitting the batsman in line, pitched in line, and was going to go on and marginally hit the stumps. Very similar circumstances in my opinion, but the it was given as "umpire's call" which means that the umpire should stay with his decision because even though the batsman was actually out? Pakistan was also allowed to keep their review - apparently because the review wasn't a bad review, but just not enough to overturn the decision.

Just wanted to know for my information!

The edge in drs terms was more than marginal. It was actually a pretty decent edge. The amplitude of the wave was pretty high. As for the lbw decision, due to the Hawkeye not being very accurate, umpires call is used when less than 50% I think it is of the ball is hitting the wicket, this makes sure it's fair

 

[Hyperion66]

That would be awesome, I don't see what is the point paying these dinosaurs when most of the hard work is done by technology.