South Africa vs England, 1st Test, Centurion, Dec 16 - 20

** dons tin hat & scuttles off towards the bunker pronto **

Brass Monkey wrote:My main concern is that they'll give the ones out that're clipping leg or just nicking the top of the bails.

2/3 day tests.... there's an agenda somewhere

Brass Monkey wrote:My main concern is that they'll give the ones out that're clipping leg or just nicking the top of the bails.

Which would be the case if Hawkeye was adopted for referral issues.
The ball just grazing a bail would compel the third Ump to give it out.

Would you not think that in such a case it would be taking things a bit too far (ie., giving the batsman out) ?
Dependency on a 2 dimensional gimmick ... ?
Fatal IMO.

** waits now for merls & taips to come to the defence of respective captains**

Growler wrote:** waits now for merls & taips to come to the defence of respective captains**

Not in the slightest Growls ...
If both captains decide to forfeit both Snicko and Hot Spot (both excellent guides unlike Hawkeye) and a decision goes against them when, by consulting upstairs, the decision could have favoured them - then tough sh*t ... they have to live with the fact.

Mate - I've never criticised umpires - even Bucks at his worst - for their decision making.
It's a tough job at the best of times, and AFAIC, anyone standing focused for 30+ hours over 5 days (despite their "inflated" expenses) needs a serious pat on the back for encouragement as they attempt to make judgements to the best of their ability without outside interference or player pressure.

Having smarmy gits questioning the umpire's ability whilst sitting in front of a TV set and pandering to their audience, is nowt short of infuriating.

couldn't agree with you more Merlin, to me its up to the on-field umps to call it as they see it.

If the umpire wants clarification with any technology (including Hawkeye) that's fine with me, but I'm dead set against the players having the right to dispute a decision it can only make the game poorer IMHO.

Growler wrote:but I'm dead set against the players having the right to dispute a decision it can only make the game poorer IMHO.

The apparent reason the ICC don't want it to be down to the umpires to call for a reply is because human nature is such that they'll end up referring everything for fear of making a mistake. It's a legitimate concern, but the alternative is that the players are now effectively encouraged to dispute the umpire'd decision, i.e - that's out; oh no it isn't you blind tosspot, let's go and look at the replay.

The only issue there's ever been with the umpires has been when you've had a truly horrible decision, such as a massive inside edge not being picked up (and even then the media are too harsh, anyone who's played the game will know that sometimes you just don't detect the edge, there's so much going on), or the ball pitching a foot outside leg. But we will have Hawkeye showing the ball clipping the stumps and players being given out - irrespective of the fact the batsman might be miles down the track playing a shot. Hawkeye says it's hitting, therefore out. But this isn't the way the laws work or were intended to. They were intended for people to be given out when it was beyond reasonable doubt that it was going on to hit. You will have 8 lbws an innings if they carry on like this - what exactly is the point of being coached to have a second line of defence if the button-monkey upstairs decides it's hitting?