This latest ‘experiment’ should change the face of the game as we know it. Gone are the days when you could revel in a sense of moral superiority by telling your football loving sibling/pal etc. about how supposedly the whole difference between cricket and football and indeed any sport in the world was that you could not argue against the verdict of the umpire no matter what.

Like destiny you just had to accept their verdicts and move on, so much so that the ICC’s very own much raved about Code of Conduct guards against players showing dissent at an umpire’s decision. But now, thanks to the wonderful ICC, instead of that, we can look forward to explaining to our friends how teams will have the right to question every decision it feels it is being hard done by, that is, if we manage to understand this new ruling our selves first.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who is some what confused. But assuming that other more intelligent folks like Jag and Geoff for instance have interpreted this correctly you could have a grand total of no less then 26 appeals per match and assuming each would take a minimum of 1 minute you can be rest assured this new adventure will be perfectly non-time consuming.

If there’s any positive you can take out of this development it’s the fact that the executive board of the ICC is yet to approve the recommendations made by its cricket committee. So we might still see the back of this, but if, god forbid, the executive boards do approve this then we would have a trial at the Champions Trophy in October. And worse still if following the trial at the CT the powers to be some how come to the conclusion that this can work then we’d have to bear the ignominy of tolerating this madness at the World Cup!

But apart from the fact that this new adventure will give teams the perfect excuse to continue to think nothing of the ICC Champions Trophy but a money making, ridiculous new rule test experimenting ground, and that it would give them further incentive to continue with the ridiculously poor over rates we routinely see them accomplishing and the fact that this more or less completely undermines the role of the on field umpire, this new rule, as Inzi would insist, is noting short of perfect. For once I’m going to have to agree with Javed Miandad.

Having an appeal system probably isn't the way to go, but I do think the umpires need some technological aid. I mean, standing there, for 6 hours a day, having to concentrate on appeals and no-balls- obviously, lapses of concentration are going to occur and mistakes will be made. Bloody obvious ones too. And lets be honest, you don't really need to doctor images to make Steve Bucknor look past his best.

Here's wishing that someone strikes through a few names on the ICC team list like Zainub does in her 1st line....

My view is that too much of technology mightspoil the spirit of the game...There must be certain percentage of error(it shouldn't be called an error in fact) always... If this is the case why to have players, we will go for Robots which will will be playing instead of Dhoni.. :)

Why to have players instead of robots, Arun? Because the game is ABOUT the players, not the umpires.

No if ICC thinks that they can replace man with technology for umpiring then why not replace players with robots... it really makes sense... :)

Arun

The trick is to think of stuff like Hawkeye as a tool for the umpires, not as a replacement. If there is a patently obvious out or not-out LBW appeal, then the umpire can give that one accordingly. However, if it's one of those 50-50 decisions, then surely the umpire should be enabled to ask the 3rd umpire if it was pitching in line, wouldit have missed leg, etc. I don't think the world of cricket is worse off because runouts are being refered. And these replays and Hawkeye aren't 100% correct (even though they do get more right than the umpires) so there still is a margin of error; it's just been shrunk down a bit.

I don't trust Hawkeye because of the Latitude for Error with regards to the Bounce. The Bounce generated from a 5'10" Bowler is different from a 6'4"Bowler; and the Pitch is different from the first day to the 4th.
I do trust the Snickometer though and I hope the Authorities will use it in the WC especially since the crowd noise (plus Music, etc..) will be at a high level in the West Indies.

Also too many Umpires from one country cannot be a good thing, what ever the reason.

Feroz

Fair point about the bounce. But wouldn't that problem apply to umpires as well? I think it was Amit Varma (?) who wrote an article last year about how they are at a natural disadvantage because of their position.

That's correct Marcus, it does apply to umpires as well. When I see old photographs of cricket, I am struck by how often I see an Umpire (usually old and wizened) painfully crouched over and bent double by his determination to stay as low as possible-Poor Fellas-with their eyes squinting just above the bails; back breaking stuff which I would not wish on anyone. I have wondered if a tiny fold up seat might be used so that the umpire literally sits down during deliveries, but that would block run out throws plus players would probably find a way to bump or trip over it...(smiley).
Maybe we should persuade ex jockeys to be umpires !!