blonde poker forum

So Tennis has "Hawk eye" and the challenges rule ... Cricket has had the 3rd umpire but only used for run outs..

And now this referral scheme where each team has 2 per innings, and they can challenge lbw decisions, catches etc etc ...

Do you agree with that ?

And should football start looking and implementing changes on the technology front ?

Not sure which way I go regarding this for footy, as it would slow down the game but it would also make things fairer.

I do think there should be retrospective punishment for diving, by an independent board reviewing the games afterwards because its always a tough decision for a referee and there isn't nearly as many cards given out for it as there should be. Either that or they should have to play on concrete.

I think Hawkeye is superb and they have it in snooker although not used.  I don't think i would slw the game down that much to be honest I deffo think we should have some sort of development in football.

I think with cricket I'm all for it as the technology can eliminate many bad decisions and there are natural breaks in the game.  I was listening to TMS yesterday when there was a challenge by England and it took about 4 minutes to sort it out which I think is too long. If they can't decide within a minute then surely there must be an element of doubt? That's the only problem I see - If the umpire's in any doubt he must give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, but wht if the 3rd umpire is in doubt? Does that "benefit" still go to the batsman or does he have to be certain to overturn the original decision?

Footie I reckon they should try to use it if they can do it without breaking up the game, after all they did it in the World Cup Final so why not other matches too?

I agree with this, although I do like the fact that mistakes are made sometimes.

If a decision is referred then the umpire on the field is correct unless it is obvious that it's wrong. The one overturned yesterday was a joke. The onfield umpire could have ruled either way and his decision should have stood in either case as it was a very close call. There was no certainty so why it was overturned i'll never know.

Sandy

Yup agree with the above, they should have a max time on cricket referrals say 1 min, and decisions should only be overturned if there is a clear mistake.

what did they do in the world cup final?

The ref never saw Zidane's headbutt.

FYP ::)

Obviously its lame its not used, work a challenge system like in the NFL

jeez, there are enough stopages as it is with everyone diving all over the place, every match would go on for 6 hours like the NFL!

I don't like the new referral system in cricket for stuff like lbw's and nicks behind etc. Tv doesn't prove one way or the other in a lot of cases and it is wasting too much time, as people stand around 5 minutes to get the wrong decision. Line decision i am fine with as, they are clear rights and wrongs. I am happy with the same to be introduced in football line decision which are categorically one way or the other, possibly an ice hocky style light behind the net etc.

Especially in football the game doesn't enough natural breaks for it to be practical imo, like american football where the play ends at a determined point. You can get 4-5 mins stretch of unbroken play which could contain multiple reviewable plays. So what do you do stop when the ball eventually goes dead and then review 5 mins of tape, can't see it working personally.

This is what has caused some confusion with the referral system out in the West Indies. I assumed that the 3rd umpire would look afresh at any incident and make a call. In fact, the system is only there to eliminate the blatant wrong decisions where everyone except the umpire knows what the right decision should be.

Therefore the 3rd umpire starts with the assumption that the umpire out in the middle has got it right, and should only reverse it if it is clear a wrong decision has been made. If a batsman is given out, it's referred, and the 3rd umpire thinks he's probably not out, he shouldn't reverse it - he should only reverse it if he definitely thinks it's not out.

2 challanges each, a 3rd if you get first 2 right, cant see it taking that much time up.

They still dont agree on decisions on match of the day when they've looked at the incident 30 times so i can see that causing so much drama , esp for the managers, if you see them having a scream up now imagine what it'll be like for the refs if they take the time out to review a decision and still get it wrong.