Notice Procters the comon denominator in both cases. Maybe he's a big part of the problem and he could have handled both incidents more effectively.

The thread starter raises a general question, not a specific one about Mike Proctor. To the general question: what's the practical alternative? Surely it is better for cricket to regulate itself, which means that umpires and referees have to enforce the Laws of cricket and the various Codes of Conduct of the ICC. The only alternative I see is taking everything to court - so then which courts have jurisdiction? And how far do we want to go? Ponting claims a dodgy catch which arguably affects the result of a test match, opposition makes a protest about it to - er - whom? The High Court of New South Wales? And what is the judge meant to rule?

Short answer: yes, the umpires and referees should be making these decisions.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Agreed OF, I would go further and say the last word should rest with the umpires, the referees are only brought in at the request of the umpires (I believe).

__________________
Ern

The third video umpire needs to do more.

In international matches (of which every match is televised) I see no reason why the match referee's cannot work with the TV producers prior to the start of the match to ensure cameras are in the best position. Even if the ICC pays for additional cameras and staff (editing & cameramen)

Maybe the video umpire needs to be umpires, the third and forth umpire plus the match referee. And when the umpire sends the descion upstairs that is where it is judged, no more sending them back for an umpires call.

If you look at the ICC's playing conditions for test matches and ODIs, you'll find detailed instructions about where the cameras are to be placed and how videos are to be made available to the third umpire. There's not much room for consultation - the referee (or third umpire, maybe) really doesn't need to do much more than confirm the cameras are placed as required. The broadcasters know where they have to be and it is a condition of their coverage that they get it right - so they do.

I am not convinced that having a committee doing the third umpire's job is a good idea - it will lead to more uncertainty through split decisions. At least if a third umpire is uncertain, he knows that - what if he's certain it's out, the fourth umpire is certain it's not out and the referee isn't sure what day it is? That's a tie, which is no help at all.

Also, I think it's quite in order for the third umpire to say "there's no evidence here to help you, guys" and pass the call back to the field umpires. If they are unsure and the third ump has no evidence, it is for the guys on the field to say "not out", isn't it? In the end, they're the blokes who raise the finger or not anyway, so I don't see what difference it makes whether the third umpire rules "not out" or "can't see it". The conclusion will be the same.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Then that really is the end of cricket as we know it, I would do just the opposit - bring back two national umpies, and if teams chucked their toys out of the pram every time they did not like a decission -that would be tough.

Thing is acker that teams showing dissent are FORCING these changes onto us, why can't we just accept that umpires get it wrong from time to time - but it's the same for all teams.


I mean to carry it a bit further, we would get rid of the umpires - and have a camera officiating at each end. and even then some teams would still argue black is white.

__________________
Ern

You could be on to something there .

Back to the original topic the match referee should have the final say on issues such as player conduct, they're apoointed by the ICC and are under their jurisdiction. It keeps everything on a level playing field (or should do) because then everyone is following the same rules and interpretation of those rules.

Yes I agree on condition that "the final say" means just that, if a match refreree makes a decission, then the ICC have to accept his judgment as final and back him 100%.

I also believe that the ICC should make sure that umpires are treat with respect, and umpires also should be supported by the ICC, or removed if they have a prolonged spell of making serious mistakes.

__________________
Ern

Because us the cricketing public now have access to numerous video replays, zoom camera's, snikko microphones, hawkeye lbw and most notably in the last 10 years the internet to access more sources of the above.

And unfortunately for umpires the cricket public now is even better informed and has greater access to vision of umpiring stakes today than even the players of 10 years ago had.

I dont think the umpires are making anymore mistakes than umpires did in the past. With video training aids they are more than likely making a lot less.

We will always need umpires on the feild to monitor and exercise some control over the players. And to keep giving the lbw's, wides, stop running on the pitch, moniter playing conditions,no-balls and team v team/player v player interactions.

But in instances wher the video umpire should be able to make a call, the video umpire should make it.

10 years ago Ern I would have been flat chat discussing something with someone 100 km down the road on the phone. Now I am discussing the finer points of cricket with you and cricket fans around the world on nearly a daily basis.