Reply With QuoteBut in this scenario, players are the children and referees are supposed to be the grown-ups. Being a grown-up means having your decision-making scrutinised.Originally Posted by redgunamo
It's a silly thing done in a silly way. But, if you must, then get the video umpire and his on-field colleagues to be in constant conference with each other, independent of baying from the players. If any of them notice anything, they should make their decision which is then relayed to everybody else through the on-field official-in-charge.If it means fewer bad decisions get made, it's a good thing. I simply don't see any counter-argument to that.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
But in this scenario, players are the children and referees are supposed to be the grown-ups. Being a grown-up means having your decision-making scrutinised.
Thick hands not to have felt that edge!I'd agree that the standard of on-field umpiring has fallen dramatically, but would argue that that is because umpires are not being held to account for making poor on-field decisions. I'd argue that if your decisions are getting regularly overturned, you need to be kicked off the international umpire's panel and replaced with someone better. You'd soon see on-field decisions improving again.
The Malan thing is bizarre. Sure, it was a terrible decision, but I can remember worse from the days before DRS. However, I've played cricket for 35 years and never in all that time have I even feathered one and not noticed it (I mean I've stood there swearing blind I didn't hit it when I knew I did, obviously, but that's different). That someone can smash the ball into his pad like that and not know e's done it enough to challenge the decision is simply astonishing to me.
In short, Malan was out there because he was a thick cünt.
Yes, but that's a judgement call where the umpire is being asked to discern motive, which is not really what they're there for.
Not when players can "officially" appeal, it isn't; they are very often convinced before deciding a failed challenge could cost them.
Just leave the whole business to the officials, imo, with video too. Far more seemly.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
That's what they do in Rugby Union, the off field ref also tells the onfield ref that he's looking at something whilst the game continues, that way the decision is usually in place by the time they reach the next break of play.
Yes, but crucially, not by children.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Mind you, what's interesting about that decision is that from schoolboy level on, you're actually coached to run between the fielder and the stumps to increase the chances of the ball hitting you rather than the stumps on a tight run. It's basic stuff that's drilled into you like grounding your bat or backing up a throw.
Given that, you could argue that batsmen could be given out every time the ball hits them from a throw.
Again, players bear no responsibility for the right decision being made. They are, by definition, wholly biased and are only interested in getting what they can.
A referee has no allegiance other than to the truth. To stick to your decision when you are clearly wrong is the act of a ****
But it's not seemly at the moment. Referees are open to suggestions of bias and unfair dealing as things stand. Taking some decisions out of their hands can counterbalance that.
Posting Permissions