Cricket Australia (CA) has today reaffirmed its full support of the National Umpires Panel, who have been the subject of criticism in recent times.
The conjecture has come from the use of the Third Umpire Intervention system, where the Third Umpire has the ability to overturn obvious incorrect decisions made on-field.
The main confusion lies in the difference between the CA Third Umpire Intervention system and the ICC Decision Review System (DRS), the latter allowing captains and batsmen to directly challenge the umpire’s decision.
CA’s Intervention system does not use HotSpot or Snicko, and has no provision to intervene on no balls. If the third umpire does intervene to check a decision, there must be an obvious error for the decision to be overturned. If there is any marginal doubt for the third umpire the original decision will be upheld.
As a full member nation, CA has a responsibility to trial different match rules with a view to better the game. CA then report back to the ICC on the effectiveness of these rule changes, along with their own recommendation.
Over the last five years, Australia’s domestic one-day competition has trialed the use of two new balls and four men only outside the 30-yard circle, both of which have been implemented in international cricket.
CA Match Officials Manager Sean Easey says “CA is in full support of the umpire group, who have been accurately implementing the third umpire intervention protocols.
"The idea behind the intervention system is to overturn some of the obvious errors, and we have seen this happen.
"Unfortunately however, advances in technology have greatly increased the expectations of the system and we are now seeing some negative side-effects on the game.”
“There have been unforeseen consequences of this trial of the intervention system, and as a result we are now in a more informed position and continue to monitor and evaluate the feedback from our stakeholders.”
First Posted 20 November, 2012 7:04AM AEST