Flower: I prefer the old style

2009-12-22 14:13

Durban - England coach Andy Flower on Tuesday expressed his unhappiness with the umpire's decision review system (UDRS) being trialled in the test series with South Africa.

"I can't say that I am enjoying the review system that much but it is here to stay for the series so we will deal with it as well as we can," Flower told a news conference.

"I don't like the questioning of the umpires and the delay as players discuss whether or not to question an umpire's decision.

"I personally prefer the old style where the umpire makes a decision and you just get on with it. It was nice and simple but the new system just seems to be leading to more and more complications."

England lost seven of their own reviewed decisions in the drawn first test at Centurion and all-rounder Stuart Broad was seen remonstrating with the on-field umpires after being given out lbw following a South Africa referral.

Broad's on-field argument centred on whether or not the home side had taken too long to ask for a referral. The initial guidelines set down by the International Cricket Council (ICC) said referrals had to be called for within a few seconds.

South Africa took over 30 seconds to ask for a referral against Broad but Flower explained: "In our pre-series meeting with the match referee it was emphasised that it was okay to take a little longer over decisions.

"The on-field umpires will discern whether a decision to review has taken too long but there is no set time-limit."

The second Test starts on Saturday at Kingsmead in Durban.


  • Clive - 2009-12-22 14:24

    I totally agree with Andy. If they want to include these reviews, do it in 20T & ODI games.

  • geebee - 2009-12-22 14:24

    They should change this to umpires asking 3rd umpire for decision the same way they do for a run out. it works well for run outs, let just expnad that to lbw using hawk-eye.

  • JOW - 2009-12-22 14:41

    typical Rhodie.things were always better when we.

  • Mike - 2009-12-22 14:44

    I believe the system is here to stay, they will definately have to streamline the system and I feel the third umpire should be given the job of calling a no ball when a bowler oversteps. The bottom line too many decisions are given out or not out where the umpire was incorrect, one bad decision can cost a player his career or a country a series. One must not forget the incident that let to Hansie slamming a stump into the umpires door leading to their change rooms. Every coach that draws the short end of the stick laments the application of the system. Tennis has benefited from 'Hawk eye" technology and I am certain cricket will. In the series in Australia "Hotspot" clearly showed that the West Indian batsman's bat did not make contact with the bat yet he was given out and Australian handed the series, after such a brave fightback surely any doubt should be erased from such an important decision.

  • Houston - 2009-12-22 14:59

    the technology is good and I hope here to stay - as for time wasting, yes, possibility to improve in this area, not that difficult to sort this out, the umpires can decide on a reasonable time, afterall, they get time to think about their own decisions

  • Jimbo - 2009-12-22 15:00

    The only reason he is against it was that there judgment in referrals was "kak", 7 out of 8 was poor just shows you how they appeal . The most important thing is getting correct decisions

  • sjaak - 2009-12-22 15:07

    Bad loser.If they it had gone their way it would have been a different article. England suck!!!!!!!!. Dont care what they say. They all sound gay anyway.

  • steve - 2009-12-22 15:09

    This review system is very interesting! Take Stuart Broad's dismissal in the 2nd knock for example. He knew he hit it, but he was hoping that the slow-mo might have not shown the nick. It did and he was rightfully given his marching orders. Is this not blatant cheating? He's knows he's out, but he hangs around just in case technology saves him. As far as I'm concerned that is bringing the game into disrepute and is cheating. I can see players taking advantage of the system especially when it comes to caught behind decisons. For this reason alone, I think it should be scrapped.

  • Mike@CapeT - 2009-12-22 15:12

    Someone should have told Stuart Broad about the pre-series meeting with the match referee.......or was he just peeved off knowing that the TV re-play would confirm that he was out!

  • Paddy - 2009-12-22 15:20

    I bet he prefers the old style Zim as well........come on Andy!! Your comments are 'just not cricket!'.

  • GT - 2009-12-22 15:26

    Was it just me or did JP get a huge edge onto his pad. it appeared so obvious I was screaming at the TV that they were blind and stupid! TV ump was so busy with the LBW call he forgot to check the nick

  • Andre - 2009-12-22 15:44

    If it ain't broken, don't fix it. I also prefer the old style.

  • Bob - 2009-12-22 15:51

    This is a first implementation and currently it is a cr*p implementation of a good idea. It works in tennis. What is this rubbish about "at least half the ball"?

  • Shorts - 2009-12-22 15:58

    Hey Andy, wake up and smell the roses. If your guys don't like the system, don't use it. Your team will just end up with two unused reviews every innings. I think it is a good system, which does assist the umpires in reaching a much better decision under certain circumstances. As for the 'delay', how about instructing Trott to speed up to a canter when he bats. If not, the South African bowlers should just turn at the beginning of their run and bowl straight away at him, ready or not !!!

  • Yucca - 2009-12-22 17:26

    HUGE lol @ Andy flower here: So do I but thanks to the aussies who ruin games through incidents like this: or this: or north who failed to walk twice when Aus toured here earlier this year with clear nicks that could be felt even if he was put under anestetic, I think we need referrals in world cricket.

  • Houston - 2009-12-22 17:26

    @Shorts, I agree with you, a couple of beamers at Trott will help him with his time issues - but on the serious side, the law is on the bowlers side, as they pointed out, the batsman has to be ready by the time the bowler hits his mark, if he is not ready, it's his problem and the umpire has to warn him

  • ray - 2009-12-22 17:37

    Trott should have been warned about his lack of speed. Broad should have been disciplined for his attitude in both innings. And the new review system shows that umpires often get instantaneous decisions wrong. Why Ntini was brought on for the last over beats any logic.

  • Dozing Off - 2009-12-22 18:58

    Talking about waiting 30 seconds to decide to use the review system as a "delay" in test cricket is a joke. All 5 days of most test matches could be described as a delay!

  • Greg - 2009-12-22 21:22

    I like the new system. Ensures total accuracy and fairness for both sides. We really should have finished England in the 1st still pissed. England are rubbish, they have no natural born talent. I think its a disgrace that the core of their team is totally represented by SA players(much like New Zealand and their pilfering the South Sea islanders for rugby talent). How bloody embarrassing for an 85 million strong nation and one that invented cricket!!! Finish these losers, SA!!!

  • Handle Bar - 2009-12-23 08:35

    @ Andre. The game of cricket has evolved, lets embrace modernity and see how it allows the game of cricket to become more competitive and professional. The old systme is exactly that OLD, at the end of the day if the "new" system lands in your favour who are you trying to fool that you wont embrace it? Get with the program!

  • Mac - 2009-12-23 09:13

    @Greg, I think you need to do some research before quoting population stats. The entire UK has a population of +/- 56 million, which includes Scotland and Ireland. So the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) pick from English and Welsh players and anyone who qualifies and commits themselves to England. The fact that SA born players, that have made a decision and sacrificed a fair bit in order to qualify for England, should make you realise that the real problem is our "transformation" approach to selection. I whole heartedly agree with ensuring that resources, skills and time are invested in developing our youngsters, from all walks if life. By fast tracking players through the system in order to meet quotas is as bad as window dressing and does the individuals more harm than good. Let talent and skill be the deciding factor, select on merit and form.

  • lamb chop - 2009-12-23 09:16

    @ handle bar.who cares what you think? i also prefer the old style of umpiring. it allows for more drama and controversy. Now there is zero room for error. Error is sometimes good. It reminds us that were human. What's next? Getting robots to play the cricket for us? No handle Bar, im sorry. but you fail. Your to clinical. You've got about as much character as an airport hanger.Your cold. your freezing cold. Why dont you come in here were it's warm and fuzzy? i think someone put some acid in my coffee....what were we talking about again?

  • The cheeze moved... - 2009-12-23 10:13

    Luv the system, bump it up to 4 reviews, add snicker and FLIR thermal imaging. Leave absolutely no doubt if you are given out and hefty fines for the batsmen who snivel.

  • Handle Bar - 2009-12-23 10:24

    @lamb chop. Lamb chop one thing you got right is that you are a chop! You need to uderstand as Mr. Bob Dylan puts it "the times they are changing" so take off your hippy jockstrap and stop suckling on the yester year "test" cricket, the time has comes to say fairs, fairs, to use technology to improve the game, after all its all about the money, its all about the boom boom birrie boom boom! So please dont think its funny as test cricket is anyway on its way out to make room for the multi million rand IPL franchises!!!!! I suggest you seek urgent pshycihatric help my friend, and long live modern technology!!!!!

  • Handle Bar - 2009-12-23 10:38

    @lamb chop. Lamb chop one thing you got right is that you are a chop! You need to uderstand as Mr. Bob Dylan puts it "the times they are changing" so take off your hippy jockstrap and stop suckling on the yester year "test" cricket, the time has comes to say fairs, fairs, to use technology to improve the game, after all its all about the money, its all about the boom boom birrie boom boom! So please dont think its funny as test cricket is anyway on its way out to make room for the multi million rand IPL franchises!!!!! I suggest you seek urgent pshycihatric help my friend, and long live modern technology!!!!!

  • lamb chop - 2009-12-23 10:55

    @ that mullet handle bar. jeez.. i don't even need to hear your voice to know your sining out of tune. "what would you do if i sang out of tune'??" i would give you another kick in the nuts thats what. IPL is doing well. i Guess thats why players are now refusing to play in it due to not getting payed on time or at all. The IPL are in a spot of financial difficulty. but yes your right they are doing well. you clearly don't have have the faintest 0f ideas of what you talking about so do us all a favor and take your drivel somewhere els. Like perhaps the chuck Norris or Magnum P.I fan page.?

  • Sherlock - 2009-12-23 11:24

    One wonders why they persist with Morne Morkel who has potential we are led to believe but cannot translate this on the cricket field. He needs a few more first class matches. They have given him one too many chances. Both himself and Makhaya Ntini are deadwood and should have been jettisoned a long time ago. And can someone tell me why has someone Like Friedel de Wet come from nowhere to assume a position in the test side ahead of players of more experience like Wayne Parnell (A left arm quick who offers variation), Lonwabo Tsotsobe (ditto) and Mondi Zondeki.???

  • Craig - 2009-12-24 23:07

    Had this technology been in place, Darrell Hair, Javed Aktar and Merv Kitchen wouldn't have been able to cheat South Africa out of the series wins in Australia and England under Hansie, which they did soooo well. I say keep it, the only sides that have benefitted from 'human error' have been Australia and England. India have suffered too under umpire Steve Buknor in Australia.

  • Charles - 2009-12-26 10:42

    My question, Does Andy go to cricket on a horse or an ox wagon ? Maybe a bicycle? Common dork move with the times.

  • pages:
  • 1