True but if your performance as an umpire deteriorates through age as it clearly has with Bucknor (and a few others) you don't get booted off the panel when it becomes clear you are no longer up to standard. The number one criteria for an "elite" umpire is sadly not competence but a willingness to commit to the ludicrous 12 month schedule that a modern test umpire since the introduction of neutral umpires now has to deal with. There are a number of better umpires out there who have turned down the chance of joining the elite panel because of the non stop travel and time away from home involved. If the ICC want to attract the best then they either have to dig into their pockets (heaven forbid) and make all the hassle worthwhile or show more flexiblity (common sense heaven forbid) and offer shorter term contracts. I'd rather have 4 (rested) high quality umpires doing one test series each a year than one knackered over the hill umpire doing the whole year.

No matter how young or sharp an umpire is, it is virtually impossible to make all 100% correct decisions - even the young & excellent Taufel & Dhar and have been shown to be falliable. Cricket is not a game where it is OK to get most of the decisions correct...it has to be as close to 100% as possible. If the batsman has to get the benefit of doubt, it should only be when no one, including all available technology, is able to tell it either way. If that concept is introduced, all players will eventually come to accept it because there will be no room for arguements and no sane person is going to waste his breath, energy and risk a reprimand when he knows nothing will come out of it.

IMO, the current international cricketers are no worse as people than those of yesteryear - they are probably better on the whole. Yet, you see far more bad behaviour these days and that's because the players - like their fans - know that a wrong decision has been - or might have been - made. It is all very well to sit in front of a TV and patronise that Joe Bloggs should not have done this or that....but most players respond to frustration in the heat of the moment and putting ourselves in their shoes can be difficult. Bad behaviour on the field is certainly unacceptable and the one way that can be used to greatly reduce - if not totally eliminate it - is by increasing the probability of fairplay. That is where technology can be very useful.

Diplomacy is good only as far as it goes; it cannot and should not be used to cover-up unfairness. Leave that sort of thing to the politicians.

I accept that "diplomacy" should not be used as a cover - but I'm not really advocating that. I am advocating a position where the umpire's word is final, even if he makes a mistake.

I can't remember what the accuracy rating was that the ICC's study came up with about eighteen months ago - but it was in the high nineties per cent. Can it be better than that? Of course there is room. But if it is 96% now, will technology move it to 96.1% or more? I doubt it: it could quite easily lower that already high standard. For example, it could become impossible to attract high quality umpires to the elite panel because the pressure arising from having every decision taken to a technician to prove (and it will be every decision in the long run, as either the batsman or the bowler will argue every time) simply adds to the undesirability of a job which already has difficulty in attracting enough competent professionals. I might be wrong in my pessimism there, but it's a risk that I would not be prepared to take by introducing more technology, not least because, once introduced, the technology would never be removed - it's a one way street with a very uncertain far end. There are numerous other arguments against technological innovation, one of which is that it will only ever apply to the minuscule proportion of cricket matches which are televised. You will never see it at club level - and if it can't be applied under the Laws at every level, I would rather not see it applied arbitrarily at any level at all.

ESC makes some valid points about retirement of umpires who, through age or weariness, are no longer performing at top level. I fully agree that appointment to the elite panel should not be a guaranteed job for life: I am a great fan of Steve Bucknor, who, over many years, has been an exemplary umpire. But he's not a young man and I am also quite ready to accept that his skill might be in decline now. I argued here some years ago for a system of peer review - that is, review of the performance of the elite umpires by their own number, not by the ICC or any national board. I believe that, with an elite panel of, say, twelve or so umpires, it should be quite possible for the panel itself to devise a review mechanism whereby it elects from among its own members two or three members who will review every match in which the elite members stand. The elected reviewers would have the influence - even if not the formal power - to be able to say to their own "Come on now, Darrell (or Steve, or Aleem) ... that's enough". I envisage a situation much like the judiciaries in many countries, where, once appointed to the elite panel, an umpire can never be fired (this reduces the chances of skullduggery among the ICC and its members) but where he can be persuaded by his brethren on the panel to resign. I've never seen this argued for by any professional commentator, but I like the idea of an elite panel of umpires who are legally beyond the reach of any partial board and which governs itself. If anyone here has some views, I'd be glad to hear them.

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

That sort of blind acceptance is a form of pseudo-diplomacy in itself and completely unfair. So, what you are saying is that we should accept umpires' mistakes because "it is all part of the game". It is most certainly NOT. Take that sort of line and all umpires and officials behind them will soon become much hated sporting dictators. I do not accept the philosophy of older players sitting on their backsides and advocating to those of today "we accepted it and so why not you?".

So OF, your position is self-contadictory because unquestioned acceptance of mistakes is nothing but a diplomatic cover-up. Since bad behaviour is definitely not the answer, one seeks out what could be....and that is where technology can come in.

I don't see the contradiction. "Diplomacy" might be to say that the umpire is infallible. I'm not saying that here and I never have said it. What I am saying is that mistakes are made in umpiring as in every other field of life, and in this rather trivial area of life which we are discussing, they are indeed part of the game and should be accepted as such, not blindly, but in the full knowledge that a bit under one decision in twenty will indeed be an error.

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

I may have been a little harsh with my statement of incompetence, but the sad fact seems to be that you can count on the umpires making at least a couple of howlers every match, and that sometimes these mistakes can have a direct impact on the outcome of a match. That simply shouldn't be. Now I'm not saying that umpiring is easy- in fact, it's obvioulsy very hard- but that just lends weight to the argument for more use of technology. I just don't see the logic in saying that you can use technology for run-outs, stumpings, catches- but that you can't for LBWs or bat-pads. The umpires aren't infallible, so why can't we give them the technology to help them make better decisions?

Has anyone tried umpiring?

It is damn hard - and i have only done it umpiring junior games. The hardest part for mine was trying to focus the eyes from looking down for no balls and then looking up to see what happens at the other end. I struggled - and that was with bowlers bowling 110kmh medium pacers. I ended up not bothering to look down for no-balls - that was the only way i could give myself time to see the nicks and LBW's. Forget batpads. There was no way in the world i could get those right.

Imaging what it is like in front of huge crowds with guys like Brett Lee or Muralitheran bowling in a pressure cooker situation.

The technology is there now with super slow motion footage and the excellent hotspot technology. If they can turn the results around fast enough, they should use it.

__________________

I think the no-ball decisions should be left entirely to technology and the umpires should be freed from the burden of looking down for a no-ball. Just like they do in lawn tennis....in this case we will need cameras or even a weight sensitive crease line will help.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Once. It was the worst four hours I have ever spent in any cricket ground anywhere. Obviously I have no formal qualification. At one time in my life I thought about taking the exams of the Association of Umpires and Scorers, but there's not much chance of doing them in Prague or of using the qualification here, I'm afraid. And now in my late forties I think my eyesight would be a bit of a problem.

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

[quote]
I think that is an understatement of the year...and the year has just started! I was a makeshift umpire for 5 hellish overs in High school and never want to go through that again. We had less than 100 people watching, mostly on our side. I can imagine what it must be like in the big wide world!


I agree 100%. To say that increasing the prospect of fairness via technology will be detrimental to cricket is silly. The sort of animosity that now exists between the few teams that do play cricket is what is damaging the game. Adding potentially match-turning bad decisions to the cauldron will certainly make matters far worse.

Most England football fans are still very bitter abour Diego Maradona's "hand of God" goal nearly 22 years ago. After all, the Ref allowed it back then.