Well this begs the question: If Buckner had failed or had been failing for the last couple of years, then why did the ICC employ him to officiate in the 2008 Australia v India series?.

Does the failure the the ICC to spot or ignore the fact the Bucknor was failing (if this is the case) go to show that the ICC is failing also?.

__________________
Ern

So when they stand an umpire down for a Test match because of failing performance, it's bad and the ICC should stand by him instead of standing him down.

Failure on the part of the ICC is the call.

When they stand by the same umpire (you know, because no one should have a problem with any umpire's decisions) and it backfires on them when the umpire makes more bad decisions, that is also an error.

Failure on the part of the ICC is the call.

So, if they remove an underperforming one or keep hold of one, they get criticised either way.

Yes it is a failure by the ICC: they should not stand down an umpire for a "Test match", because it should know if he is failing before a "Test"(SERIES) starts,
To let a known failing umpire stand for a test series is incompetent and irresponsible - but not unexpected the the ICC given their track record.
Ninjaman if you are right about Bucknor failing, then do you agree that the ICC allowed Bucknor's reputation to become tarnished by the ICC failing him and allowing him to stand the an important test series like the one that has just ended between Australia and India.

Retiring an umpire is not the same as standing down an umpire Ninjaman, would you are on that?.

Would you also agree that the ICC made Darrell Hair a scapegoat in 2006, when no action was taken against Doctrove - the third umpire or the match referee? - or are you saying Hair was failing also, and the ICC had ignored his shortcomings also.

It's either picking on one umpire on this occasion, or incompetence - can't you see that's why the ICC can't win either way: Because they get it wrong either way.

I am not judging the ICC on a particular incident, I am taking into account their track record.

__________________
Ern

I agree Ninj. You cant have it both ways. I have read a lot of the posts in this thread. Its amazing how certain people blame the BCCI for everything and how others blame the ICC for everything. What amazes me more is how you have said about 7 or 8 times that you agree that the ICC has some shortcomings, yet certain people still see you as a spokesperson for the ICC. I must admit that I found your comments the most constructive and I understand what you tried to achieve with this thread. Rachael too has grasped what you are trying to do.

Ern makes some good suggestions but sometimes you need to look at it from a "real" point of view. Yeah, we would all like 1 vote to be 1 vote (IMO I cannot see how India's 1 vote counts for more than 1 but maths was never my strong point). Yes, they can influence Bangladesh but then so can Australia or England. We would also all like to have the game free from money, like ERN put it, but this is really impossible, so I do not see the point in highlighting this pointless fact. ERN, you should just look at the ECB with respect to money and you will see how County cricket is actually ruining SA cricket. Unfortunately money speaks and not only in cricket but in all walks of life. The sooner we accept this, the better. We would all like world peace too now wouldn't we.

For some reason, Scott seems to think that Hair was a good umpire. He is entitled to his opinion yes, but according to the everybody bar Aus, Eng and NZ (who benefited the most from his poor umpiring anyway) he was a poor umpire. Please Scot explain to me how the BCCI or "Asia" for that matter forced the ICC to remove Hair. If you look on the map, you will see that SA, Zimbabwe and West Indies are in fact not in Asia and these countries agreed that Hair was a poor umpire. How he remained so long on the list of elite umpires is beyond me. FACT: Hair was a poor umpire, only people from England and Australia cannot see this.

Lastly, what really ticks me off. Just because some people prefer the test format, does not mean that the rest of the world needs to agree. Fact, more people follow 1 day cricket than test cricket. They should be arguing for more 1 day cricket and less test cricket. In fact, only in Australia and England are the attendances of test cricket more that the attendances of 1 day cricket. So maybe we should do away with test cricket. Just kidding, I am a purist too and I also believe that test cricket is "real" cricket but that does not give us the right to impose our opinions on the rest of the world. As far as they are concerned, when you speak about cricket, they assume you are speaking about 1 day cricket. Note that if we stop the short formats of the game, we would end up killing cricket because there would be less money from ticket sales, sponsors etc. Then ERN, you would not even be able to watch test cricket any more

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Yes they do and quite rightly, because they're not managing the process correctly, clearly something you don't appear to understand or appreciate. You also appear to only be capable of seeing things in terms of broad bursh strokes black and white, there's a whole myriad of greys that sit inbetween those two extremes that you simply ignore, presumably because it suits you to do so.

This isn't about the ICC taking action against under-performing umpires, it's about the the way in which they've gone about doing it, or if you prefer the way that process is supposed to be managed within the ICC.

The ICC has an Elite Panel Umpiring Unit that handles everything to do with Umpiring from assignments, salary, training, appointments and removals and it should be soley down to them to decide who'se competent to officiate and who isn't. They also analyse the decisions made against what the correct decision should have been and came up with a stat fairly recently that stated that Umpires on average get something like 9 out of 10 decisions right.

Al Umpires make mistakes - ALL of them, without exception, so where do we draw the line as to whose mistakes are acceptable and whose aren't, and who makes and takes that decision?

I saw Taufel make a mistake in the India v Australia game, he gave one of the Indian batsmen out LBW when Hawkeye showed the ball missing the top of the stumps by several inches, in other words it wasn't even a close marginal decision - he got it wrong, so do we now assume that Taufel is no longer fit for purpose, despite being supposedly the best Umpire on the circuit?

Why should we be surprised that Umpires make mistakes when you consider the gruelling schedules they have to keep, the constant plane flights living out suitcases and spending half their year away from their family and loved ones. They have bad days just as much as anyone else does and they also make mistakes as we all know they do.

What the ICC Umpire unit should be doing is managing these processes, making sure all Umpires are fresh and rotated, that they have the required amount of time off, that they have the required amount of training, that they go for refresher courses and so on.

What the ICC should NOT do is scapegoat certain Umpires because they've made too many mistakes or taken a decision without considering the wider implications of that decision or done something that a country may object to, they should stand by their Umpires safe in the knowledge that their processes are being followed correctly.

What they should NOT do under any circmustances is remove Umpires mid series because India are unhappy at certain decisions or because the PCB feel one is biased against them.

Billy Bowden (if my memory serves me right) gave Kasprowicz out caught off glove in the Ashes series which effectively gave England the Ashes series which subsequently turned out to be an incorrect decision. Did we see Australia throwing their toys out of the pram blaming Bowden for costing them theAshes and demanding his removal from the world game because he's no longer fit for purpose?

No we didn't, we saw them take it on the chin and get on with it. I'd like to suggest that other countries follow their example.

Once again Scot, you blame the ICC. The only thing we can blame the ICC for in this case is the fact that they never removed Hair earlier. There is another thread which discusses Hair, I suggest you move this conversation there. Its no use bringing it up here as no one is going to change their view here.

You believe it was the ICC. We accept that.

We believe that the member countries including India rightly voted him out. It was a democratic decision. He was tried tested and he was found wanting. I am not Asian and I am delighted that Hair was fired. 7-3 was the vote, please explain to me how the BCCI was solely responsible

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Give me one reason, in your opinon, why Hair was a bad Umpire over and above the business with Pakistan in 2006.

Off you go...

I also find your insinuation and accusation of Hairs bias towards certain countries highly offensive and distasteful, and I most certainly hope you have something substantive to support that with rather then just cynicism.

Explain to you? What part of the process do you not understand?

You answer me a question - why was Hair not disciplined via the ICC Umpiring Unit, if they felt he needed discplining? Why was it done so publicly and openly?

Why was Doctrove not disciplined and removed in the same way? After all they were both the standing Umpires in that game and therefore joiintly responsible for it's outcome. Why was one disciplined and not the other? Is this not the very essence of discrimation?

Why was Hairs removal put to a vote of all the full members of the ICC, when it should have been handled by the ICC Umpiring Unit. Why did the ICC see fit to involve all the other full member countries in his removal?

When the ICC remove and Umpire from their Elite Panel, do they conduct a vote of all the full member countries in his removal? If not why not if they did it to Hair?

Off you go...

It's not rocket science to figure out that the BCCI and PCB were behind the way that Hair was removed because the ICC simply did not follow the correct procedures in disciplining him for his 'supposed' transgressions. Because if the BCCI and PCB had left the ICC to disciplining Hair they know full well he would not have been removed from the Elite Panel because his 'trangressions' were insufficient for that kind of punishment to be made.

So they forced the issue into the public domain and then forced the ICC in conducting a full member vote on it, which they had NO right to do, but it was the only way the BCCI and PCB could be 100% sure in getting rid of him.

What business was it of SA, NZ, Aus, Zim, India, WI, Bang, SL , Eng etc to pronounce judgement on this when the issue was between Hair, the ICC and the PCB.

Lets see if you have a more 'reasonable' explanation for those events from the ones I've given you.

That's because they're the only ones to blame for not following the correct procedures.

Wake up.

No one disputes that best practice should be aimed at in the performance management of staff, and I'm pretty sure the ICC could demonstrate to ANY court's satisfaction that this does happen (without prejudice).

Your posts suggests that performance management is principally a matter of how reliable an umpire is in giving the clearcut out/not out decisions (hopefully pretty close to 100% even at lower levels) and how well the umpire does in the marginal cases (where differences should appear even within the elite panel umpires).

As I understand it, no one disputes that Hair was exceptional on both fronts: he was an excellent decision maker as measured by those very limited indicators.

Back in the real world, performance management goes beyond such easily quanitifiable measures. One area that Dickie Bird highlighted (in the wake of the Hair affair) was "approach": how an umpire worked with the players, most especially to avoid having to resort to formal powers - an area in which Hair has long been identified (especially in Asia, at least by the media and quite possibly by the players and boards) as "poor".

Forget "bias": the guy had a track record of precipitating confrontation and of handling delicate situations with an appalling lack of tact, diplomacy and understanding. Were the ICC highly conscious of this in advance of "Hairgate"? Yes: the events at the Oval were simply the final straw.

No big deal... and all things considered, I think the ICC handled the entire matter very well.

This is the problem. You seem to think that he was dismissed because of this incident only. Like I said before, we have discussed this before, you are welcome to read the thread again if you like. If this was the case then surely the other officials would have been fired too. for the 100th time, Hair was voted out by the members 7-3. If he was judged only on this incident, then only India would have voted against him. You refuse to accept the fact that SA, Zim and WI agreed that he was not up to international standards.

Eh. Considering that I only have a problem with a single individual, Hair, based on fact while you seem to dislike the entire Asian block, I find this comment a joke. However, I did find some of your comments on the entire nation of Asia very offensive and like Ninjaman pointed out, it sounded like bigotry. Please point out where I have said that Hair was biased against India only. I said poor umpire. This means poor in general. If you need proof, Watch the 1st game of the 1992 WC. You will see Boon nick the ball to 2nd slip and Hair give him not out. I have given my reasons for thinking he is a poor umpire before I do not want to go there again. Watch the series between SA and Aus, I think it was 1998/1999. You will see many LBW to Warne when the ball pitched well outside leg stump.

I agree, it should have been dealt with privately.



See my answer to point1. It should sink in by now.


Maybe for the same reason, the full members decide their tours and matches. Oh but its the ICC's fault that teams play to many 1 day matches.

No, just like its not rocket science that 7 is not equal to 2 (Pak and India). You seem to forget that Pakistan was punished, ie they forfeited the match. Inzi was also banned, so the ICC IMO dealt with the problem.

What business, LOL. Maybe the fact that this incompetent umpire may stand in one of their future tours. Surely they are doing the right thing by making sure that the game does not suffer any more bad decision at the hand of Hair.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?