This was only part of the reason I would like change, for eg I think 2003 was more important to me than 2006/08for the reason of fair play.
Yes but I think the differences are irreconcilable insomuch as I thought some people only bore the brunt in 2006/08
I had the greatest respect for both umpires, in fact I have learned at an early age to respect all umpires.
If Steve Bucknor crawls this forum Ninjaman, then you may well be walking in the future.

Neither of these happened and events unfolded as they did and as it is you and I disagree with what took place after that.

This thread along with acker's has been one of the most interesting for a while, but the very nature of a thread such as this is that it will go off topic by it's very nature - the thread would have died with a narrow TOR.
Again how can you give an alternative to running or replacing the ICC without giving sound reasons why the ICC should be changed at all?.
That's the reason the thread 'appears' to have gone off topic at times.
Example.
I would change the ICC because I think they were inflexible in 2003, set a trap for Hair in 2006 - and the game was out of control in 2008.
Not to mention the game drifting towards ODI's at the expense of test cricket.

What would I do?, well having given a short reason why - I would change the ICC to a smaller body with a constitution.
Cash would not be a first consideration.
An urgent summit would be called on the state of test cricket, and what could be done to restore the balance between the two formats.
I would urge a new rules to curtail technology to maintain the integrity of the umpire, if that meant less revenue - then so be it.
I would clamp down on dissent on the field, no matter the circumstances - later appeals could be discussed.

Cricket would be run as a sport for the players and supporters first, not as a multi million corporation.

I would try and separate the three formats of the game for the obvious reason that cricket is being ruined by improvisation from one day cricket (by cricket I mean proper test cricket)


Well I believe you are against it being replaced, and you did support the ICC with regard to fining the England players in 2003 because they you say broke the rules, I said they should have been flexible.

yes that's true, but again you gave the impression that to reduce the influence of money in cricket was 'pie in the sky'

Agreed - I have never said otherwise, I just believe in my opinion no more - no less.

Yes they do - and that's my point about why you were wrong to say that there is a one nation one vote in existence, there in reality is not.
If I was chairman of a new board, that would be next top of the agenda - following the Test/ODI issue.

The ICC is a relatively new body, and I don't believe they have been able to cope with the changes since they replaced the former ICC - time to stand back IMO and look how we can control the money aspect, the behavior of players and crowds - the pegging back of technology: Change has been so rapid, and IMO the ICC has not coped.
Time for a change of direction.

__________________
Ern

Ninjaman if you remember I warned about possible spits if the ICC did not get to grips with the umpiring crisis that has been smouldering for quite a while, and came to a head in 2006 and again in 2005.

Andy Mellon posted this link on another thread: Top umpire ready to walk - Cricket - Fox Sports
Crisis:
Hair - Buckner and now Taufel!.

Cricket can't stand to lose umpires at the rate of one a year, 06 - 07 - 08, who will be next?.
And when will the players follow?.

__________________
Ern

Well one of my solutions would be to dramatically increase the size of the international panel, increase the umpire's wages, provide them with more training and give them more aids to assist them to make more correct/less disputable decisions.

No one is bigger than the game and if Taufel feels he needs he has to go, then so be it.

Good luck to him.

I see he is potentially eyeing up an IPL contract though.....

Fair comment Ninjaman, but why do you think there is the need for "aids" to assist the umpires now?, are all the umpires worse than 25 years ago?.

No matter the reason why Taufel feels the need to go, he obviously is disenchanted with world cricket at the moment - like the players who are also joining the rebel league.

When I say the ICC is presiding over cricket in crisis, what is happening in cricket is the reason why.

They have to take some initiatives, or make way for a body that will.

I would hate to see cricket split, but to me if we carry on like we are - that will become an inevitable fact.

That's not a debate scoring point, I do believe that.

__________________
Ern

Maybe not, but the technology wasn't available 25 years ago. However, now that it is, and now that umpires have the ability to look at the appeal with more detail, I think it only makes sense for them to have access to this technology, for decisions where they could go either way.

In response to the original question, I would also get rid of that stupid rule where the ball getting stopped by the fielder is still four if they happen to be touching the rope at the same time. By that logic, if you field the ball five meters in it should also be four, as the ball would have crossed the rope if it hadn't been stopped! So yeah, I think that for it to be a four, the ball has to cross the rope and nothing else.

There is another option, ban the technology from the grounds - because it's the spontaneous reaction from the crowds and players to contentious decisions that cause 99% of the arguments IMO.

I agree over your example of a silly rule, but will add on to the the power play, why can't we just have two innings of cricket.

Another rule is D&L way of calculating a rain affected result, some D&L decisions have been bizarre.

A match could be won or lost on the same number of overs a team had bowled when interupted, it would be fair because both captains would have to take this into account.

Also I think a good idea would be to cut ODI's to 40 overs, this would help with overs lost to rain, would also be of benefit to players who would be playing 20% less one day cricket on top of their test commitments.

These changes I would like the ICC to at least consider, instead of allowing umpire bashing.

__________________
Ern

Maybe so, but cricket is a spectator sport, and having the slow-motion replays, Hawkeye, Hotspot etc. adds to the spectacle IMO. Removing all of these will make it that much harder for the spectators to see what's happening on the ground.

I'd at least like to see the PowerPlay modified, because at international level it isn't doing what it was intended to do. What they've done in Australian one-day cricket is to give the batting side one PowerPlay, with three fielders out in the second and third PowerPlays. Now I know that some people are going to say that giving one to the batting side will just make it even more of a slogfest. Not so. Generally, taking the PowerPlay results in a loss of wickets and helps to build pressure on the batting team. Also, it's rarely taken in the final five overs, either- more often, in the middle of an innings when the batsmen are set. So it actually achieves what the whole concept was supposed to do in the first place- change the pace of the innings halfway through.

Now I don't necessarily disagree, but I was under the impression that you didn't like the way that ODI strokeplay was affecting Test cricket. Aren't you concerned that decreasing the size of the ODI will encourage even more unorthodox (or even agricultural) strokeplay?

On what basis and for what reason are you throwing out two of the most experienced Umpires on the Elite Panel?

Exactly what relevance is this to Bucknors competence in Umpiring a Cricket Match?

It's no wonder people disagree with you ninjaman, because you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the BCCI now calls the tune with the ICC, and any actions the ICC takes are more often than not in the self interest of the BCCI.

No, we expect a new body to act impartially and not be jumping about and jigging to the BCCI's tune.

Well you can't can you, as you resolutely refuse to accept the role the BCCI had in 1) Having Umpire Hair unfairly removed and 2) likewise Steve Bucknor. Just because you personally don't happen to like either of these two umpires does not in any way shape or form vindicate what actions the ICC took against them under the unfair influence of the BCCI.

No, the WI got where they are due to a cocktail of mismanagement and incompetence by the WI board. If NZ can compete very effectively in the short format of the game with similar limited resources - manpower and financial, then so should the WI - the fact that they don't or can't is soley down to mismanagement by the WI board, take it up with them.

Just like the divorce laws that used to favour the man, which people rightly complained about and changed to the extent that the divorce laws now unfairly favour women. So yes, England and Australia may have had extra power in the old days, they most certainly do not now and that has been replaced by the financial muscle and power of the BCCI. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Well I'm glad you've finally come to your senses and realised this.

Because you can't, you seem to think that two wrongs make a right. You seem to think that just because England and Australia had unfair influence earlier on that now that the BCCI is using unfair influence that evens things out - it does not, and never will. The ICC needs to 100% impartial and take and make it's decisions for the GOOD of the world game and NOT just to line one Crickets Boards pockets.

How so? And would you like to quantify and substantiate that YES with something a little more concrete?

Of course they don't! Do you honestly beleive that a Countrys influence over the ICC is governed soley by the depth of their pockets? I'm sorry but that's just nonsense.

No, some people have a big problems with certain boards using unfair influence over the ICC in getting Umpires they don't happen to like removed from the World game, and that would apply to any board who tried to remove umpires not just sides from the sub-contintent who seem to do it far more than anyone else.

All sides should accept whichever Umpire they're given, if that Umpire is on the Elite Panel and the ICC considers them fit for purpose. If they're not fit for purpose - don't employ them.

Yes I am concerned that ODI strokeplay is damaging test cricket, one only needs to look at the run rates in test cricket to see the changes that have occurred.

but in keeping with the thread I would wish the ICC or better still an alternative body would look at one day cricket and see it's shortcomings.

50 overs is to long, I back that up with the amount of matches that don't finish the full 100 overs, more often than not rain interferes meaning the the D&L system has to be used.

Cutting the overs by 20% would mean that there would be a better chance of a match ending without artificial intervention.
But more important it would mean 20% less overs than the faster more vulnerable bowlers like Flintoff and Lee would have to bowl - in an ideal world they would not play in one day cricket at all.

There is a problem with to much cricket, and this would be just one small step in countering that.

As for the cow shots you think may get worse, well it can't get much worse - and the 40 over format was used in England with the "John Player League", and even though that was an English domestic competition - the pace was no more frenetic than the 50 over ODI.
Nothing worse than a trunkated days cricket, if cutting 20 overs would make a difference - it's worth a try IMO.

__________________
Ern

I don't know about Hair, but Bucknor was really past his best. He made quite a few obvioulsy bad decisions over the last couple of years, so I don't see how his experience is meant to exonerate him. You said earlier that if he isn't good enough to umpire in Indian matches, then logically he's not good enough to umpire in other matches either. Well, you're right. I don't think he is good enough to umpire at Test level.