Cricket’s clash of civilisations: implications for Umpiring?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Milo

Shep is just plainly 'past it'. I do not foregt the four wickets he allowed Pakistan to take from blatant no-balls on the last tour to England - thus allowing Pakistan to win a test that was crawling to a draw. Cries of bias then. No, never.

Yes I remember that Milo, I wouldn't say it was all down to incompetence, if a bowler is consistently bowling front foot no-balls, the umpire is bound to miss some, especially when the bowler, as in Saqlain's case, is turning the ball a great deal and the umpire has to focus on the delivery itself from the moment it leaves the bowler's hand.

That Test represents the best possible case for enhancing the use of technology; a third umpire could have nullified all those dismissals there and then.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

My problem, Maranello, is that I am not sure how to respond to an article which has been written by someone who seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder. The technology issues have been done to death on this board already, and I don't have anything to add to my earlier comments on that matter.

I agree OF, and with hindsight, I should not have started this thread with an article that was so obviously illogical in this way. I accept my mistake. However, this should not detract from what I believe to be the central point of the article, that the ICC needs to address the strong perception of "Western" bias amongst all "Eastern" cricketing nations, and avoidable umpiring mistakes only fuel this argument. So the solution is two fold: {a} implement technology wherever possible to reduce errors and reliance on human discretion, and {b} retire the old umpires, eg Shepherd, Koertzen, et al, and others clearly not up to the mark, eg Darrell Hair, and promote the younger breed, eg Taufel, Bowden, Dar et al.

For all those who have steam coming out of their ears (and that means you Andy!) this is a thread about umpiring, not the cultural clashes.

[Zainub]

Yawn! Yawn! Yawn! Alas the common curse of mankind - folly and ignorance- is exposed yet again...he writes a 1530 word article full of sour grapes and yet still has the guts tol claims he is not whinning..

[Beny]

I think the main point that Marranello has raised is that there is a "strong perception of "Western" bias amongst all "Eastern" cricketing nations,".

That's all very well but in this day and age it's only to be expected. You can't fire an umpire simply based on perception.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by William Blake

If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is, infinite

You certainly cannot fire people based on their reputations Beny (most governments would have to be sacked then). You are right. This person who ever he is claims cricket must "come out of colonial era" and yet he seems suffering from this inferiority complex which has enabled him to thinking we are being discriminated against and that westerners are racist...what does he think of him self...he's hasn't been supposedly very unpartial him self either...this is just a down right pathetic article that's only made to look more sophisticated but in fact the actual aim and much of the content it self is as just as bad/ordinary as you would expect one of those fan who burn effigies and all to come up with..annoyes me no end

[Shaka]

I don't see anything pathetic about the article Zainub, he's raising legitemate complaints. How you can compare it to morons who burn effigies is beyond me. I don't think it's a racial issue at all, more a cultural one. Some of the old guard umpires carry old guard issues ( a bit like the writer of the article). I can remember some of the tabloid press in the UK when Waqar and Wasim were wreaking havoc in '92 and it wasn't very gracious!

[Zainub]

You're very much entitiled to your opinions Shaka, but I don't personally think umpiring standards are as poor as he thinks they are and the are often made out to be. 92% decisions made by these guys are correct. That isn't bad. Or is it?

He argues why there aren't more Asian in the elete panel - the simple answer for that is because they are not good enough. Not because the ICC is racist or anti eastern. In fact there is the view that the ICC is very much short on umpires -just 8 on the ellete panel- and it seems they will definately not let any good umpire go waste if he is out there.

The same ICC he accuses of being pro western just recently over turned a ban Clive Llyod imposed on the Indian skipper Saurav Ganguly and hence he became the first player to successfuly win an appeal against a ban/fine...

Comparision with those morons is apt in my opinion because those people do stupid things in the spur of the moment , out of sheer frustration over our results...he has done exactly the same...I doubt he would have ever done an article as extensive as this one on suppose racism by umpires had a lot of decisions gone in Pakistan favor and to Aus's disadvantage...he is not trying to make a point, this is just the same old story of sour grapes twisted and turned around to make it look nicer...those morons who burned effigies probably must have read his article before they left home.

And you have to think he gets paid for writing this. I might as well apply for a job at some newspaper my self then

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

He argues why there aren't more Asian in the elete panel - the simple answer for that is because they are not good enough. Not because the ICC is racist or anti eastern. In fact there is the view that the ICC is very much short on umpires -just 8 on the ellete panel- and it seems they will definately not let any good umpire go waste if he is out there.

I don't actually agree with his view that there should be more Asian umpires, I'd rather just kick out judges who aren't impartial. So while you are right that a lot of Asian umpires aren't as competent, you would like to think that decisions would go both ways, bad or good when the Elite umpires are involved. It hasn't transpired that way so far though, so I personally would prefer less competent umpires who make bad decisions both ways.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

You're very much entitiled to your opinions Shaka, but I don't personally think umpiring standards are as poor as he thinks they are and the are often made out to be. 92% decisions made by these guys are correct. That isn't bad. Or is it?

ZR most of that 92% that is correct are probably easy decisions that even you would get right. Its the harder 8 or 10% that the umpires need to get right, and of which the likes of Shepherd and Koertzen get mostly wrong, and for some bizarre reason, in too many matches, only favour the Western teams. Cultural reasons, perhaps, yes. Racism or other such nonsense, an absolute no. So in this the writer of the article does get it wrong, IMO.

He argues why there aren't more Asian in the elete panel - the simple answer for that is because they are not good enough. Not because the ICC is racist or anti eastern. In fact there is the view that the ICC is very much short on umpires -just 8 on the ellete panel- and it seems they will definately not let any good umpire go waste if he is out there.

Do you have any proof for your statement? No. The article over its 1,530 words answers this question. Below the Elite panel, each country nominates two umpires for the second level panel. From that 2nd tier panel, the two English nominees, for instance, get to umpire a lot more matches than the Asian umpires. They are all good enough, otherwise they would not be on the 2nd tier panel, but who gets more matches? Not the Asian umpires. Even the one Asian out of eight on the Elite panel, Aleem Dar, seems to be lowest on the pecking order, despite people such as Koertzen, the atrocious Hair and the ancient Shepherd being much worse umpires than he is!

The same ICC he accuses of being pro western just recently over turned a ban Clive Llyod imposed on the Indian skipper Saurav Ganguly and hence he became the first player to successfuly win an appeal against a ban/fine...

The ICC claims to have absolutely no control over the successful appeal of the Ganguly ban. It was an independent appeals process, with a the appellate judge being totally unconnected to the ICC, and it seems, not aware of cricket at all, hence his bizarre let-off for Ganguly. The appeal was handled in its entirely by Castle, a judge and arbitrator on the Court of Arbitration for Sport, who had total discretion and absolute power to change the ICC awarded punishment in any way he deemed appropriate. Hence, this example is not relevant at all - the ICC imposed the draconian ban to make an example of Ganguly, it was an independent process that lifted it, and one which the ICC, if one believes the press, is not too happy about.

Comparision with those morons is apt in my opinion because those people do stupid things in the spur of the moment , out of sheer frustration over our results...he has done exactly the same

I don't see how your reaction is any different to the original article then, both are over reacting in an angry manner when its not called for.

I doubt he would have ever done an article as extensive as this one on suppose racism by umpires had a lot of decisions gone in Pakistan favor and to Aus's disadvantage.

He is a Pakistani journalist, that would not be his primary responsibility, in any case, the UK tabloid press and its Australian counter-parts, as well as Sky TV and Channel 9 et al would cover that matter in so much detail that any comment in Pakistani press would not be required!

he is not trying to make a point, this is just the same old story of sour grapes twisted and turned around to make it look nicer...those morons who burned effigies probably must have read his article before they left home.

Another over-reaction which does the writer no credit whatsoever.

And you have to think he gets paid for writing this. I might as well apply for a job at some newspaper my self then

And dare I say, would be well-suited to it, judging by some of your posts from today!

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Its the harder 8 or 10% that the umpires need to get right, and of which the likes of Shepherd and Koertzen get mostly wrong, and for some bizarre reason, in too many matches, only favour the Western teams.

Bizarre reason? There is no bizarre reason or any reason behind that - coincidence may be but I personally am of the opinion that Asian team have just got all too used to making umpiring errors a thing to talk about match after match after match...

They are all good enough, otherwise they would not be on the 2nd tier panel,

No, all of them are not good enough, and are selected to fill up the numbers

The ICC claims to have absolutely no control over the successful appeal of the Ganguly ban...it was an independent process that lifted it, and one which the ICC, if one believes the press, is not too happy about.

I had no idea about this. In that case that example will not be valid, but I can think of an other example. I don't actually agree with this one, but try and go tell Boycott that the ICC is bias towards the West, he'll tell you how he thinks certain rules have been tinkered with just to accomodate one high profile Asian bowler...I don't I say again agree with Boycott but if you're trying to present ian argument in favor of ICC being biased for the west, be praiped to counter argue those Westerners who will accuse the ICC of being biased towards the East...poor old ICC...I for once might have sympathy for 'em.

I don't see how your reaction is any different to the original article then, both are over reacting.
He is a Pakistani journalist, that would not be his primary responsibility, in any case, the UK tabloid press and its Australian counter-parts, as well as Sky TV and Channel 9 et al would cover that matter in so much detail that any comment in Pakistani press would not be required! Another over-reaction which does the writer no credit whatsoever

Those comparisions might sound harsh and even over reactions, but I'm really annoyed with the number of times umpires as individual are labelled "raciast", "biased" and what not, these are serious terms questioning people's morals, must not be taken lightly, yet bashers seem to distribute them amongst umpires like it is no big deal. Keep your self in an umpire's position and think about it. May be I'm getting too sentimental here, but I can't help it, if you're an umpire who always tries his best to be as fair as possible and then you see people coming out and calling you a racist - how would you have felt? I know how I would have felt

And would be well-suited to it, judging by some of your posts from today!

I guess I have been a little bit more pumped up than usual for some reason