Dangerous precedent?

[Paoli]

I dont think he was dissing authority in anyway. He stated an opinion which wasnt offensive...If he had've said, "Umpires are cheats and are influenced by Aus's dodgy tactics", then yes, that is bringing the game into disrepute.

And i think you may as well take advantage of technology while its there....the game will not be "AmericaniZed" until the USA become a superpower....sweet dreams!!!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

I dont think he was dissing authority in anyway. He stated an opinion which wasnt offensive...If he had've said, "Umpires are cheats and are influenced by Aus's dodgy tactics", then yes, that is bringing the game into disrepute

While Woolmer never actually said the umpires were cheats, he did indicate that they were intimidated by the Aussie team. By publicy saying that, he is in fact attempting to intimidate umpires himself into turning down Aussie appeals in future or face accusations of being weak-minded and intimidated. And he is accusing Aussie umpires - in a round about way - of being cheats by his call for neutral umpires. His opinions are hardly from a neutral perspective so little stock should be taken in what he says. Leave the opinions to those without personal agendas and leave the future direction of cricket to the governing body - not to the cricket board and coach of a losing team

[Mike]

I don't think Woolmer's comments brought the game into disrepute. I think a study by the ICC showed that umpires get 90% of decisions right which infers that sometimes they get it wrong. That figure of 90% would not apply to every match, either - that is an average across all matches. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the figure is lower in some matches and higher in others.

In the Test matches and one-day matches Pakistan received 16 LBW decisions compared to just 6 by Australia. It is plausible that Pakistan batsmen did not receive the benefit of the doubt as often as Australia's batsmen. Woolmer thinks this may be down to the way the Pakistan side appeal (they need to appeal less and only when they think they believe it's very close and then to appeal strongly and convincingly) and the body language their batsmen give-off when an appeal is made against them.

Originally Posted by Woolmer

The way the Australians appeal and the way the crowd supports them creates subconscious pressure on umpires and it shows. People can say an umpire gives a decision on what he sees rather than the appeals, but I disagree. The appeal is very much a part of it. It is a very fine line.

Reading his comment seems to be more a criticism of his own team than criticizing the umpires.

[Zainub]

Very good point Mike. I think he also said we might need to shed a bit of light on the way we appeal. And perhaps change it since the present one is seemingly not having enough of an impact on the umpires mind.

And for those who accuse Woolmer of calling umpires cheats:

Originally Posted by Bob Woolmer

I don't think umpires are cheats

Originally Posted by Andrew Ramsey, The Australian

Former Kiwi captain Ken Rutherford used his newspaper column to accuse Bowden - who has spent 30 per cent of his international career officiating in matches involving Australia - of being too familiar with Ricky Ponting's team. Rutherford's premise was that familiarity breeds contempt, in that the Australians preferred to deal with an umpire on a regular basis because it allowed them to become aware of his idiosyncracies and to exploit them. And the relationship is symbiotic, according to the veteran of 56 Tests for New Zealand."Whether Billy wants to admit it or not, subconsciously he might just be too aware of the Australian players' strengths and weaknesses," Rutherford wrote."Familiarity for an umpire with the players is not an ideal situation. The best umpires over the years have had a degree of aloofness that Bowden can only hope to acquire."

Read the enitre thoughout provoking article using this link: Silly Billy spilts New Zealand

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Mike

In the Test matches and one-day matches Pakistan received 16 LBW decisions compared to just 6 by Australia. It is plausible that Pakistan batsmen did not receive the benefit of the doubt as often as Australia's batsmen. Woolmer thinks this may be down to the way the Pakistan side appeal (they need to appeal less and only when they think they believe it's very close and then to appeal strongly and convincingly) and the body language their batsmen give-off when an appeal is made against them. Reading his comment seems to be more a criticism of his own team than criticizing the umpires.

The fact is that, unlike the Pakistani bowlers, the Aussie bowlers bowl a stump to stump line thus increasing their chances of LBW,s. Also, unlike the Aussie batsmen, the Pakistani batsmen's form and technique were not up to the Australian conditions, kept on shuffling in front and, rightly so, getting out LBW more often. The above stats do not indicate one way umpiring, they indicate that the Pakistani batsmen were getting trapped plumb LBW more often due to poor technique and superior Australian bowling. The Pakistani batsmen had far more trouble with the Aussie bowlers than vice versa as England will find out in a few months time.
In any case, regardless of if the fairness of the decisions, the losing coach should be bound to the same rules as the players in regards to dissention, and should keep their complaints out of the media to avoid cricket being dragged through the mud, and going privately through the ICC (for whatever good that does)

[Zainub]

I was personally not concerned of the lbws decesions of our batsmen going against us, most of the decesion we got against us were correct, but in fact my only concerns were rather regarding appeals we made against the Aussies.

Some of the appeals that were turned down were clearly out. And they only reason they were not given out I suspect were because of this subconsious notion some umpires have.

Similar things have been happening in Aus's recent series against NZ.

The fact for me is the Aussie batsmen are not being given out LBW as often as they should be.

And on their appealing, some people, including the Aussies players themselves, want to deny this but for me I can see it clearly from the mein, manner and body langauage that they make a deliberate attempt to subconsiously affect the umpires decesion making process in a way in which other teams do not. In short I think they pressurise umpires, which they shouldn't in my opinion, because it is like taking undue advantage of umpires.

And I know that all the umpires will come and deny that and so will the Australian players, but I'm not convinced with their sayings since day in and day out I can see it from my eyes with the way a)Aus batsmen react to bowling side's appeals and b)with the way Aussie bowler appeal them selves

Australia appeal and react to appeals in a way in which no other team does.

[Seamer]

Zainub, What can you do about body language? Try and get the Aussie team to forget their long dominance of world cricket and be more submissive? In any case, Aussie and submissive do not belong in the same sentence, just the Aussie way.The Aussie body language has nothing to do with the reason i posted this thread in any case.

I posted because i am concerned that because of the Woolmer precedent, losing coaches have a free licence to bring the game into disrepute by deflecting criticism away from themselves and onto the Umpires. The point i am trying to make is that coaches and players should be under the same code of conduct and held to account if they breach it.

[Zainub]

The point you make about this being an attempt by Woolmer to drift criticism away from him self, I'm sure if you put it to Woolmer (you might as well do it at his website www.bobwoolmer.com) he will tell you a) he isn't afraid of cricticism b)he looks forward to constructive critcisms.

I don't think your accusation apply as such as far as the bit about "trying to drift critcism from him self" is concerned, because Woolmer is not very popular with most ex cricketers in Pakistan and he's been criticised widely for the results we got back from Australia, and he gets the knife for most things he dose, I think he might even have got used to it by now. Rather unfortunately such is the mentality of some people in this part of the world no matter what Woolmer will do they will still criticise him. So Bob might as well have stopped making attempt "to drift criticism" from those kind of people.

[Mr Kiwi]

i remember when ian healy first started commentating he would almost critique every appeal stating things like 'with an appeal like that it's no wonder the umpire didn't give it' (never mind the fact that the umpire wasn't going to give it because it wasn't out), or 'that's a good strong appeal which would have got hte umpire thinking . . .'

he used to speak at length about hte importance of a loud, confident appeal - especially in 50/50 calls. clearly appeals were being used (at least by the australian team of his era, and now presumably by every team from senior prem to international level) as a diliberate and orchestrated attempt to pressurise the umpire and to allow any seeds of doubt to gestate into a favourable decision for the fielding team.

i notice he hasn't talked about this lately - maybe to many people got scared he was letting hte cat out of hte bag . . .


another thing i've noticed (moving onto technology) is that in the last few games involving NZ vs Oz on both sides of the tasman there have been a few 'line calls' on the part of hte third umpire which haven't been called correctly. examples are mccullums stumping in brisbane (1st test) which according to the papers at least should have gone in favour of the batsman (i was at the game and wasn't wearing my glasses so couldn't make it out on the big screen . . .), and also in one of hte recent one dayers marshall or macca wasn't given run out when he probably should have been. i don't think there's any sense bringing in new technology such as hawkeye (which for hte record i'm pretty dubious of) if the current technology isn't being used to an acceptable standard.

[Mike]

Some good points, Mr Kiwi. Even today, the commentators will comment on the strength of the appeal by saying "that was very good shout" and even analyzing the appeal by looking at the body language of the slips fielders, the keeper and the bowler. For example, there have been cases where the fielders behind the stumps appeal vociferously but the bowler just "questions" the umpire rather than implore. They are implying that the umpire may take this body language into consideration when making an appeal.

Your second point is also a good one. The video replays are sometimes inconclusive but Hawkeye shows the ball missing the stumps or hitting it. I can't remember if it shows whether a ball pitched in line with the stumps or not but Hawkeye is a better tool than video replays. I think a video replay is required to determine if a ball pitched in line.