Dangerous precedent?

[Seamer]

The PCB and ICC has taken no action against Bob Woolmer after he brought the game into disrepute by criticising the umpires performance in the recent series in Australia. He stated that his team suffered 29-5 bad decisions against Pakistsan - in effect accusing the umpires of 34 bad decisions. If any player or captain said such a thing, he would have been punished, but it seems coaches are free to bring the game into disrepute whenever it pleases them.Where does this leave cricket? Will we now see every losing coach try the same ploy to try and deflect the blame away from themselves and on to the umpires.
One of the basic tenets of cricket is "accept the umpires decision", but now, this no longer seems to be the case

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Without going into deeper, murkier waters here Seamer, I'd argue it merely reflects the fact nobody respects any form of authority anymore, coupled with the greater use of technology so the crowd/coaches can see exactly what happen at super slo-mo.

Would this have happened 20 years ago ? Possibly, but unlikely.

[Zainub]

Woolmer did accept the umpires decesion Seamer, I think he was only trying to put forward his case for the use of more technology to aid and impower umpires, and that as far as I can see is not bring the umpires or the game into disripute. Its never really been a secret that Woolmer's a technology fan, I think that's something that has been well known right from the time he was coach with SA.

Bob defended his statements, and said his thoughts were taken out of context. He clearifies his position in an article on his website, link below.

http://bobwoolmer.com/articles/79.ht...28a269b8659406

[Seamer]

I am sorry Zainub, but there is only one context to be taken when a losing coach accuses umpires of making 34 incorrect decisions in a series. The fact that this matter was'nt privately brought up at the next ICC meeting , but brought out publicly through the media, only resulted in the game of cricket being dragged through the mud. Digraceful, and like any player he should have been punished. The PCB aided him in this because they employed him, and as a result, his failures are the PCB's failures. If an umpire gives a player out unfairly, that player has to walk without showing even a HINT of dissent. Yet coaches can mouth off to the media to deflect criticism away themselves and get away with it. As i said, it DOES bring the game into disrepute and it must be stopped before it gets out of hand

[Maranello]

Its not 34, its 29. And its not incorrect decisions, its difficult decisions where the outcome was uncertain.

He said there were 29 decisions which 'could have gone either way', and 24 of them went to Australia, 5 to Pakistan. Anyone who saw the VB series can count most of these decisions him/herself, since these instances were obvious.

I would enoucrage those jumping on the bandwagon to be critical of either Woolmer, or the umpires, to first acquaint themselves with the facts, and read Woolmer's statement on his website, linked to above and elsewhere on WAT.

[Seamer]

These decisions that "could have gone either way" were not adjudged by a neutral party but someone who has vested interests in one party - Pakistan. I saw the VB series and i think Woolmer is in fantasy land. The fact is, no matter how you want to sugar coat it, Woolmer questioned the umpires decision - a thing that players get punished for. And why are they punished for it? Because it brings the game into disrepute.

[Maranello]

Yes because they are the players, and the decisions directly impact them. If an umpire makes a decision, and the player, a la Dennis Lillee or Chris Broad or Mike Gatting starts arguing with the umpire, or acts in other improper ways, then the laws of cricket cannot be applied and anarchy will prevail - as it sometimes did in the bad old days. Fortunately now ICC have a code of conduct, and any player breaching that by questioning the umpire's decisions on the field or off it, will be rightly sanctioned. Even then, there are some eg Michael Vaughan who feel they are above the law and start sreaming like children when caught out; but that doesn't mean the system doesn't work most of the time.

Players' behaving in this manner brings the game into disrepute, but more relevantly, it also means that cricket cannot really continue, as the respect for authority by the players, has removed.

However this does not mean that the umpires are some 'holy cows' and no one else can talk about that; that would be contravening freedom of speech. Hence, people like me and you, and the Joe Public, do not have a gagging order placed on us by the ICC, and we are free to debate these issues to our heart's content. Do we bring the game into disrepute? No, because we are not the ones on whom the umpire's decisions apply; that is the players; similarly, coaches, administrators, journalists and others can, and are free to opine on this matter and even question an umpire's decision, since they are not the ones who have to obey the umpires. However, if the players question the umpire, instead of obeying him, that is when we start down a very slippery slope - and rightly, we have strong sanctions to prevent that happening.

[Seamer]

So you are saying that it is not alright for a player to bring the game into disrepute but it is alright when a losing coach does? Talk about a slippery slope alright! Now that Woolmer has brought the game into disrepute and got away with it, you may well see every other losing coach doing the same thing.

[Zainub]

I admit Woolmer's statement technically might have broken a clause in that code of conduct of the ICC, that I must admit I'm starting to get increasingly sick of, but literally speaking I think his comments hardly seemed like a disripute to the game or umpires.

Its much like what has happened with Arsenal's Jose Antonio Ryes, who got a 3 match ban for giving Shifield United player Andy Liddell a light tap on his face after an incident between Danny Cullip and Cesc Fabregas in the FA Cup fifth-round tie which ended 1-1. Official verdict was that he got fined because of "violent conduct". Technically it was a chargable offence, 3 games we can argue if that is too harsh or not, but it was never really "violent conduct" in the sense of the literal meaning of the word violent, much like in the same way Woolmer's views aren't disriputeful in the literal sense of the word.

ps: M, ICC's code of conduct applies to players and team officials as well, including people as far off as members of the selection panel. Not that long ago if you remember Malcolm Speed was not at all happy when Wasim Bari, chief selector, openly criticised Umpire Shephard after he was involved in a string of dubious decesions against Pakistan in the one-day tournament in the Netherlands against Australia in the finals. A letter adressed to the PCB was leaked out into the press and quite a big controversy was created.

[Seamer]

Yes, well i make no secret of my utter contempt of the ICC. They should have made a stand on this one but they were too gutless to do so. As a result, the umpires will have to endure aspersions cast against their umpiring ability by every coach with sour grapes until one of them is made an example of. What people should be asking is what is wrong with Woolmers coaching?