Pakistan to oppose appeals against umpires, and propore six-day Tests...

[Maranello]

Cricinfo news.

I think both of these are worthy suggestions; the six-day Tests in the Punjab winter are a no-brainer, so no surprise then that the ICC disallowed them :-)

However, surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with SK on the 'appeals against umpires' too; I am all in favour of greater technology, in fact, of complete reliance on technology; I don't care if the "funny man in the middle" is replaced with a mechanical robot wearing a white coat and a silly hat; but this is not the way to go about it.

Appealing against an umpiring decision merely undermines the authority of the official; if a particular umpire has three appeals upheld on the first day, what credibility will he have for the remaining four days when further dubious or close decisions go 'against' the team which has run out of appeals?

Further, the number of appeals set at three is too arbitrary and will almost always end up being inequitable - teams which have bowlers who are 'less well appreciated by the umpires' would need to appeal more than teams who don't; teams who are bowling for 150 overs in an innings would probably need a significantly greater number of appeals than sides in the field for only 55 overs; and so on.

The "three appeals per innings" rule is thus farcical and completely undermines the whole idea of introducing technology - technology is to ensure minimum errors and provide a level playing-field; not to skew the balance in a new and different way.

[Lemming]

I think that the six-day test idea might be required to get the overs into a full match. I'm surprised that the ICC don't allow this as they can get an extra day's crowd through the gate. Maybe we should go back to timeless tests, I'd watch them.

As for the umpires, I'm not bothered about technology. Technology is not in use at the moment except to show the mistakes of the umpires and I'm not sure it's on. What I don't get is why the ICC themselves have to decide who are the best umpires, they go to massive lengths to calculate who makes the most correct decisions to try and ascribe an 'umpire rating' to umpires. If I had my way I would have much simpler regulations regarding the choosing of umpires: before the series, the two captains and maybe some of the more experienced players should get together and decide between themselves who they want to be the umpire, from a list of available umpires. If no decision can be taken, then the ICC can step in and decide for them. The players are in the best position to make the decision on which umpires they trust and get along with and which umpires they would prefer to work with.

If you want to know the best umpires, don't ask Hawkeye or Snicko, ask the players.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

If I had my way I would have much simpler regulations regarding the choosing of umpires: before the series, the two captains and maybe some of the more experienced players should get together and decide between themselves who they want to be the umpire, from a list of available umpires. If no decision can be taken, then the ICC can step in and decide for them. The players are in the best position to make the decision on which umpires they trust and get along with and which umpires they would prefer to work with.

Completely unworkable in the real world we have to live in though, as mostly, more than one international fixture is taking place around the world; there is thus a high likelihood that the same umpire could be wanted by different teams in different locations! Who gets to take first pick then?

What if, after the earlier starting series has taken its pick, none of the available umpires is acceptable to the two captains, because their first and second choice umpires are already officiating elsewhere?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

If you want to know the best umpires, don't ask Hawkeye or Snicko, ask the players.

Yes, but only if the criteria for a good umpire is affability and the ability to make funny hand-gestures; otherwise, the views of the players are about as relevant as those of the administrators - ie not very much. It is peer review, based on extensive use of TV replays, technology and so on, that should govern umpire ratings, as it already does, to a limited extent.

[Lemming]

I'm not too sure that I agree. I think that the players' views are the most important. After all, it is their play and sometimes career that is decided by the umpires.

I don't see your argument, whose opinion on the umpires would be more important than the players, and why?

My point is simple: if the players are happy to play in good spirit with Mr. X and Mr. Y making the decisions, then let's play cricket!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

I'm not too sure that I agree. I think that the players' views are the most important. After all, it is their play and sometimes career that is decided by the umpires.

Isn't that similar to saying that the criminals' and defendants' (or the prosecutors, for that matter) views are the ones most relevant in appraising the performance of High Court judges; they after all are the ones whose lives are impacted by the said judges. This "peer review nonsense" on the bench surely must give way to review by the residents of HM Prisons and those of Fleet Street (or Canary Wharf Tower/Wapping)! :-)

Originally Posted by Lemming

I don't see your argument, whose opinion on the umpires would be more important than the players, and why?

The opinion of other umpires and of Match Referees, based on facts and actual events, as discerned through TV replays and other technology; not the biases, prejudices, gripes or affections of individual players, who after all have an axe to grind. I am all for allowing captains to confidentially convey their views to the Match Referee in a written report, as happens now; however, I wouldn't place any more reliance on that report than I do on 'The Sun' when it comments on the higher judiciary.

Originally Posted by Lemming

if the players are happy to play in good spirit with Mr. X and Mr. Y making the decisions, then let's play cricket!

Perhaps if there were only two cricket teams in the world, they could have their picks of the Xs and Ys. This idea may be useful at club or amateur level; I don't see how it can work in first-class, let alone international cricket, due to the reasons stated in my previous post. In any case, do the QCs arguing for the Crown and for the defendant get to choose their High Court judge? They would be far more qualified to do so than any random cricket captain!

[Lemming]

What's wrong with two opposing QCs choosing a judge if they both feel that particular judge is both qualified (ie clued up to make decnet judgements) and fair for all concerned?

In cricket (although I admit it might not be possible due to the need for so many umpires in different areas of the world) I would say that the players are the most qualified to decide on whether they like the umpiring style of a particular umpire. After all, it is the players who have to sort out on field issues with the umpire. They are the ones who have to appeal to that umpire and if they don't like him, then that's because they feel he is a poor umpire.

My point is straightforward. Putting aside the obvious problems with getting umpires to matches all over the world etc., what is wrong with the two teams saying 'We like Mr. X, we both believe he is qualified to make good decent decisions, we get on with him fine, feel he is fair and would like him to officiate our test match.'?

If both teams have no gripes with a certain umpire and would like to work with him, then that's enough I think.

[Lemming]

The trouble is, too many people believe that being a good umpire is about getting LBWs correct. It is only a small part of the job. The thing that technology doesn't show is how the officials actually control the players' behaviour on a personal scale. Having a machine decide whether the ball's hitting the stumps is one thing, having it maintain good spirit on the field of play is another. Due to the fact that the only people in the middle with the umpires are the players, we have to ask them whether the umpires are good at their job foremostly - I think.

You will actually also find that players don't mind marginal decisions being wrong so long as they are certain the umpire has given it his best with a fair eye/ear. Players would prefer to work with that sort of person as oppose to another who cannot get along with everyone else out there.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Lemming

The trouble is, too many people believe that being a good umpire is about getting LBWs correct.

Because that is the umpire's job; not all of it by any means, but the most contentious part of it. What has the umpire got to do with maintaining good spirit between the players? It is not as if he is handing out red, orange and green cards - that's the Match Referee's job! As long as the umpire minimises his own errors and ensures that all decisions are fair and impartial, the spirit will remain good; hence, help from technology will assist in maintaining a positive sporting spirit, not inhibit it.

Originally Posted by Lemming

The thing that technology doesn't show is how the officials actually control the players' behaviour on a personal scale.

Because umpires don't. The players control their own behaviour; the captains are responsible for their teams' behaviour; and the referee imposes any sanction when either step out of line - simple as that.

Originally Posted by Lemming

Players would prefer to work with that sort of person as oppose to another who cannot get along with everyone else out there.

Really? Professional sportsmen are so infantile that they need a smiling "Postman Pat" type figure to hold their hand in the middle? Or what - they will go back to 'mommy'? :-)

In any case, this game is not governed for the benefit of the players, or to respond to their childhood fears and provide therapy; the players are paid to do a job, and those paying their wages rightly make the decisions.

I think we should probably call it quits and agree to disagree, otherwise we would end up repeating ourselves - or at least I would! :-)

[Lemming]

I think you'll find that the umpires are indeed there to control the players behaviour. Poor player behaviour is rarely towards an umpire, but towards an opponent and the umpires should be the first to step in.

It amazes me how many people don't actually know the laws of cricket. Reading them would first bring you to a section entitled 'The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket' and details the role of the umpire in on-field relations.

Just a few points I will pick up on are the fact that the umpires are the (and I quote from the official cricket regulations) '...sole judges of fair and unfair play...the umpires may intervene at any time and it is the responsibility of the captain to take action where required.'

On the players' conduct: 'In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action.'

I don't make this stuff up. The umpires are not just there to make LBW decisions etc., but there to decide when players are going too far in their actions towards umpires and players. As no one but the players can hear what really goes on (the stump-mics do a little bit, but are rarely available), it is surely only correct to consider who is a good umpire with the help of player.

Technology does, of course, give a great indication of whether an umpire is capable of making decisions. But the more importnat role, I think, is the role of keeping the spirit of the game intact. The players know the better umpires in that role. Plus, when cricket gets out of control, rarely is it due to poor umpiring, but usually because of dissent by players or confrontations between players. As I have showed above, the umpires are the key people in these cases.