Umpires...Who needs 'em? You tell me!

[*CricketGuru*]

First of all I have to say that I’m neither a fan nor an enemy of the man who is fast becoming the most infamous umpire in the history of the game…if anything, since yesterday’s incident I should love him (seeing as I was able to get a $5 bet on odds of 25 to 1 for England to win on testskill.com).

While Darrell ‘Bad’ Hair’s famous Murali “Chucking” (1995) and Kirsten “Trigger Finger” (1993) decisions earned him the hatred of millions and the reputation of an Umpire out to stir up the world of Cricket, he may not be the stupid “balloon-knot” (a.k.a. ass) of a man that the majority of fans think.

I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why, with not a shred of evidence from the 3rd Umpire, he decided to award yesterday’s match to England. I propose the following three possibilities which may have caused the apparent brain fart which lead to the English being awarded the match:

1). Darrell smelt a rat when he saw what the condition of the ball; posed the question to the Pakistani’s and after their ‘unwarranted theatrical response’ knew that there was indeed some foul play about; then decided to change his (until then “very lenient”) stance on Sub-Continent teams and awarded the match accordingly;

2). He was upset at not being invited to Arjuna Ranatunga's next birthday party, and wanted to take it out on somebody;

3). He wanted to once again get back into the media spotlight (and seeing as all places in “I’m a celebrity get me the **** out of here” were taken) decided to do what he does best and again bring confusion and disrepute into the game.

There is of course another ‘Cronje-like’ possibility which might have caused him to make the decision…But the idea that Umpires could be involved in that sort of thing is unthinkable; it goes against the unwritten umpires’ code of conduct: “Be as annoyingly wrong as you can, as often as you can, to whoever you can, but don’t admit to it, or use your special ability to benefit others”


The question I pose is that while Umpires have for so long been a part of almost every sport, their place in all of them has been one of necessity. So, surely now that we have the means to replace them we should do so, or should we?

I’m sure that there would be a hell of a lot of people out there who would agree with that idea, but I’m interested to find out the opinions of those who support having decrepit old failures who can see barely past their own nose out there deciding the outcome of events which mean so much to so many.

[Quagmire]

With out umpires there would be no control, Hawkeye is more inaccurate than the umpires and without umpires there would be more cheating ie. ball tampering, roughing up the pitches and running on the pitches.

Hair is a poor umpire, when will we see another loved umpire like Shep?

Umpires will always be in cricket in some sort of way, even if technology takes over the game.

[greg]

The big problem you could have now is that pakistan will refuse to play in future when Hair is umpiring the game.We can't have teams saying who can and can't officiate in the middle but i can see a future problem when Hair has to take a game involving Pakistan.

If the ICC say that Hair shouldn't do a game involving Pakistan then will they then allow for example Australia to complain about Aleem Dar or England about Rudi Koertzen?

A huge can of worms has been opened with yesterdays events.

[DomainK]

Yes Greg, a huge can of worms has been opened yesterday and I think with umpiring losing its standards, it was probably coming.

I cant remember the last time an umpire was punished for for bad umpiring. When David Shephard overlooked the no-balls, was he served a notice as it was a very basic error of ommission on his part? When Sachin Tendulkar was given shoulder before wicket, was Daryl Harper's judgement questioned by the ICC? When India was forced to play in bad light in the Sarjah, were the umpires asked for an explanation? When an umpire banned as many as six players of the Indian team for excessive appealing, was his decision questioned?

Umpires have been allowed to get away with everything for a long time and formal protests in the form of letters have not been enough. Some team at some point of time was going to cross the line to show the protest.

I am not justifying what Pakistan did yesterday, but what I am saying is it happened because of long inactivity from the ICC.

[vvvrulz]

I agree. What happened yesterday was a farce, but its nothing new.

I can recall the days when Steve Randell blatently gave not-outs to the Australian batsman with a young Sri Lankan team on tour. It was just appalling, the Lankan's were toiling away for absolutely no reward and yet it was pretty much shrugged off. To answer Cricketguru's question, yes we need umpries, but we need umpires to be moderated so to speak, almost like an umpiring judicary.

Yesterday's events, as with some of the ones DomainK outlined are just plain ridiculous and its about time something was done about it. Simple as that.

[Speedboy Salesman]

Umpires like Bucknor are excellent, not all umpires are though.

[Seamer]

I fail to see why changes should be made to cater to the petulant actions of the Pakistan cricket team. Pakistan were in the wrong and it is purely their fault they forfieted the game.

The question to me is not what actions we should take against the umpires but rather, what action should be taken against Pakistan.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Seamer

The question to me is not what actions we should take against the umpires but rather, what action should be taken against Pakistan.

Did you go to the Darryl Hair school of diplomacy?

I think we all know that action will be taken against Pakistan and they probably knew it themselves when they failed to appear after tea.At least now there should be a thorough enquiry into it all and then hopefully we will be able to move on.

[DomainK]

Originally Posted by Seamer

I fail to see why changes should be made to cater to the petulant actions of the Pakistan cricket team. Pakistan were in the wrong and it is purely their fault they forfieted the game.

The question to me is not what actions we should take against the umpires but rather, what action should be taken against Pakistan.

I agree with you that what Pakistan did was wrong. They lost the match for that and I am sure ICC is going to further punish them.

The question I tried to raise is what in the world made an experienced test team to take such drastic step? Lets try to look beyond just this one ball tempering accusation. We all know that Asian teams dont like Hair. Why so?

I would appreciate if all members can have a look at my earlier post and say if those instances of crazy umpiring should have been entirely ignored by the ICC. Why the ICC never listens to protest from teams about bad umpiring?

Had the ICC not turned a blind eye to all that happened in the past, Pakistan probably wouldnt have taken that drastic step yesterday.

[Mongoose]

The way things look, the umpires could have handled the matter in a more effective way than the path they chose. But Pakistan's response was not the right one. It is crucial in any sport that there is independent arbitration with regard to decisions and adherence to the playing rules. The umpires are there to do this. I have just heard a radio report in which they said Malcolm Speed is adamant that no team will influence the selection of umpires. While I have thought about whether the ICC did the sensible thing in appointing Hair for the seies, considering the reservations raised about him, after hearing the report this evening, I think the ICC are quite right to appoint Hair for whatever series they choose. If he was deemed unfit to stand in a Pakistan series, they might as well sack Hair, as they would effectively be admitting wrongdoing by him.

One of the key things I always stick to in sport is to respect the ref / umpire. Whether you agree with their decision or not, it isn't right to openly confront their decision while play is in progress. Any protest should be raised afterwards, through the appropriate channels.

Cricket needs umpires. They do a good job, and help the game to run smoothly. They are human, and make errors, which a TV camera will probably do less often. But can a TV camera have a quiet chat with a captain, bowler or batsman to defuse a potential situation? Can a TV camera get a feel for the general atmosphere in which a game is being played, and adapt accordingly? As a kid I once bowled an over with about 5 wides. The umpire quietly said to me "Take your time" and it made a big difference. Could a TV camera do that? No!

Umpires ... who needs 'em? Everyone who has ever played cricket.