Create respect for the Umpire by re-evaluating his role

[Maranello]

An interesting (well at least for anoraks like me) aspect of this whole 'Hairgate' affair is the reaction of many former players and umpires. Most former England captains, players and umpires have come out strongly in favour of Pakistan and Inzamam; the likes of Botham, Boycott, Gower, Atherton, Dickie Bird, Nasser Hussain, etc. were to varying degrees supportive of Pakistan and critical of Hair even before the revelations about Hair's mercenary emails. Of course, after those revelations the English media has turned on Hair in a big way, but let's ignore that: I am always vary of the English media when it reacts with moral outrage at anything. What's more interesting is the stance people like Botham, Gower, Boycott and Atherton have taken from day one; sure Boycott is a traditional Pak-phile, and has always been a good friend and supporter of Pakistan cricket, but Ian Botham? I don't think I am exaggerating if I say that he would not be on the Eid-card lists of many Pakistanis. Hence, the sensible and fair-minded reaction from most English commentators has certainly been a breath of fresh air. Boycott, speaks for many I am sure, when he says:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Boycott

This idea that umpires are always right is a load of old cobblers. What I want to know is: Who umpires the umpires? The players suffer from their mistakes, but no one ever seems to get rid of the umpires themselves. It is clear to me that Hair was acting beyond the bounds of his office. Being an umpire is a people job: that's why Dickie Bird was good at it. Yes, he was a loony, and he made mistakes - everyone does. But he knew how to deal with people, so they respected him.[...]

I would like to see Inzamam's hearing held as soon as possible after the end of this one-day series. He needs a small slap on the wrist for his action in not coming out last Sunday, and that should be the end of it. The ball-tampering accusation should be found not proven, unless Hair has some evidence we haven't heard about. You can't just make a claim like that on the basis that a ball 50 overs old has got some scratches and scuffing on it.

What has been equally interesting is the critical reaction of a few Pakistani players and captains. We have former England captains praising or at least understanding Inzamam; and then we have not one but many Pakistani captains being critical of him. Some, such as Sarfraz Nawaz and Imran, criticise him for not protesting earlier, but almost all, including Sarfraz, Imran, Wasim Akram, Javed Miandad, Aamir Sohail etc have been critical of his decision which led to the forfeiture. Though Pakistanis in general, from the President down, are supportive of Inzamam now and very critical of Hair, the dissenting voices of Wasim Akram et al are interesting. A lot of this I suspect is just professional jealousy; Inzamam is looked down upon by many past captains for his simple-minded approach to the game, and his lack of guile, and this incident is proof, in the minds of many, that he is simply not clever enough to be an international Test captain.

In this backdrop, I found Aleem Dar's views quite interesting. He is of course an ICC employee and would never be critical of his employer, unless he wanted a new job.

Originally Posted by Umpire Aleem Dar

There are other ways of protesting and the avenue they chose I believe was the wrong one. Strictly according to the law, the decision is correct. The problem is that if one country attempts it, then others will follow and that cannot be good for the game in the long-run. [...]

You can tell sometimes that tampering has occurred, depending on the level of it. On a new ball obviously it is easy to say if something has been applied to it. On an older ball it becomes more difficult but not impossible. As I say, it depends on other things. But the umpires can check at any time they want.[...]

It's important to remember the decisions themselves weren't wrong. But it depends on your personality how you handle it. The situation could've been handled better.

He is being admirably tactful and careful in the choice of his words, as one would expect; nonetheless, I don't think there is much to be critical of in his general viewpoint. A slightly different note is set by Kamran Abbasi, a British Pakistani who edits the British Medical Journal and is a part-time cricket writer for Wisden and Cricinfo. Writing in The Dawn, Pakistan's equivalent of the NYT or the IHT, Abbasi raises a very interesting and wider question about the role of the umpire:

Originally Posted by Kamran Abbasi

The mark of a civilised society is that it tolerates dissent and it has become something of an irony that in the crude symbolism of this controversy it is the Pakistanis who have championed dissent, while Hair and a few Englishmen and many Australians have supported the authoritarian fascism that has become the embodiment of umpiring in cricket.

A game that is now monitored microscopically by technology, a game that now accommodates our advanced understanding of human anatomy and biomechanics, a game that now instantly touches the lives of millions, sometimes billions, around the globe, requires a modern interpretation of the role of the umpire. Paradoxically, Hair may have done the sport a favour.

I think on this at least, he is right - the role of the umpire does need to be interpreted and understood afresh now, and we certainly need a lot more technology than we have had in the past, to minimise errors. In time, the on-field umpire's primary role would become a friendly arbiter of disputes, a voice of reason and experience amid all the sledging and name-calling that goes on, and for this role, we would need the wisest and most sensible of former cricketers; characters who inspire respect, affection and awe in equal measure. The dull mechanics of umpiring, the banal technicalities of where the ball pitched and so on, would be taken care of by technology and trained TV analysts and technicians.

The alternative is to accept that the umpire is not always right, as argued by Boycott above, and thus by default, to encourage more dissent, greater ill-will and more controversy on the field, something that I for one would not support. Cricket is a professional business undertaking now, not an amateur sport, and it should be managed and governed in an appropriate way.

[Mongoose]

There are some very thought provoking comments there, M, many of which I agree with. I think Geoff Boycott has always talked sense on cricket. I can't ever remember listening to him and thinking "that's rubbish". He's up there with the likes of Benaud in terms of his experience and understanding of cricket, and his ability to express his views clearly. I also found the Kamran Abbasi comments interesting, and he looks on both society and cricket in a way I had not previously considered. I'm sure it will take time for me to fully evaluate his comments, and I may end up agreeing with a lot of what he says. On one point he raises, which you have backed up yourself, I'm not quite so sure.

Originally Posted by Maranello

I think on this at least, he is right - the role of the umpire does need to be interpreted and understood afresh now, and we certainly need a lot more technology than we have had in the past, to minimise errors. In time, the on-field umpire's primary role would become a friendly arbiter of disputes, a voice of reason and experience

I think this needs to be taken together with your comment below, in order to be fully understodd, and to see both options here. I think the umpire's primary role will always be as a decision maker. Sure, technology has helped in things like line decisions e.g. the third umpire for close run outs. And I can see technology being introduced at some point for lbw decisions. However, there are things that umpires can still decide: they pick up the sound that tells them of a thin outside edge; they get a sense of when bowling at a tailender becomes intimdatory rather than just aggressive (note: the tailender rarely complains, so this is rarely a "dispute"); they are the ones who decide when the rain has got too heavy, or the light too dark. I can see the appeal of technology, however, I am still in favour of the umpire having most of the decisions, preferring the alternative offered by Boycott:

Originally Posted by Maranello

The alternative is to accept that the umpire is not always right, as argued by Boycott above, and thus by default, to encourage more dissent, greater ill-will and more controversy on the field

I agree with the first part of this, but not the second. I think it's right to accept that the umpire is not always right. However, I think I am looking at this word "accept" from a slightly different angle. I think players should "accept" the fallibility of umpires by acknoledging that they will make mistakes, as they are human; but because of this acceptance they should always respect the umpires decision as if it were correct. This is what happens currently, with a few exceptions which usually result in strong condemnation of the player e.g. Chris Broad. I don't think this invites dissent and ill-will. Rather, it gives the players some responsibility for the spirit of the game, and they generally respond to this responsibility very well. I think we can trust players to play the game of cricket in the right way.

On a final point, I think Aleem Dar, as you say, was being very careful with his words. However, I though the second and third sentences of the following comment were paricularly telling:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

It's important to remember the decisions themselves weren't wrong. But it depends on your personality how you handle it. The situation could've been handled better.

I think this is a criticism of Darrell Hair and his style of managing situations. Boycott commented that umpiring is a "people job" which is why Dickie Bird could make mistakes and still be a good umpire. I think Dar is saying that Hair's people skills were not up to the task on this occasion. Of course, he makes his point in a veiled way, to protect his own position, so we cannot be 100% certain. But I'm pretty sure that's what he's getting at.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

The alternative is to accept that the umpire is not always right, as argued by Boycott above, and thus by default, to encourage more dissent, greater ill-will and more controversy on the field, something that I for one would not support.

This statement strikes me as singularly out of character on your part, Maranello: surely you'd agree it's up to those on the field to demonstrate maturity in their response to umpiring decisions rather than being up to umpires to treat professional cricketers as infantile brats prone to throwing the toys out of their pram each and every time they perceive error - which is not to say the conclusion you offer (greater reliance on technology) is wrong, merely that this justification is flawed.

I'm keen that the role of the umpire be rethought: officials and official bodies should understand their role as serving the game not running the game... there to arbitrate where called upon but NOT there to get in the way when two sides are wanting to get on with cricket. That is to say... they are not there to ensure everything is done according to the letter of the law... but to arbitrate with reference to the law when two sides have differing views. Thus, if two sides agreed to turn on the lights and play until 9.00pm to make up for time lost in a match... it wouldn't be the umpire's role to say "you can't do that"... but if one side wanted to do that and the other didn't the umpire would be able to arbitrate and if necessary rule as to who has the moral high ground.

I drew a comparison with the umpire in tennis in another thread: I've see a grand-slam match in which the linesman was backed by the umpire in making a call that both players thought was wrong. I think it was a call of "fault" on a first serve. The players both knew the ball was in and scored it as an ace... moving straight onto the next point and leaving the umpire no choice but to revise his call!

What's needed is that sort of flexibility...and with it, a willingness on the part of the teams to take greater responsibility for running the game: that should include walking, limiting one's appeals and so on... but also a receptiveness to challenges from captains and dressingrooms.

On a legislative front the key change needs to be on referring matters to the third umpire: teams should be able to request this whenever they suspect error... on the understanding that they only do so when confident of their case - folk have talked of allowing no more than two failed challenges per innings and that principle seems fair enough as challenges should not be taken lightly.

That said... I'd stretch the numbers to two per session...

ps. I'd also have hawkeye available to the dressingrooms for every delivery.... so that every LBW shout can be instantly reviewed by both sides. I'd expect batting sides to instruct their player to walk if they judge he's benefitted from a poor decision and the fielding decisiont to recall the bloke ascending the steps if the decision shoudl have been 'not out'.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Kamran Abbasi

The mark of a civilised society is that it tolerates dissent and it has become something of an irony that in the crude symbolism of this controversy it is the Pakistanis who have championed dissent, while Hair and a few Englishmen and many Australians have supported the authoritarian fascism that has become the embodiment of umpiring in cricket.

If this commentator reflects public opinion in Pakistan, then it highlights the vast differences between the Western and Pakistani culture. What he considers "dissent", we consider "anarchy". What he considers "authoritarian fascism" we consider "law and order". Who is right or wrong comes down to opinion of course, but a comparison of the political stability between the two cultures could be an indication.

Originally Posted by Kamran Abbasi

A game that is now monitored microscopically by technology, a game that now accommodates our advanced understanding of human anatomy and biomechanics, a game that now instantly touches the lives of millions, sometimes billions, around the globe, requires a modern interpretation of the role of the umpire. Paradoxically, Hair may have done the sport a favour.

I definately do not agree. Firstly, making such sweeping changes to accomidate Pakistan and somehow justify Inzimam's actions would be the worst thing to do. If you were to cave in to such behavour, it would only encourage further anarchy by other teams in the future
As to technology, who is to say that it will improve the game? I for one think it will detract from the sport and completely ruin the charm of the game by making it so clinical. And it will merely move the controversy from the middle to the third umpires box. Just think of the amount of controversy is caused by third umpiring decisions on run-outs and stumpings.

The traditions of cricket have been built up over a century and we are to tear it all apart to placate Pakistan? I pray reason wins the day and the traditions of cricket are preserved.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

I can't ever remember listening to [Geoffrey Boycott] and thinking "that's rubbish".

Well, Mongoose, here's one:

Originally Posted by Boycott, as above in Maranello's post

It is clear to me that Hair was acting beyond the bounds of his office.

That, again quoting Boycott from Maranello's post is "a load of old cobbler's". Boycott should know better than that. There is no way that Darrell Hair will be shown to have acted beyond his brief: the Laws are clearly on his side in all of this. Aleem Dar's comments are bang on the money in that regard.

I don't think there are many on this board who would argue that Darrell (or any other umpire) is always right. But I will argue all the way and with all-comers who make such a foolish comment as Geoffrey Boycott has here.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

There is no way that Darrell Hair will be shown to have acted beyond his brief: the Laws are clearly on his side in all of this.

As I recall... Boycott suspects Hair lacked sufficient grounds for making the charge he made... and if, as expected, Inzi is cleared of unfairly affecting the condition of the ball the conclusion of the ICC will - by implication - be that Hair DID exceed his brief.

[Occasional Fan]

Unless Boycott is the only person other than the players, umpires and officials to have been given access to the ball - which he might be, though, if he is, Heaven knows why - he lacks sufficient grounds for making the comment he has made. Either an extraordinary prescience or just a simple Boycott-style omniscience could put him in a position for it to be "clear to me that Hair has exceeded his brief". I suspect the latter, in his opinion at least.

[Lemming]

Well, suspecting and knowing are two different things. This is a situation where everyone has to be careful what they say and what they hear others saying.

Boycott can suspect all he wants. But he might not know anything.

Like OF has pointed out, Boycott might know his cricket, but he can't make up facts about the ball. No-one who has yet to see it can.

[Lemming]

I can't understand why Boycott actually said that - I'm assuming Maranello (a careful poster)
has quoted him correctly. What on earth does Boycott know?

Boycott needs to stick to disliking Hair rather than making things up. There is plenty of time to have a go at Hair when it is decided that he really did go too far - if that happens.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

As I recall... Boycott suspects Hair lacked sufficient grounds for making the charge he made.

Really well what difference does it make if Boycott [suspects] that Darrell Hair had sufficient grounds or not?.
Did Boycott see the condition of the ball as Darrell Hair did?, then if so I think as a Journalist he should tell us, if he has not seen the condition of the ball - then he should keep his "opinions" to himself until after the enquiry (that I believe has been canceled) for Saturday.

Originally Posted by Threadstart

Create respect for the Umpire by re-evaluating his role

I really don't know what to make of this - umpires should already have the respect of players - why after a 100 years or so do we need an evaluation?.

Also his role is obvious - to oversee a cricket match, and ensure fair play by both teams, and to make decisions regarding the rules of the game - it IMO is really as simple as that.