Pakistan call for two neutral umpires

[Maranello]

News report on cricinfo. Having two neutral umpires in ODIs is eminently sensible, but it does not completely address the problem of umpiring inconsistency. I feel there are three other issues related to match officials that should be addressed in addition to bringing in two neutrals.

1. The "Dinosaurs"
This relates to the old-school neutral umpires, eg Koertzen, Hair, et al, some of whose decisions seem to be quite atrocious on a regular basis. Neutrality should be a basic condition, but not the only one; competency and consistency should be ensured by regular independent reviews by the ICC.

2. The 'independent' TV umpire
The third umpire's role needs to be more clearly defined too; for instance, there is no reason why a third umpire needs to see six replays from 4 angles to give someone run-out; if there is so much doubt, the batsman is in. The number of replays and angles that the third umpire sees should be pre-defined, and if he cannot establish that the guy is definitely out from these, he gives him in. This will prevent the Afridi scenario.

However, using a minimum number of replays will also prevent the Gilchrist scenario, where the third umpire did not bother to call for any replays, and after an apparently cursory glance, gave him not out; there, a more careful look might have led to a different conclusion.

3. The Match Referee
Consistency in imposing sanctions from match referees is imperative. We all know of Pakistan's grievances with the strict fines handed out to Kaneria, Shoaib Akhtar and others, where other far worse offenders from other nations regularly escape scot-free. Vaughan made an undignified and uncivil fuss after being rightly fined for a rude outburst, because he and other English and Australian cricketers are not used to the officials imposing any sanctions on them. It sometimes seems that the match referee exists primarily to fine and ban Pakistani and Indian players .

Inzamam was recently fined all of his match fee plus another 30% for slow over rates in just one ODI - a ridiculous charge, since over-rates are irrelevant to all but the TV ad-men in ODIs. Yet, Vaughan and Smith escape scot-free after five Tests of sheer gamesmanship; they were regularly cheating the paying spectators out of the minimum 90 overs, and slowing play to gain an unfair advantage on the field. Slow over-rates are a real problem in Tests, especially as they give one side a real advantage, and can rob the spectator of a result. In ODIs, slow over-rates are irrelevant and should not even be a problem. However, the match referee (Chris Broad) fined Inzamam; another reason why only people of a certain calibre and sound reputation should be made match referees, not ex-cricketers who have been the worst offenders in their playing days, a la Broad.

[Seamer]

Some sort of conspiracy do you think Marenello? I think all test nations have had to endure the odd poor decision by all the umpires. No team more than the other

[Occasional Fan]

My feeling on this is that there is no conspiracy, and, regardless of the noise which is generated by some commentators, I will not be convinced that there is bias being operated by any of the elite panel of umpires. However, some of Maranello's points are quite valid, and to be honest I find it difficult to mount an argument against neutral umpires for ODIs. We have had neutral umpiring for tests for several years now, and we have to accept that the ODI is the more important form of the game in some parts of the world - notably South Asia. I think it is time for neutral umpires to be appointed for these games, not because I necessarily think the non-neutrals have performed poorly in fact, but because it should at least remove one regular source of discontent. It is, if you like, the old adage about justice not only being done, but also being seen to be done.

In his first point, Maranello also rightly draws attention to the need for competence - something which I personally would put ahead of neutrality, but, whatever the order, again we can't argue about this. I don't want to see Shepherd, Koertzen or Hair hounded out of office by aggrieved players, managers or fans, but a transparent system of peer review would go a long way, I think. I suspect that the ICC does have a system for reviewing umpires' performances, but, as I have said before, I don't know what it is. I remain convinced that the umpires could administer a system of peer review among themselves if they chose to do so: they're all professionals with pride of their own, and if the peer review group said to any one of them that it was time to think about hanging up the white coat, I am sure they would go. In some respects, I would be happier if the umpires administered this themselves than if another external (for which read "non-expert") review system were imposed upon them. There are, after all, reasons why High Court judges cannot be fired in many countries - it puts them above any improper influence, albeit at the price of also putting them above any proper influence. I'd vote for appointment to the Elite Panel being irrevocable, subject to the Panel members establishing an effective peer review system. (Incidentally, Maranello, I see you missed Steve Bucknor off your list: has he recently been rehabilitated in South Asia?)

[Shaka]

Give me neutrality over competence any day of the week. I am fed up of seeing the same faces umpiring matches between Pakistan and England/Australia. It's inevitably the steak and kidney pie brigade with a dollop of brown sauce on side. Neutral umpires were dragged into the game against the will and might of the old guard and it's been great for the game in general. The sooner it happens in ODI matches the better as far as I'm concerned.

As for the business over the match referee, I opened a seperate thread about whether there should be a review of Pakistan's meek acceptance of one-sided fines. Michael Vaughan's loud and public complaints against the umpires and his fine met with general approval from both English fans and press and certainly shook Clive Lloyd to the core. If this is acceptable from England then Pakistan's muted silence over similar issues is doing a dis-service to their cricket players and fans.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Shaka

Give me neutrality over competence any day of the week.

Really? So, in a Pakistan v NZ game, you'd rather have neutrals Rudi Koertzen and Darrell Hair than, say, undoubted competents Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden? Now I am confused!

Can't really get into the referee issue, as I am not on top of the Pakistan side of the issue.

[Zainub]

Interesting piece in Cricinfo- Quote...Unquote today

"It went 29-5 against us ... umpires are not cheats. I would never accuse them of that. But I do believe they are influenced by the way teams appeal and by the crowds."

Pakistan's coach Bob Woolmer after carrying out a secret review of questionable umpiring decisions in their matches against Australia

I think Bob makes a very valid point here, I don't think umpires are bias, neither are they cheats, but as Inzi said "There is a lot of pressure and umpires are human too." I don't think any umpire would or does adjudicates unfairly with the intent of giving an advantage to the side if his birth or origin, it just happens because you can be tempted to all those things once in a while if you're human, which all umpires are as far as I know but its about time for that extra bit of pressure to be removed off umpires.

You guys are spot on, as is our board, neutral umpires are the right way to go about it. I'm glad we've put forward this proposal, and I hope it is put into practice very soon.

On the subject of our players not voicing their displeasure as often on undue fines and bans imposed on them as often or as openly as Michael Vaughan did, I do think, that in at least one case, that of Kaneria, the fine might have been justified, considering Danish did come out and later apoligised for his behaviour - would have looked a little strange had we appealed against the fine after he's publically apoligised for doing what he did, don't you think?

I don't necessirily question him being fined, that might as well have been justified under the ICC's much malinged code of conduct, in which case Kaneria should probably have known better, but what I did question was, and still do, was why similar offences from other players (in specifically that series) went unnoticed. I still don't know the answer to that.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Shaka

Give me neutrality over competence any day of the week. I am fed up of seeing the same faces umpiring matches between Pakistan and England/Australia. It's inevitably the steak and kidney pie brigade with a dollop of brown sauce on side. Neutral umpires were dragged into the game against the will and might of the old guard and it's been great for the game in general. The sooner it happens in ODI matches the better as far as I'm concerned. .

To me, this whole line of discussion is an accusation of racism hidden behind the terms "neutrality" Australia were given some rough decisions in by an Indian umpire India in 2001 that cost us the series but we accepted that and got on with life. I don,t disagree with two neutral umpires but this will not solve the problem. For example, an umpire, regardless of his nationality will be less inclined to give Tendulkar out LBW in front of 80000 fans in Eden Gardens. Likewise, and umpire is more likely to give Glenn McGrath an LBW in front of 50000 fans at the MCG. It is generally crowd pressure that causes some of these poor decisions. Sometines, it is only the replays that highlight a poor decision. The way to solve this problem is to fully implement technology using lasers, sensors, and multiple camera angles and let the third umpire make the decision based on what the technology tells him. It will slow down the game a bit and there will still be some controversy, but it will take the pressure off the umpires in the middle at least and will result in a higher percentage of correct decisions

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Seamer

To me, this whole line of discussion is an accusation of racism hidden behind the terms "neutrality".

Hmm. Just because the issue has been raised in the context of an Australia v Pakistan series, I don't think you can legitimately conclude that it is an accusation of racism. Can't we just accept that a respected governing body of the game - the PCB - has raised a legitimate cricketing issue for discussion, and take it forward on that basis?

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Really? So, in a Pakistan v NZ game, you'd rather have neutrals Rudi Koertzen and Darrell Hair than, say, undoubted competents Aleem Dar and Billy Bowden? Now I am confused!

Can't really get into the referee issue, as I am not on top of the Pakistan side of the issue.

Well this is my point...I don't regard Rudi Koertzen or Darryl Hair as neutral although I am sure they are very competent. Billy Bowden and Aleem Dar despite not being 'neutral' in the technical sense, would both probably excercise neutrality much better in spirit despite having home nation affiliations. I hope that's not too confusing, but basically I believe some umpires, particularly the new breed, tend to have their decisions swayed less by previous history.

This isn't a race issue at all, As I count among the new breed umpires Aleem Dar, Billy Bowden, Simon Taufel and Steve Bucknor, all of whom are excellent umpires in my view. Darryl Hair, Rudi Koertzen and Daryl Harper, I would prefer not to be umpiring in a match involving Pakistan and England/Australia; David Shepherd is just past his sell-by date, otherwise he's been a fine umpire up till some while back.

p.s.

I realise Bucknor is hardly 'new breed' but I think his impartiality is exemplary.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Hmm. Just because the issue has been raised in the context of an Australia v Pakistan series, I don't think you can legitimately conclude that it is an accusation of racism. Can't we just accept that a respected governing body of the game - the PCB - has raised a legitimate cricketing issue for discussion, and take it forward on that basis?

O.F I certainly was,nt implying that the PCB was laying accusations of racism. On the contrary, i think they have raised this issue quite diplomatically and i will be the first to concede that their concerns have some merit. Pakistan had the bad end of many decisions throughout the recent series and is an issue worth further discussion. But to accuse Koerzen, Hair, Broad of holding on to some concept of old fashioned notions of Empire, and discrimination of the sub continental teams is a bit hard to stomach.