SA Footy

Thers been a lot of conjecture over Umpires making errors in cricket.
Its getting to the stage when 2 teams of equal ability are playing that the umpiring may be the difference between winning and losing.
Its time that the 3rd umpire should be called upon to adjudicate as many decisions as possible
This would then probably take the pressure off the umpires and possibly improve the standards.
Umpires are not as incompetent as most would think.
Todays umpires are no worse or better than umpires in any era in my opinion.
Its just that todays umps are being made to look stupid with video technology.

My maxim which you would all sick of reading about Test match cricket[real cricket]

_________________________________________________________________________

90 OVERS A DAY
6 HOURS OF CRICKET
30 HOURS PER GAME
Start the games 15 minutes early for all decisions and make the contest fair and sqaure
___________________________________________________________________________

Another point seemingly overlooked by many is that wrong decisions can impact on a players career and end it pre-maturely or in the players infancy

EXAMPLES
HAYDEN ....2 abyssMAL decisions in the 1ST test and subsequent failures could spell the end
WATSON.... 2nd test v IN plumb LBW on about 30 odd makes 78 in a career saving knock ?
STRAUSS.... robbed several times v AU 2005 and railroaded his career
SYMONDS...could not do a thing for almost 10 tests, had an absolutely plumb LBW decision went his way v SA and went on to score runs and kick start his almost ended career

AND THIS ONE
Jon English Jason Gillespie SHARMA ...this sensational rampaging fast bowler might never have had a career
In his very first game V AU in Sydney 2nd test last Indian tour
Had Symonds comprehensively caught behind when Roy was about 30-50 runs NOT OUT !
Roy made 162 not out
Sharma on debut 0/87 + 0/59 [would have been about 1/25 1st innings at the time if Roy was given out]
That decision could have ended his career [I reckon RP SINGH got injured + Sharma kept his spot next test]

Players are playing for Million $$$ contracts, one wrong decision could be the end !

3RD UMPIRES must be utilised at Test Level

I agree with your points, MAL. I reckon umpiring hasn't changed, there is just more scrutiny. While for the cricket romantic you would like the game to stay as it is (i.e. two umpires, 3rd umpire for runouts/stumpings), the kicker is that the game is now PROFESSIONAL, and as such, technology should be used where practical.

As I see it currently, technology is more of a hinderance than a help to umpires as they cannot use it and they look silly for getting things wrong. They are only human and I don't think a couple of bad decisions should leave a permanent smear on their reputation. It might not be something we want to have, but I feel it is something we NEED to have.

I disagree with you maddog. While I appreciate your point about the game being more scrutinised, I belive the standard has fallen away. Ian Chappell believes (and I agree with him) that a lack of a local official has contributed to the declining standards. Umpries are disinclined to be on the panel because they are continually on the road and that the umpires who stay on the panel get longer tenure than they perhaps should have and that overseas umpiries aren't quite attuned to local conditions.

An example of 'outstaying one's welcome' can be applied to Steve Bucknor. During the nineties Steve Bucknor was a fine umpire and one I always rated. However he remained on the panel far too long and his umpiring dropped away alarmingly. I believe that Rudi Koertzen is in the same boat. While I've never rated Koertzen up there with Bucknor at his best he is also slipping away. What do you expect? They are always on the road.

Asad Rauf is a real worry. This guy clearly guesses. He shouldn't be on the panel in the first place. But he can get on the panel because he is prepared to travel wheras former English test player Peter Willey, a superior umpire was not so he doesn't umpire anymore.

I find it very hard to believe that any of the current panel are as good as Tony Crafter ever was or Dickie Bird. These guys weren't infallible but generally they were invisible and not a talking point at the end of the game. They had slow motion replays back then as well..do we really need Hawkeye to tell us it was going on to hit the stumps?

By selecting overeseas umpires at the expense of local umpries you lose local knowledge and are limited to selecting umpires who are prepared to travel sometimes up to nine months of the year which leads to fatigue and increases the difficulty in attracting quality recruits. I also believe it leads to a decrease in the quality of long term members of the panel.

No test team has to play away everytime and neither should the umpires. Scrap the current system of 'away' umpires only and I believe standards will improve. After all, umpires are meant to be impartial so the country of origin is irrelevant come decision time.

regards,

REB

REB, I agree with your point about neutral umpires. I think the cricketing world needs to move on from the idea of 'home umpire = bias'. I can't remember ODIs being too controversial and they have one home umpire (although the massive amount of ODIs played now would dilute this).

But I still disagree with a decline in umpiring standards. Yes, slow-motion replays have been around a while, but you now have zooms on those replays, snickometers... not to mention endless media scrutiny. I think it is the latter that gives the impression of poorer umpire performance - if just one poor decision is made in a day out of, say ten dismissals, then that decision will attract much attention from the media.

Perhaps the press, like the players and umpires, are victims of the professional era where everything must have a deep meaning and therefore create a headline. The Ponting/Lee 'argument' would be a good example of this.

End rant!

The travel and pressure (how much money do you think it's worth to be Darrell Hair who was one of a select few to umpire the rules as they are based on his opinion, as he is mandated!) mean fewer and fewer umpires are willing to be part of the elite panel. And it seems it's harder and harder for a your kid to take up umpiring as a serious hobby and come through the ranks. How about the ICC work with the local cricket authorities in the full member countries and try to attract kids at a local level and offer a way to help and progress quicker when deserved. And the elite panel shouldn't be set in stone when a bloke isn't up to it. Bucknor has been bad for years, Bowden is too busy being a rock star these days and the best umpire in the world never umpires the best team in the world!

I like the idea of a referral system though. Let's get the really bad ones sorted out by giving the teams a chance to refer them. If teams get 2 wrong referrals a game then the match will only be slowed by 5 minutes max on unnecessary referrals. Any more would have to be rightly appealed and a good 2 minutes spent getting that right.

I think a big part of the problem is the front foot no-ball. Too often we see wickets to balls that shold have been no-balled. To me overstepping is a form of cheating. There should be no excuse for it and the rule is clear. Let's implement a technology that gets those calls made automatically similar to the old TEL system the hopman cup used for years. Have a short sharp beep in the umpire's earpiece to signify a no ball and he will be able to make the call immediately. The benefit is then that he will never have to look down at a bowlers foot again before re-adjusting his eyes further up the pitch. The MUST make it harder to get LBW decisions correct and I'm sure we have the ability to do so. Just like the runs outs and stumpings the rule is clear and there is no interpretation required (as in the LBW decisions).

And I know you want more
1970 AU V EG 1ST TEST

AU 433
EG 464
AU 214
EG 1/39
DRAW

AU first innings
STACKPOLE 207
I remember this game vividly watching the cricket on ABC TV
Stacky was given not out on about 5 on a run out
The paper the next day had a front page photo of Stacky several inches short of his crease
That decision cost EG about 200 runs
I wonder if EG would have won ....?

It's a joke when the umpire consistently voted the best in the world (Simon Taufel) is not allowed to umpire in the big matches like Aus vs Ind and Aus vs Eng.

mal wrote:And I know you want more
1970 AU V EG 1ST TEST

AU 433
EG 464
AU 214
EG 1/39
DRAW

AU first innings
STACKPOLE 207
I remember this game vividly watching the cricket on ABC TV
Stacky was given not out on about 5 on a run out
The paper the next day had a front page photo of Stacky several inches short of his crease
That decision cost EG about 200 runs
I wonder if EG would have won ....?

did you lose money on this match mal ?

the umpire concerned in that runout was tom brooks or lou rowan,anyway whoever it was they were a copper and the heading was something like aussies saved by police evidence or something like that, quite clever it was, i was only a young'un at the time but i remember it

The thing that amazes me with cricket umpires is I know 2 International umpires, and several other 1st class umpires, and not one of them have been asked to get their eyes tested. I would have thought regular eye testing was mandatory at that level.

AS far as I know, AFL umpires don't have their eyesight tested either.

stampy wrote:the umpire concerned in that runout was tom brooks or lou rowan,anyway whoever it was they were a copper and the heading was something like aussies saved by police evidence or something like that, quite clever it was, i was only a young'un at the time but i remember it

I think Lou Rowan was a cop.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:The thing that amazes me with cricket umpires is I know 2 International umpires, and several other 1st class umpires, and not one of them have been asked to get their eyes tested. I would have thought regular eye testing was mandatory at that level.

Their hearing should be assessed as well.

Apparently with the half-volley "catch" that Dhoni appealed for in the 2nd Test, Koertzen gave it not out because he didn't think the batsman had hit it
There can be plenty of background noise causing hearing difficulties, but still...

P. Reiffel and P. Wilson umpire a FRC game in Perth.

Hell, how many games of cricket were there before all this technology came in, thanks Mr Packer, may as well bring it in to save all the crap that goes on, oh and whilst at it bring it in for the AFL as well for a review of decisions, it will come eventually

And I know you want more
Chris ROGERS on debut v India test Perth
Gets a stinker decision that was clearly not out and failed to get double figures
That was his only test
Imagine if he was not given out and made a big score
Another career ruined after 1 match ?

RoosterMarty wrote:It's a joke when the umpire consistently voted the best in the world (Simon Taufel) is not allowed to umpire in the big matches like Aus vs Ind and Aus vs Eng.

I recall Taufel making a sh1tload of errors last time he umpired an Australian series, for memory, we were playing West Indies, we were flogging them already and Taufel was ripping them off. I didn't see him for a while after that, the next thing I heard he was the number 1 umpire, less pressure I guess being neutral.

Always an interesting argument.

Why not have home country umpires but appointed by an ICC committee rather than national cricket boards?

Or alternatively rather than flying umpires from one country to another for a couple of tests and then on to somewhere else for some one-dayers, why not let them be in a country for two months? Let them umpire some Sheffield Shield games to get used to the conditions, with an added benefit of knowledge being passed on to local aspiring/inexperienced umpires.