Unaccountable umpires?

[telsor]

I just hope Bowden admitting he made a mistake publically doesn't get used against him in the future, or weigh on his mind in the future.

A valid point regarding the crowd...the noise would defiantely make it harder to officiate, but I think there would also be a psychological effect of either succumbing to the pressure to 'please' them, or being so determined no to succumb that you err the other way.

 

[Deja moo]

I think that it wouldn't have made a skerrick of difference who was umpiring that match; Bowden and Bucknor were victims of circumstance, and they did the best job they could, considering the factors that made their job so much harder.

.

Victims of circumstance ? Other umpires have stood in matches in India , and I cant recall one match as bad as this one from an umpiring point of view. Bowden might have had an off day , but for Bucknor this is just the latest installment in the continuatuion of a trend . His poor umpiring , his mis handling of players does nothing else but lose any respect he still might have left for him . India would still have lost the match, but it would not have been as crushing as this , and atleast would not hurt the morale of the Indian players as much.

 

[Mr Casson]

You're right, other umpires have stood in India before, but Billy Bowden hadn't. People talk about baptisms of fire, well Billy had one of his own.

I'm sure that lots of things just compounded to make things extremely difficult for him. There is absolutely no doubting that Billy Bowden is one of the best umpires in the world.

 

[SJS]

Victims of circumstance ? Other umpires have stood in matches in India , and I cant recall one match as bad as this one from an umpiring point of view. Bowden might have had an off day , but for Bucknor this is just the latest installment in the continuatuion of a trend . His poor umpiring , his mis handling of players does nothing else but lose any respect he still might have left for him . India would still have lost the match, but it would not have been as crushing as this , and atleast would not hurt the morale of the Indian players as much.

Maninder Singh had an interesting observation yesterday on TV. He said that everytime the Indians go up in a voceferous appeal at Bucknor, he seems to go into a 'particular mode' and his head instinctively starts shaking from side to side

 

[telsor]

I would also point out that for all the talk of Bucknor and his 'bias', most of the doubtful decisions were made by Bowden.

 

[FRAZ]

Hmmm
Bari's point of view was to keep a check on the hearing and sight of aging umpires ...
Sensitive issue it is ...
It is sensitive indeed .......

 

[Deja moo]

I would also point out that for all the talk of Bucknor and his 'bias', most of the doubtful decisions were made by Bowden.

If it isnt a bias , it sure is one hell of a strong string of coincidences.

 

[thirdumpire]

Sorry I dont buy into this "human error" factor at all. Seven incorrect calls against India in the last match? Lets keep the human error out of it please.

No judge will accept my "yes i killed him, cos i hated him. come on i am human after all" True acceptance of possible human error is when the ump admits "i did not see", "i did not hear", "i am not sure.." and ask for a replay and then give the batsmen out or not out. This is perfect acknowledgement of "I am a human " .

 

[Smudge]

Bowden apologises for horror decision

Wisden Cricinfo staff

October 11, 2004



Billy Bowden has apologised for his horrible lbw decision against Virender Sehwag, despite a clear inside edge, and blamed the noise from the Bangalore crowd for the error.

Bowden, officiating in his first Test in India, was surprised by the ear-splitting atmosphere, which made it almost impossible to hear the nicks, and appealed for understanding after he had been criticised in the local press. "Everybody makes a mistake," Bowden said. "There are ups and downs in everyone's career. You have to move on. This is the first time I'm umpiring under such circumstances and it's just too noisy."

After the match Bowden talked with Sehwag and said "sorry". Sehwag, who was fined 65% of his match fee for showing dissent after the second-innings decision, replied: "It's ok."

Bowden and Steve Bucknor made at least seven incorrect calls during the Test, most of them going against India, but the captain Sourav Ganguly refused to be critical. "You've all seen it on TV," he said. "We understand that, and move forward."

Good to see objective reporting is alive and well on Cricinfo - yeah, right.

 

[SJS]

Sorry I dont buy into this "human error" factor at all. Seven incorrect calls against India in the last match? Lets keep the human error out of it please.

No judge will accept my "yes i killed him, cos i hated him. come on i am human after all" True acceptance of possible human error is when the ump admits "i did not see", "i did not hear", "i am not sure.." and ask for a replay and then give the batsmen out or not out. This is perfect acknowledgement of "I am a human " .

It was a real bad one, I agree but it cant be anyone's case that it was anything but an error. Maybe he didnt think there was a doubt. It can happen. I think the more important thing in this test was whether the umpires are influenced by 'spontaneous' confident appeals and subconciously allow themselves to believe the fielders 'must' be right.

It CAN happen and this is what is worrying.

On the other hand, a team that is persistent in appealing even for obvious not outs can get it in reverse too and umpires may give again subconciously allow themselves to believe they are 'crying wolf'.

This seems to be happening and clearly is a chink in the umpires armour which must be set right. I think a limited use of technology (only to the extent of asking the third umpire to check and inform what he sees and NOT deliver a judgement) may help.

Of course, there will still be some decisions which are not 'crystal clear' but at least for those where a second, slower motion, close up look will help, the umpire will benefit. If he had askked for Imran and Sehwag, clearly he would have been able to give a decision aided by 'hindsight' (read technology).

I think this not allowing it on the grounds of taking away the human element is just being obstinate for a stupid principal when what is at stake is much larger.

 

[thirdumpire]

the irony : within seconds of an appeal, the replays are running not 200 yards away .

 

[Dasa]

Excellent post SJS.

This seems to be happening and clearly is a chink in the umpires armour which must be set right. I think a limited use of technology (only to the extent of asking the third umpire to check and inform what he sees and NOT deliver a judgement) may help.

Of course, there will still be some decisions which are not 'crystal clear' but at least for those where a second, slower motion, close up look will help, the umpire will benefit. If he had askked for Imran and Sehwag, clearly he would have been able to give a decision aided by 'hindsight' (read technology).

I think this not allowing it on the grounds of taking away the human element is just being obstinate for a stupid principal when what is at stake is much larger.

^That in particular is what I've been saying is needed... The tradition and 'charme of the game' have no relevance if incorrect decisions are consistently made.

 

[telsor]

So the idea is that every appeal, it gets referred to the 3rd umpire to check...

Well, runout decisions now take about a minute each, LBW or fine edges would be harder, so lets assume they take 90 seconds each..

2 hour session = 120 mins or 7200 second 7200/90 = 80

So..80 balls per session...not even 13 overs. what riviting cricket that will be. ( Sure, teams don't appeal every ball, but just think the last day of a test, with one side desperate to either bowl the other side out or save the game by delaying things...I seriously doubt there would be much more than 40-50 overs in the day.

 

[SJS]

So the idea is that every appeal, it gets referred to the 3rd umpire to check...

Well, runout decisions now take about a minute each, LBW or fine edges would be harder, so lets assume they take 90 seconds each..

2 hour session = 120 mins or 7200 second 7200/90 = 80

So..80 balls per session...not even 13 overs. what riviting cricket that will be. ( Sure, teams don't appeal every ball, but just think the last day of a test, with one side desperate to either bowl the other side out or save the game by delaying things...I seriously doubt there would be much more than 40-50 overs in the day.

strange calculations

Ask any cricketer if he would like to lose five overs in a day or add half an hour to the playing time but have better (more acceptable) umpiring and see what answer you get.

This is now not a question of 'if' but 'how soon'. Just watch. The problem is if a decision is going to be taken , they might as well decide on it now and start fine tuning how it is going to work rather than 'mulishly' oppose it and then introduce a sudden, half baked, doomed for criticism measure.

PS: I have not seen anyone here talking about EVERY APPEAL being referred to the third umpire. Has anyone else ??? Even today, how many catches (clearly taken or not) get refered ??

 

[telsor]

Strange maybe, but I notice you didn't dispute them.

When the computers can be instant and 100% accurate, then sure...Until then, I'm content with what is..

 

[SJS]

Strange maybe, but I notice you didn't dispute them.

.

Read carefully

 

[SJS]

When the computers can be instant and 100% accurate, then sure...Until then, I'm content with what is..

Who said anything about computers being accurate. Its a question of getting a second opinion. You dont have to agree with it. It may be inconclusive, whatever.

When an umpire asks the squareleg umpire whether a catch carried (and this has been the tradion for a long long time) , it is possible that the square leg umpire would say he doesnt know since , maybe, he was covered by a fieldr. Does this mean he should never again ask him in a similar situation ??

Strange logic

 

[telsor]

Read carefully

Adding a PS after I reply is not the same as me not reading correctly.

To reply to it however..how do you suggest the umpires decide which ones get referred? By the example of run outs, anything but the most blatant decisions will be referred.

As for 'risking' the inconclusive result..so you want to take all that delay so that another judgement call can be made? And what happens if that one errs too?

 

[SJS]

Adding a PS after I reply is not the same as me not reading correctly.

To reply to it however..how do you suggest the umpires decide which ones get referred? By the example of run outs, anything but the most blatant decisions will be referred.

As for 'risking' the inconclusive result..so you want to take all that delay so that another judgement call can be made? And what happens if that one errs too?

The umpire refers those where he wants assistance. Just as he does today. Whats so complicated about that ?

By the way, you might find that waiting for the third umpire/consultaion adds to thye excitement .
And....
the.....
decision...
is......

 

[Swervy]

strange calculations

Ask any cricketer if he would like to lose five overs in a day or add half an hour to the playing time but have better (more acceptable) umpiring and see what answer you get.
This is now not a question of 'if' but 'how soon'. Just watch. The problem is if a decision is going to be taken , they might as well decide on it now and start fine tuning how it is going to work rather than 'mulishly' oppose it and then introduce a sudden, half baked, doomed for criticism measure.

PS: I have not seen anyone here talking about EVERY APPEAL being referred to the third umpire. Has anyone else ??? Even today, how many catches (clearly taken or not) get refered ??

ask the spectators whether they want to see 5 overs less in the day because of replays