• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How umpires are assessed

Scallywag

Banned
In keeping with its objective to ensure umpiring standards are upheld, the ICC has in place a sophisticated system of umpire assessment to aid officials in their performance and development.

At the conclusion of each Test match, and after the completion of each ODI series, all umpires - including Emirates Elite and International Panel umpires - receive a detailed report on their performance.

The umpires also receive DVDs containing video footage and replays of each decision made, which can be viewed frame-by-frame for in-depth analysis.

The most accurate measure of the standard of umpiring is the percentage number of correct decisions made by the Emirates Elite and International Panel of ICC Umpires.

In the period April 2003 to March 2004, more than 3500 decisions were made in Test and ODI matches.

The results showed that umpires had a correct decision rate of 91.4% in Test matches, and 90.3% in ODI cricket.

Of course umpires are not infallible and, as with players, where mistakes are made they are identified through assessment and worked on through performance feedback.

The ICC has a performance management system for umpires with three key elements:

* Match reports from captains and referees;
* Video analysis by an independent assessor; and
* Feedback from the ICC Umpires and Referees Manager.

These assessments then provide the basis on which the ICC's Umpires and Referees Manager is able to discuss directly with each umpire any areas of concern and provide feedback (including DVD footage) on the umpire's performance and areas where improvement could be sought.

This system provides an effective means of identifying any weaknesses in an umpire's performance and enables the ICC to work with the umpire to provide feedback on his performance and identify ways of addressing any areas of concern.

The ICC's seven-step umpire performance management process is:


Step Element
1 Three feedback reports completed by the match referee and the two captains
2 Reports delivered to the ICCs Umpires and Referees Manager
3 Information and feedback logged and a DVD generated of all decisions
4 All decisions assessed by the ICCs independent assessor
5 Detailed feedback report prepared for each umpire by the ICCs Umpires and Referees Manager
6 DVD featuring all decisions sent to each umpire
7 Discussion of report between umpire and ICC Umpires and Referees Manager
 

C_C

International Captain
The results showed that umpires had a correct decision rate of 91.4% in Test matches, and 90.3% in ODI cricket.
in international sport, that is NOT good enough.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I am not one to openly criticise the umpires whenever my team loses and blame them for the loss, but 90-92% is quite low. It seems high, and may decept a few people but when you think that these people are paid for this job, and it is their specialisation in life, that's not exactly an excellent percentage.

Think about those figures used in any other aspect for one's personal career. Is that acceptable? Considering these umpires are seen as the elite in their jobs it doesn't look excellent. I wouldn't think that the best barrister at a prestigious legal firm would have a 90-92% win-rate. Neither would a top architect when it comes to satisfaction for their clients.
 

telsor

U19 12th Man
Jono said:
I am not one to openly criticise the umpires whenever my team loses and blame them for the loss, but 90-92% is quite low. It seems high, and may decept a few people but when you think that these people are paid for this job, and it is their specialisation in life, that's not exactly an excellent percentage.

Think about those figures used in any other aspect for one's personal career. Is that acceptable? Considering these umpires are seen as the elite in their jobs it doesn't look excellent. I wouldn't think that the best barrister at a prestigious legal firm would have a 90-92% win-rate. Neither would a top architect when it comes to satisfaction for their clients.
It's easy to criticise, but unless you have a practical solution whats the point?

as for the Lawyer/Architect, how long do they have to make their decisions and examine every facet of them?
 

C_C

International Captain
telsor said:
It's easy to criticise, but unless you have a practical solution whats the point?

as for the Lawyer/Architect, how long do they have to make their decisions and examine every facet of them?
Solution is technology.
Snickometer is almost always right (far higher % than umpires), cyclops is almost infallible as well and i am sold on the hawkeye.....its the least accurate of these three but more accurate than the umps.
 

Scallywag

Banned
telsor said:
It's easy to criticise, but unless you have a practical solution whats the point?

as for the Lawyer/Architect, how long do they have to make their decisions and examine every facet of them?
Lawyers are among the least trusted professionals in society and it was an archetictial mistake in the building of the twin towers that caused so many deaths. They only bolted the floor joists onto the walls instead of incorporating them in them into the walls thus allowing them to have a consatina effect.
 

C_C

International Captain
Scallywag said:
Lawyers are among the least trusted professionals in society and it was an archetictial mistake in the building of the twin towers that caused so many deaths. They only bolted the floor joists onto the walls instead of incorporating them in them into the walls thus allowing them to have a consatina effect.

incorrect.
It was NOT an archetectural mistake. The collapse was due to the central steel gridwork melting.Since any electrical fire or conventional fire cannot even begin to approach the temperatures of a closed environment kerosine fire, the steel melted.
You design something with safety regulations in mind for the job it has to do.
You design a car to survive a bumper to bumper collision or collision with a deer.
you dont design it to remain intact if a tank goes over it.
You dont design a bridge to hold up the weight of the NASA shuttle launcher.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I agree with what most of the posters here have said about the umpires and how 90% is not good enough at the international level. But I have always wondered one thing: Why the hell is it that the umpires should not be criticized in public? Perhaps the players cannot do that, but I think some of the media guys (who give such a hard time to so many players) should try it with the umpires as well. After all, they are professionals, they are paid to do a job and if they cannot do it well enough, why should they be above criticism?
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing the percentages of correct decisions for domestic umpires. Granted a study is unlikely to occur, but with less pressure from large crowds supporting one team (which is a fact that has been brought up in recent discussions), it'd be interesting to see whether the percentage is similar, less or maybe even more?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
On another note, I have to add that with the current Aussie side dominating the rest as it is doing, the umpiring errors which reward them will always be more visible than the ones that penalize them. That is just the way it works, the people will always notice the black dot, not the white sheet.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Jono said:
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing the percentages of correct decisions for domestic umpires. Granted a study is unlikely to occur, but with less pressure from large crowds supporting one team (which is a fact that has been brought up in recent discussions), it'd be interesting to see whether the percentage is similar, less or maybe even more?
I'd say there would probably be more dodgy decisions in domestic cricket. There are a lot of mediocre umpires doing the rounds in domestic cricket everywhere...
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Scallywag said:
Lawyers are among the least trusted professionals in society and it was an archetictial mistake in the building of the twin towers that caused so many deaths. They only bolted the floor joists onto the walls instead of incorporating them in them into the walls thus allowing them to have a consatina effect.
I always thought that it had a lot to do with the fact that the framework was steel instead of concrete, because the Mafia runs the concrete in New York.. but that's a story for another thread. :D
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
C_C said:
incorrect.
It was NOT an archetectural mistake. The collapse was due to the central steel gridwork melting.Since any electrical fire or conventional fire cannot even begin to approach the temperatures of a closed environment kerosine fire, the steel melted.
You design something with safety regulations in mind for the job it has to do.
You design a car to survive a bumper to bumper collision or collision with a deer.
you dont design it to remain intact if a tank goes over it.
You dont design a bridge to hold up the weight of the NASA shuttle launcher.
No, the collapse was brought about by a couple of planes crashing through.

On topic, I am hardly sold on hawkeye to bring it into the game. Keep the game how it is, if needed bring in earphone for the umpires to pick up snicks, but hawkeye and such are only going to extend everything and bore the casual fan.

Most people think cricket is long enough as is, no big technology is needed for a game that has been going for centuries.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
honestbharani said:
I agree with what most of the posters here have said about the umpires and how 90% is not good enough at the international level. But I have always wondered one thing: Why the hell is it that the umpires should not be criticized in public? Perhaps the players cannot do that, but I think some of the media guys (who give such a hard time to so many players) should try it with the umpires as well. After all, they are professionals, they are paid to do a job and if they cannot do it well enough, why should they be above criticism?
What annoys me is that players cop a lot of criticism because as 'paid professionals' they are expected to do a job. Fair enough. They're expected to perform and thus should. But what I don't like is the hypocrisy of those using that argument against players, yet when it comes to umpires they say "oh the umpires are just trying to do their job, and its tough so give them a break". No one is denying its tough. But so is opening the batting for your country facing Shoaib Akhtar's 150km+ balls, or trying to work out Warne or McGrath's bowling to score runs etc. So why should umpires get let off the hook? They get paid just like players, and should be expected to perform.

Funny how coaches and players can criticise other players (eg. Ponting to Akhtar, Woolmer to Akhtar etc.) yet the umpires are taboo.
 

C_C

International Captain
SirBloody Idiot said:
No, the collapse was brought about by a couple of planes crashing through.

On topic, I am hardly sold on hawkeye to bring it into the game. Keep the game how it is, if needed bring in earphone for the umpires to pick up snicks, but hawkeye and such are only going to extend everything and bore the casual fan.

Most people think cricket is long enough as is, no big technology is needed for a game that has been going for centuries.

No it did not.
The PEng society of NYC concluded that it was due to the steel melting due to the closed confined fires of the spilled kerosine from the jetliners.
It wasnt an impact-related collapse per se, because the building didnt disintegrate right after impact but after the fire got hot enough to melt the steel frameworks for the immediate few storeys. After that, it was one storey collapsing on top of another and collapsing them by sheer momentum(downward spiral as each extra storey is adding more and more momentum thus after the collapse of the first 3-4 levels, the cycle is almost irreverseable).

On topic, I am hardly sold on hawkeye to bring it into the game. Keep the game how it is, if needed bring in earphone for the umpires to pick up snicks, but hawkeye and such are only going to extend everything and bore the casual fan.
If introduction of technology means an extra 5-10 minute per ODI innings, i have NO PROBLEMS with it. And i dont see the need to keep the game as it is especially since the umpires have a rather poor % of success and the price we pay for the integrity of the game is minimal- 5/10 minutes.
Granted, cricket has its problems with the length of each game but a 5-10 minute difference in time is of little or no impact, given that most ODIs cross the 5 hour mark. That is approx 1-2% extra timeframe and it wouldnt make a blip of a difference.
You cannot market cricket in america with a 5-10 min reduction in playing time and neither are you gonna reduce the popularity of cricket in established nations with 5-10 min added time.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was NOT an archetectural mistake. The collapse was due to the central steel gridwork melting.Since any electrical fire or conventional fire cannot even begin to approach the temperatures of a closed environment kerosine fire, the steel melted.
You design something with safety regulations in mind for the job it has to do.
You design a car to survive a bumper to bumper collision or collision with a deer.
you dont design it to remain intact if a tank goes over it.
You dont design a bridge to hold up the weight of the NASA shuttle launcher.
As a side note, he impact of an aircraft was actually considered when the WTC buildings were built. I don't recall the exact deliberations but not using re-inforced concrete was a decison made due to it's high cost (the Mafia did and still does control pricing in NY and their prices were exhorbitantly high) so it was decided to go with the more novel structure which was eventually used (also because it gave a MUCH higher percentage of each floor available for office use due to lack of pylons, supporting structures, etc.). It was decided that the structure could 'probably' withstand an aircraft impact and this proved to be the case. What they didn't (probably couldn't) see happening was the burning jet fuel which would burn hot enough to melt the steel, as you said).

Still, it was better than if those planes had hit a re-inforced concrete building; they probably would have just bounced off the side onto the throngs of people below.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Scallywag said:
After all the tooing and froing it still boils down to poor sporsmanship in being able to accept the umpires decision.
Umm... I think this has already been said elsewhere, but no one has actually not accepted an umpires decision.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
No, you don't get it. Scallywag has got 1100+ posts and therefore he is the umpire. And of course, if you are going to accept his decision, it means you accept that whatever Aus do is right and the rest of the world is stupid, arrogant, b**chy etc...
 

Top