ICC are a bunch of bullies and make cricket boring.

[FaaipDeOiad]

but if a captain publicly criticises one of his players for playing a bad shot, bowling no balls or dropping catches, nothing happens to them.

That's because the captain has some measure of authority over his players, while the umpires are supposed to have authority over the players and command respect for them. A higher ranking umpire of ICC official is quite capable of criticising an umpire if it needs to be done, similar to a captain and his team members - the players should respect the umpire, whether or not they believe a mistake was made.

 

[andyc]

That's because the captain has some measure of authority over his players, while the umpires are supposed to have authority over the players and command respect for them. A higher ranking umpire of ICC official is quite capable of criticising an umpire if it needs to be done, similar to a captain and his team members - the players should respect the umpire, whether or not they believe a mistake was made.

but if a player criticises his captain, nothing happens. what im saying is that if players can critcise other players or their captains, why cant players criticise umpires. the icc should pull their heads out and admit, like other members have said here, that yes, the umpires made some mistakes, its not the end of the world, and lets move on, instead of slapping a fine on them.
basically i agree completely with what amokk1 is saying. players should be allowed to criticise umpires, as it makes the icc realise where the problems are. if players are constantly afraid to speak out because they think an umpire made a wrong decision, or is being unfair, itll mean that umpires will soon be able to make whatever the hell call they want and not come under question by players. if the icc has pushed for freedom for people of all races to play cricket, why do they constantly deny players freedom of speech?

 

[Scaly piscine]

but if a player criticises his captain, nothing happens.

Dubious, you'd also be lucky if as a player you criticised a manager/coach and nothing happened (unless you're a mollycoddled footballer).

 

[Slow Love™]

One thing I find particularly irksome is the ICC dragging its feet over changes that are obviously beneficial to the game.

The one that annoys me most is no-balls. Why can't they be called by the third ump? One less thing for the standing umps to be concerned with, so should have a knock-on effect of fewer duff decisions with LBWs & nicks behind.

I couldn't agree more. I wrote a long post on this subject the other day (among other methods of further implementation of technology in the game), but I ended up not posting it because the thread was mainly about race-baiting and it seemed like the best thing was for it to die a quick death.

One of the hardest issues to deal with in terms of accuracy are LBW calls, and for the moment, given Hawkeye's questionable accuracy, it seems unresolvable by further implementing technology (I have a different opinion of some other forms of dismissal). However, if you handed off the no-ball calls to the third umpire, you have the added bonus (as you said) of improving accuracy for other decisions the standing umps have to make, which should be a plus all-round. The only slight negative is that bats might miss a free slog they sometimes get if they hear the call fast enough ('cause obviously, the third umpire's call will most likely be relayed after the delivery), but this rarely occurs anyway, and I don't consider it a priority of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Some might argue that such a rule would be good as it would tilt some of the bias back towards bowlers then.

 

[Slow Love™]

And yes, you have have to admit that the umpring during the VB series was horrible. Why won't the ICC for once accept it that yes, the umpires need to lift their standards instead of just fining and critizing players who raise a concern about the them. The teams are lifting their standards, why doesnt the ICC do the same with their umpires ?

I'm not generally much of an advocate for the ICC, but where the umpiring in the VB series is concerned, they ARE evaluated using replays, slo-mo etc (which is quite funny when you consider there are people that debate the accuracy of these tools). I wouldn't be surprised if they get a poor report card for the series, even if I'm not sure it was AS bad as suggested by Woolmer.

Then again, as an organization, they could afford to be more transparent.

As to the militancy about public comments, I find it all a little surreal, really. Particularly when the ICC were so critical of Clive Lloyd's comments (incidentally, did anything happen to him in the end?) regarding Michael Vaughan's comments at his own hearing.

Although nothing can surpass the WA cricket board's fining of Murray Goodwin for comments regarding Zim's racist selection policy that seemed borne out as nothing but the truth down the track.

 

[Slow Love™]

Some might argue that such a rule would be good as it would tilt some of the bias back towards bowlers then.

You mean not giving the batsman a chance at a free hit, because the call comes later? Maybe, although in truth I still don't think it happens that often. Either way, as a (very) mild side-effect, yeah, it wouldn't hurt.

 

[Top_Cat]

You mean not giving the batsman a chance at a free hit, because the call comes later? Maybe, although in truth I still don't think it happens that often. Either way, as a (very) mild side-effect, yeah, it wouldn't hurt.

I've personally never seen a batsman smack a no-ball into the crowd because with the front-foot rule in effect, none of them have enough time. If they did smack a no-ball away, it was usually what they were planning to do anyway. This effect you and Marc are talking about seems to not exist anymore.

 

[Slow Love™]

I've personally never seen a batsman smack a no-ball into the crowd because with the front-foot rule in effect, none of them have enough time. If they did smack a no-ball away, it was usually what they were planning to do anyway. This effect you and Marc are talking about seems to not exist anymore.

Sure. At best, it hardly ever happens (which I mentioned previously). It's not the point of the idea though - I just mentioned it as a possible (needless) objection somebody might have to referring these decisions to the third umpire.

 

[Scallywag]

So if the players can critizise the umpires then it would make sense that the umpires can critizise the players in return causing the players to defend their critisism with more public slanging which in turn the umpire can hit back with more critisism of the player. Which of course the player can then critizise the umpire some more leaving he umpire open to critizise the player again. Gee have you really thought through what will happen if you allow players and umpires to critizise each other publicly.

And of course you will have lawyers picking through all this and taking legal action if someone gets upset not to mention these umpires and players will have to be on the field together again at some time. How would you feel if you have to make a borderline decision against a batsman that has just critisised you in the national papers.

Moving on to the coaches, what a great idea to let the coaches publicly critizise the umpires so he can try to put the umpire off making decisions against his team.

Plus I think all bowlers would love to point out the umpires dont give them enough LBW's hoping it may put some doubt into the umpires mind and get him a few more wickets.

Of course then the batsmen would in turn critizise the umpires for giving to many LBW's hoping to get a few more let offs.

Then the ICC would need to employ some lawyers themselves to wade through all the critisism and work out who's critizising the umpires unfairly or is it just open season on umpires regardless of whether the critisism is warranted or not.

Sounds like the stupidest thing the ICC could do is to allow everybody to go around critizising whoever they liked.

 

[marc71178]

You mean not giving the batsman a chance at a free hit, because the call comes later? Maybe, although in truth I still don't think it happens that often. Either way, as a (very) mild side-effect, yeah, it wouldn't hurt.

That was one, and also giving the umpire's longer to view each decision because they're not looking down then up again in the space of a second.

 

[Slow Love™]

That was one, and also giving the umpire's longer to view each decision because they're not looking down then up again in the space of a second.

Well, the focus of it would be to facilitate better accuracy in umpiring decisions - I don't know that it would necessarily sway the game more towards the bowlers, because it might mean that some calls that would have gone in their favor in the past may not (same the other way, too) as a result of the umpires having those precious extra moments to adjudicate.

Anyway, it's all sounding good to me. We'll convert you to the "more use of technology is desirable" side yet, Marc.

 

[Richard]

One thing I find particularly irksome is the ICC dragging its feet over changes that are obviously beneficial to the game.

The one that annoys me most is no-balls. Why can't they be called by the third ump? One less thing for the standing umps to be concerned with, so should have a knock-on effect of fewer duff decisions with LBWs & nicks behind.

It's always annoyed me that anything wasn't considered secondary to that.
The minute third-umpires were introduced, no-balls should have been the 1st thing they dealt with.

 

[Richard]

I've personally never seen a batsman smack a no-ball into the crowd because with the front-foot rule in effect, none of them have enough time. If they did smack a no-ball away, it was usually what they were planning to do anyway. This effect you and Marc are talking about seems to not exist anymore.

I've never seen anyone smack one into the crowd but I have seen a few instances where batsmen have changed their stroke. Especially to spinners.

 

[marc71178]

Anyway, it's all sounding good to me. We'll convert you to the "more use of technology is desirable" side yet, Marc.

If the technology is for a clear either/or situation (such as no balls and run outs) then I have no problem - but when it's an interpretation then I disagree.