Australia Cheating?????

[SJS]

Did someone enlighten on why the umpires favour Aussies ??

Scared of them, are they ?
Getting money for it, are they ?
Aussies decide which umpire gets more games, do they ?
All umpires are actually Aussies in disguise, are they ?
In with the bookies, are they ?

 

[C_C]

Did someone enlighten on why the umpires favour Aussies ??

Scared of them, are they ?
Getting money for it, are they ?
Aussies decide which umpire gets more games, do they ?
All umpires are actually Aussies in disguise, are they ?
In with the bookies, are they ?

You would want to read my first post on this thread.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Did someone enlighten on why the umpires favour Aussies ??

Scared of them, are they ?
Getting money for it, are they ?
Aussies decide which umpire gets more games, do they ?
All umpires are actually Aussies in disguise, are they ?
In with the bookies, are they ?

No, it's all sub-concious, dontcha know? Just as Dr. Sigmund C_C over there.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

You can't blame the Aussies for that threatening aura. It wins them matches. And I don't mean by influencing umpires.

 

[Sehwag309]

Absolutely ridiculous thread/poll... I would like to know the people who answered Yes... I dont think they'll tell us mainly because of fear of being proven wrong, or they just have a disliking for Australia and wish to rename faceless... hmmmm

Here, I voted YES...I dont FEAR anyone (especially here)

BUT, it was for Umpires favouring Australia - OR Getting away quite a few times (nothing to do with Australia Cheating)..it is understood that the title is wrong and the original poster has made a mistake due to the grief of not getting decisions in Pakistans favour

 

[C_C]

No, it's all sub-concious, dontcha know? Just as Dr. Sigmund C_C over there.

If you know diddly squat about psychology, i suggest, politely might i add, that you keep shut and educate yourself.

 

[benchmark00]

Here, I voted YES...I dont FEAR anyone (especially here)

BUT, it was for Umpires favouring Australia - OR Getting away quite a few times (nothing to do with Australia Cheating)..it is understood that the title is wrong and the original poster has made a mistake due to the grief of not getting decisions in Pakistans favour

To be fair, i didnt accuse anyone of being afraid of anyone else... physically or otherwise... I appreciate that you have come out and said what you have voted, you and C_C for that matter, shows some gumption (love that word )... more than i can say for some members who remain faceless for a variety of reasons...

 

[Sehwag309]

Well, there are 9..me, CC and the original poster leaves 6 others

Do they have a Bounty hunter around

 

[Sehwag309]

SJS- apart from snide remarks, stating the obvious and some witty remarks, do you ACTUALLY contribute towards any discussion ?
I have been told that you are one of the older boys here.

Like to see SJS and KDG (Gaurang) have a go at each other

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If you know diddly squat about psychology, i suggest, politely might i add, that you keep shut and educate yourself.

Sorry, but deciding arbitrarily that the umpires sub-conciously favour one team over another with absolutely no logical reasoning or evidence whatsoever does not deserve a serious, thought out response. Your claim is absolutely ludicrous.

Firstly, I do not believe in the slightest that Australia recieve the balance of borderline umpiring decisions. There were a few in the VB series no doubt, but equally there have been poor decisions which have gone against Australia against New Zealand and during the Indian tour and so on. The difference is that those on the losing side of things (universally not Australians at the moment) tend to go on about it a great deal more than those who do not actually suffer to any significant degree because of umpiring errors. Personally I never harp on about any umpiring decision and am perfectly happy to accept umpiring errors as genuine mistakes unless I have a real reason (other than just because I think it, in other words) to believe that there is bias involved. Those who do worry about such things however tend not to bring them up unless a) their team is losing or b) they wish to make a counter-point to people complaining about OTHER umpiring decisions.

Secondly, even if Australia do get the balance of borderline umpiring decisions or benefit more in general from umpiring mistakes, that in and of itself in no way indicates it is anything other than luck. Such a trend would have to be significantly more clear-cut than it is or continue for a significant period of time before any sort of claim about sub-concious bias, umpire pressuring, over-appealing or whatever else could have any validity.

Assuming for a moment that Australia have got more of these borderline decisions than their opposition in recent times, there are plenty of explainations for this that I could offer (and some of these are true to some degree). Firstly, Australia tend to appeal only when they actually believe it is out. Statistics about appealing clearly back this up, and John Buchanan and others have discussed this as a genuine planned tactic, and over time it leads to umpires taking a longer look at your appeals. This is not bias, intentional or sub-concious, it is simply sensible umpiring that can be encouraged by strategic control of over-appealing. The Boy Who Cried Wolf did not get taken seriously for a reason, after all. Secondly, confidence, success and body language have an impact on the general way a match is viewed by anybody watching it. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with bias towards Australia, but to offer a simple example which should be clear to anyone who has played cricket themselves (or umpired), a batsman always "looks out" to a greater degree in an lbw appeal if they fall across their stumps. It's simply the appearance of having being beaten by the bowler, and it might have an effect on an umpires judgement (although, I think international umpires would be well beyond this). There are other elements of body language and so on that come into it, that's just an example.

Put simply, your armchair psychology has no basis whatsoever in reality. And however many times you claim it, I have not seen one valid piece of evidence to suggest that Australia gets the benefit of any kind of umpiring bias, indeed the only suggestions of this that I have heard are from fans and coaches of teams that have been comprehensively beaten by them. It is, quite simply, a defensive reaction based in personal predjudices.

 

[vic_orthdox]

i voted yes....coz i didn't have to move my mouse down as far to "yes" as i did have to for the others, and i didnt think that this thread was worth the extra effort

 

[C_C]

Sorry, but deciding arbitrarily that the umpires sub-conciously favour one team over another with absolutely no logical reasoning or evidence whatsoever does not deserve a serious, thought out response. Your claim is absolutely ludicrous.

Like i said, this time not so politely- if you know diddly squat about psychology, i suggest you go educate yourself . Psychology is based on logical reasoning and behaviourial patterns of human beings. As such, i challenge you to take what i said to a few professional psychologists and have every single one of them say it is a false premise.

Firstly, I do not believe in the slightest that Australia recieve the balance of borderline umpiring decisions.

ofcourse you dont.
These days its harder to find an Aussie who thinks Australia receives the balance of boderline umpiring decisions than to find a profound bit of wisdom from Howard.
But then again, i wonder why it wasnt so hard to find aussies who cried wolf in the 80s...

Besides, i can categorically point you to atleast a DOZEN lbw shots that were 'not out' whe the aussies were batting but a near identical delivery bowled by an aussie is 'out'.

The difference is that those on the losing side of things (universally not Australians at the moment) tend to go on about it a great deal more than those who do not actually suffer to any significant degree because of umpiring errors.

indeed.
But that is totally unrelated to what may be the quantum truth- ARE the aussies benifitting from umpiring favours or not.
You will find that when color,creed or sectarianism isnt a barrier, the stronger teams tend to get the marginal decisions in their favour- in almost EVERY sport.

Personally I never harp on about any umpiring decision and am perfectly happy to accept umpiring errors as genuine mistakes unless I have a real reason (other than just because I think it, in other words) to believe that there is bias involved.

Perhaps unlike you, when others 'just happen to think', it involves some modicum of thoughtprocess ?
And when was the last time you found an Aussie harping on umpiring decisions ? Answer: in the 80s
When was the last time you found a Brazilian harping on the refferee's decisions ? Answer: in the 80s
When was the last time you found the Detroit Red Wings harp on the refferee's decisions ?
Answer: in the late 90s

When was the last time you found the west indians harping about the umpire's decisions ?
Answer:for the past 5-10 years.

Can you pinpoint the commonality of all these fans ?

Secondly, even if Australia do get the balance of borderline umpiring decisions or benefit more in general from umpiring mistakes, that in and of itself in no way indicates it is anything other than luck.

Luck in essence is random.
if any modicum of consistncy is shown, it is NOT luck anymore.

Such a trend would have to be significantly more clear-cut than it is or continue for a significant period of time before any sort of claim about sub-concious bias, umpire pressuring, over-appealing or whatever else could have any validity.

I have seen what i believe to be conistent favouring of the aussies in umpiring decisions since 2000 or so...
long enough timeframe if you ask me.

Firstly, Australia tend to appeal only when they actually believe it is out.

Hardy har har.
Like Gilly appealing against the kiwi batsman when the ball missed by a good half feet (2nd ODI..macca i think...not sure) ?

Tendulkar's 'body before wicket' was 'we believe to be out' too ?

Statistics about appealing clearly back this up, and John Buchanan and others have discussed this as a genuine planned tactic, and over time it leads to umpires taking a longer look at your appeals. This is not bias, intentional or sub-concious, it is simply sensible umpiring that can be encouraged by strategic control of over-appealing.

which is why Aussies are amongst the top 3 teams in terms of appeals, eh ?

Secondly, confidence, success and body language have an impact on the general way a match is viewed by anybody watching it. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with bias towards Australia, but to offer a simple example which should be clear to anyone who has played cricket themselves (or umpired), a batsman always "looks out" to a greater degree in an lbw appeal if they fall across their stumps

there were never a more confident..almost overconfident/boistrous bunch as the west indian team in their glory days.Didnt stop the kiwi/aussie umpires from blindly robbing them.

Put simply, your armchair psychology has no basis whatsoever in reality.

I am two courses away from holding a minors bachelor in psychology, thank you very much.
Now, for the umpteenth time, go educate yourself

have not seen one valid piece of evidence to suggest that Australia gets the benefit of any kind of umpiring bias, indeed the only suggestions of this that I have heard are from fans and coaches of teams that have been comprehensively beaten by them. It is, quite simply, a defensive reaction based in personal predjudices.

Riiiiiiight

Which is why very few raised this issue with the west indies team of the past...or bradman's invincibles....etc. etc.
I can give you categoric examples of pro-aussie umpiring over the last half a dozen years or so should you want it.
Even when Michael holding and Malcolm Marshall were trouncing the aussies day and night, they talked about the intense pro-aussie bias they faced from the umpires.
Sour grapes and defensive reactions too, eh ?

 

[benchmark00]

Why does Howard have to be brought into everything when it comes to you C_C?... its either that or Aboriginals... lets not turn this into anything other than what the topic is (a stupid one at that).... not who knows the more about psychology...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

ofcourse you dont.
These days its harder to find an Aussie who thinks Australia receives the balance of boderline umpiring decisions than to find a profound bit of wisdom from Howard.
But then again, i wonder why it wasnt so hard to find aussies who cried wolf in the 80s..

Err, yes, because Australia were losing. This is exactly my point, as you would have realised if you paid any attention to what I wrote. Australians complained about umpiring in the 80s, because Australia lost regularly and Australians fans are no better than the fans of any other country. Mind you, there are some actual differences in terms of professionalism of umpires and monitoring of their performance between now and the past, and of course the neutral umpires rule makes a difference, but that doesn't alter the fact that parochial fans will cling to umpiring decisions and other forms of "unfairness" in an attempt to justify their team being comfortably outplayed. Australians did it in the 80s, and now others do it to Australia.

indeed.
But that is totally unrelated to what may be the quantum truth- ARE the aussies benifitting from umpiring favours or not.

It is not unrelated to it in the slightest. I could claim that Australia were robbed of a potential (or even likely) victory in the fourth test against India by a poor umpiring decision if I wanted to, and had it been the series decider I have no doubt that many Australian fans would have. It was never raised because those who might have raised it (parochial Australian fans) had no real reason to.

You will find that when color,creed or sectarianism isnt a barrier, the stronger teams tend to get the marginal decisions in their favour- in almost EVERY sport.

The question is more whether or not this is related to bias (as you claim). The examples I gave of reasons why Australia may get borderline decisions in their favour have nothing to do with bias, but are to do with the simple fact that Australia are a good, disciplined team.

Perhaps unlike you, when others 'just happen to think', it involves some modicum of thoughtprocess ?.

Not really. Whinging about umpiring decisions is a time honoured trait of the desperate losing fan in every sport in the world and always has been. There's not much thought involved beyond "I thought that wasn't out, the umpires are helping them!".

And when was the last time you found an Aussie harping on umpiring decisions ? Answer: in the 80s
When was the last time you found a Brazilian harping on the refferee's decisions ? Answer: in the 80s
When was the last time you found the Detroit Red Wings harp on the refferee's decisions ?
Answer: in the late 90s
When was the last time you found the west indians harping about the umpire's decisions ?
Answer:for the past 5-10 years.

Yes, this is my point.

Luck in essence is random.
if any modicum of consistncy is shown, it is NOT luck anymore.

Luck can trend in one direction or another over a short time, it just obviously will even out in the long run, as umpiring mistakes usually do.

I have seen what i believe to be conistent favouring of the aussies in umpiring decisions since 2000 or so...
long enough timeframe if you ask me.

Oh, really? Care to explain to me, for example, how Australians recieved the majority of borderline/poor umpiring decisions in the 2001 series against India then? Just for an example during the time period you named. Hint: they didn't.

Hardy har har.
Like Gilly appealing against the kiwi batsman when the ball missed by a good half feet (2nd ODI..macca i think...not sure) ?

I said they believed them to be out, not that a dozen instant replays after the fact showed them conclusively to be out.

which is why Aussies are amongst the top 3 teams in terms of appeals, eh ?

This would of course have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Australia are a better team and create far more legitimate chances, would it?

there were never a more confident..almost overconfident/boistrous bunch as the west indian team in their glory days.Didnt stop the kiwi/aussie umpires from blindly robbing them.

The Australian umpiring in those days was generally less biased than most other nations (compared to New Zealand the sub-continental nations, for example). However, as I said, there are major differences now in terms of the way umpires behave and how much they are monitored.

 

[vic_orthdox]

the other thing that highlights decisions that go australia's way is that they are so adept at taking quick wickets, and causing a collapse, that the one bad decision can often be a game turner.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

the other thing that highlights decisions that go australia's way is that they are so adept at taking quick wickets, and causing a collapse, that the one bad decision can often be a game turner.

Yep, and if an Australian batsman gets a let-off they are more likely to go on with it and make a good score. This is another thing that contributes to supporters of losing sides complaining more about the umpiring, and good sides attracting more claims of bias.

 

[shankar]

The problem I find with hawkeye is that it's not 100% accurate, it's just an estimate of where the ball may have gone and what it may have done.

Which is exactly what is needed. It is impossible to predict exactly what the ball would have done and the laws don't require it. The lbw law only specifies that the umpire must decide if the ball would have hit the stumps IF it had followed the path it travelled prior to hitting the pad. So an estimate of what the ball would have done is what is required.

 

[dinu23]

u can't blame the aussies if the umpires are biased towards them. u have do something about the umpires. In my opinion most match officials favour australia and england.

 

[Neil Pickup]

No-one's cheating and no-one's favoured.

Flamebait extinguished.