Do umpires favour the stronger sides?

[The Maestro]

While I think the latest NZ vs Australia series was reasonably even in terms of the 50/50 calls, Australia for me came out slightly on top

The previous two series ...............the 5-0 beating and the 1-1 deadlock? Grossly in favour of the Australians. Only a one eyed fool would deny that

Pakistan were utterly murdered on their last tour, which was pointed out by Pakistans Australian coach

And so Faiipewhatever and everyone else doesnt start having a cow about this thread being Aussie-bashing, I will also point out that my spies tell me that Zimbabwe got a pretty raw deal vs SA too with Nz's Billy Bowden having a mare

So whats going on?

Umpires being influenced by players with "stature?"

Thats not on. Underdogs are up against it as it is without the umps jumping in on the act

 

[Duncan]

I've only seen some of the highlights of the NZ vs Aus matches so I can't really say anything about that. But I did see the VB Series and I must say, it was the worst umpiring ever. The umpires were so blatantly for Australia it made you feel they were under ACB payroll. The worst was when one of the Aussie batsmen... I think it was Gilchrist... Gilchrist was PLUMP LBW. The easiest decision in the world and Bowden didn't raise his finger.

Hate to say it but when you are playing Australia, it's 11 vs 13.

 

[Zinzan]

While I think the latest NZ vs Australia series was reasonably even in terms of the 50/50 calls, Australia for me came out slightly on top

The previous two series ...............the 5-0 beating and the 1-1 deadlock? Grossly in favour of the Australians. Only a one eyed fool would deny that

Pakistan were utterly murdered on their last tour, which was pointed out by Pakistans Australian coach

And so Faiipewhatever and everyone else doesnt start having a cow about this thread being Aussie-bashing, I will also point out that my spies tell me that Zimbabwe got a pretty raw deal vs SA too with Nz's Billy Bowden having a mare

So whats going on?

Umpires being influenced by players with "stature?"

Thats not on. Underdogs are up against it as it is without the umps jumping in on the act

I agree to an extent. I'd never buy into any conspiracy theory that Ump's go out of their way to give Aussies the better decisions. And although both NZ and Pakistan came out worse in the decision ledger thoughout the summer, I don't for a moment think it had any affect on the results with Australia being far to good.

What I do buy into is that it is a subconcious thing for the umpires. When Warne is bowling for example, he screeches and moans and grunts almost ever ball, even if it hits the middle of the bat. I'm suprised that he still has a voice at the end of each day.

What this constant screeching does is puts incredible pressure on the umpire. Warne appeals so often when its clearly not out that finally when one does look remotely close the ump will give it out immediately. Also the fact Mcgrath and Warne are all time greats means ump's are more likely to put the finger up. This also applied to our own Richard Hadlee to an extent, great players put extra pressure on umpires. The same way the number 10 and 11 batsmen often get the worst batting decision. I felt for Mcgrath when given out the other day because it looked not out, but because it was only Mcgrath batting the ump put the finger up quickly.

This is why i'd much rather see technology take over as this takes away the subjectivity of who the player is. It means technology will see it the same whether its an LBW appeal against Mcgrath or Gilchrist which is obviously far more objective. Despite the fact even Haw-eye is not perfect, at least we would see consistency in the decisions.

Because lets face it....Mcgrath been given out a few times recently when he's not out and Gilchrist has not been given out when he has been.

The sooner technology is used the better.....

 

[The Maestro]

For sure and Im not trying to proliferate some ghey conspiracy bollix either, its just that something is clearly wrong and Id like to put my finger on why

The pressure/stature theory seems solid enough, but I thought umpires were supposed to be pros?

Sure..............they make mistakes they are only human just like players

But make mistakes in favour of one side or the other?

RANK!!!

 

[benchmark00]

Another 'Umpire favouring teams' thread... how original... i'll have to stick around for this.

 

[Zinzan]

Another 'Umpire favouring teams' thread... how original... i'll have to stick around for this.

did you actually read the content or just the title of the thread, because its not actually just having a go at Aussie

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't believe this supposed 'stature bias' even exists. Other than the raw numbers, there's nothing to support it. How can one say with any confidence whether increased favourable decisions for Australia are due to this bias or due to another factor (random chance, etc.)? It's almost unproveable either way.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't believe this supposed 'stature bias' even exists. Other than the raw numbers, there's nothing to support it. How can one say with any confidence whether increased favourable decisions for Australia are due to this bias or due to another factor (random chance, etc.)? It's almost unproveable either way.

Would you agree that No.10 and no. 11 batsmen often get bad calls though??

 

[honestbharani]

I think the problem is that this Australian side is so good that when a bad decision goes against them, they still have the players to get them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. But, for the other side, one decision often changes the game, esp. against Australia, as they have quality bowlers who run through sides at the slightest opportunity. That is why the errors made in favour of Australia are magnified more than the errors made against them.

 

[Zinzan]

I think the problem is that this Australian side is so good that when a bad decision goes against them, they still have the players to get them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. But, for the other side, one decision often changes the game, esp. against Australia, as they have quality bowlers who run through sides at the slightest opportunity. That is why the errors made in favour of Australia are magnified more than the errors made against them.

why not just use technology then, where at least you could get some consistency and reduce the objections....

 

[The Maestro]

I don't believe this supposed 'stature bias' even exists. Other than the raw numbers, there's nothing to support it. How can one say with any confidence whether increased favourable decisions for Australia are due to this bias or due to another factor (random chance, etc.)? It's almost unproveable either way.

huh?

If we cant use "raw numbers" as a measuring tool.....what can we use?

Written signed admissions from the umpires?

Random chance starts to become a joke after 4 series in a row

 

[The Maestro]

I think the problem is that this Australian side is so good that when a bad decision goes against them, they still have the players to get them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. But, for the other side, one decision often changes the game, esp. against Australia, as they have quality bowlers who run through sides at the slightest opportunity. That is why the errors made in favour of Australia are magnified more than the errors made against them.

nice work...........but a more studious than emotive examination of the decisons overall still show more decisions in favour of Australia

whoops.....I mean "the more dominant team"

 

[honestbharani]

why not just use technology then, where at least you could get some consistency and reduce the objections....

IMHO, I think the 3rd ump. should be given the power to overrule a decision made by the onfield umpire. Even for LBWs, if it is obvious that the ball has pitched outside leg stump and the onfield ump. makes an error, the 3rd umpire should be able to over rule it. I also think that the suggestion of a captain being able to appeal against 3 decisions in an innings be implemented.

 

[Zinzan]

huh?

If we cant use "raw numbers" as a measuring tool.....what can we use?

Written signed admissions from the umpires?

Random chance starts to become a joke after 4 series in a row

Agreed.....No-one is suggested Aussie aren't by far the best side and wouldn't have comfortably crushed NZ and Pakistan anyway....but your right...whatever way you look at it they have had the better of decisions all summer.

Even a couple of past Aussie players namely Thompson and Healy have suggested they have had a pretty good run with umpires this summer. I wouldn't imagine those 2 would make such comments for the sake of it. Particurly Healy who works for Channel 9

 

[Sir Redman]

With the whole pressure on the umpires thing...have you seen the way Warne, McGrath and Lee appeal for lbw? When they think its out they only turn around to the umpire when they get to the stumps (McGrath and most particularly Lee). As for Warne, has he ever been cited for excess appealing? The one on Fleming the other day - he kept on appealing well after the umpire said not out.

 

[Zinzan]

IMHO, I think the 3rd ump. should be given the power to overrule a decision made by the onfield umpire. Even for LBWs, if it is obvious that the ball has pitched outside leg stump and the onfield ump. makes an error, the 3rd umpire should be able to over rule it. I also think that the suggestion of a captain being able to appeal against 3 decisions in an innings be implemented.

Great idea....anything that means we are getting closer to having the right decision made...No sure Gilchrist will like the idea though

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't think that the reputation influences umpires per se, but the aura of a side can. That is, the on-field aura. The atmosphere does tend to affect human decisions and thus, the best umpires function in an enclosed zone which consists of the ball, the stumps and the bat. They put everything else out of their mind.

A loud and energetic crowd can act to confuse the umpire or supply a boost of adrenaline that leads to a quick or rather thoughtless draw of the index finger. The same can be said of forceful appealing. That of a team such as Australia is very evident and influential on the weak-minded umpire, as the Aussies possess an air of confidence that is hard to deny.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't think that the reputation influences umpires per se, but the aura of a side can. That is, the on-field aura. The atmosphere does tend to affect human decisions and thus, the best umpires function in an enclosed zone which consists of the ball, the stumps and the bat. They put everything else out of their mind.

A loud and energetic crowd can act to confuse the umpire or supply a boost of adrenaline that leads to a quick or rather thoughtless draw of the index finger. The same can be said of forceful appealing. That of a team such as Australia is very evident and influential on the weak-minded umpire, as the Aussies possess an air of confidence that is hard to deny.

Precisely ....and no-one is better at working an umpire over than Shane (screech even when the balls hits the middle of the bat) Warne

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've only seen some of the highlights of the NZ vs Aus matches so I can't really say anything about that. But I did see the VB Series and I must say, it was the worst umpiring ever. The umpires were so blatantly for Australia it made you feel they were under ACB payroll. The worst was when one of the Aussie batsmen... I think it was Gilchrist... Gilchrist was PLUMP LBW. The easiest decision in the world and Bowden didn't raise his finger.

Hate to say it but when you are playing Australia, it's 11 vs 13.

I'm not sure why neutral umpires would be in favour of the Australians though!? Because they're usually the dominant team? That doesn't seem to hold that much water for mine.

I'd like to actually look at exactly how many decisions went either way (without speculation or taking into account who lost) and see what the difference really is. I think that generally losing teams and supporters tend to focus more on extrinsic factors when their team goes down.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As I've argued in depth in the 50 other threads on this topic, I don't believe that bias, subconcious or intentional, exists towards the Australian team in umpiring. As seen in the New Zealand tour where the umpiring was more or less equal from start to finish this hysteria is mostly based on one summer with a few poor decisions in it which went in Australia's favour coupled with the usual sour grapes from the supporters of losing sides. I mean, people complain about Australians getting the balance of umpiring decisions even when they don't, so what are they going to do when things actually DO go in Australia's favour?

As far as appealing is concerned, Australia have an oft-discussed team policy geared towards only appealing when there is a serious belief that the batsman is out. Frivolous appealing quite rightly leads to the umpires giving less consideration towards your team, and this policy is part of the reason the Australian team is so successful. Warne's oohing and aahing when the ball hits the middle of the bat is NOT appealing, it is simply mental gamesmanship. If the bowler is getting excited every delivery that you block with fielders around the bat, it keeps you off balance as a batsman and his abilities in creating such feelings is part of the reason for Warne's success. An appeal is when you specifically ask the umpire to give the batsman out, not when you make a noise.