cricket betting betway blog banner small
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Who needs Umpires anyway?

  1. #1
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Aug 2006

    Icon5 Who needs Umpires anyway?

    First of all I have to say that I’m neither a fan nor an enemy of the man who is fast becoming the most infamous umpire in the history of the game…if anything, since yesterday’s incident I should love him (seeing as I was able to get a $5 bet on odds of 25 to 1 for England to win on *********.com).

    While Darrell ‘Bad’ Hair’s famous Murali “Chucking” (1995) and Kirsten “Trigger Finger” (1993) decisions earned him the hatred of millions and the reputation of an Umpire out to stir up the world of Cricket, he may not be the stupid “balloon-knot” (a.k.a. ***) of a man that the majority of fans think.

    I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why, with not a shred of evidence from the 3rd Umpire, he decided to award yesterday’s match to England. I propose the following three possibilities which may have caused the apparent brain fart which lead to the English being awarded the match:

    1). Darrell smelt a rat when he saw what the condition of the ball; posed the question to the Pakistani’s and after their ‘unwarranted theatrical response’ knew that there was indeed some foul play about; then decided to change his (until then “very lenient”) stance on Sub-Continent teams and awarded the match accordingly;

    2). He was upset at not being invited to Arjuna Ranatunga's next birthday party, and wanted to take it out on somebody;

    3). He wanted to once again get back into the media spotlight (and seeing as all places in “I’m a celebrity get me the **** out of here” were taken) decided to do what he does best and again bring confusion and disrepute into the game.

    There is of course another ‘Cronje-like’ possibility which might have caused him to make the decision…But the idea that Umpires could be involved in that sort of thing is unthinkable; it goes against the unwritten umpires’ code of conduct: “Be as annoyingly wrong as you can, as often as you can, to whoever you can, but don’t admit to it, or use your special ability to benefit others”

    The question I pose is that while Umpires have for so long been a part of almost every sport, their place in all of them has been one of necessity. So, surely now that we have the means to replace them we should do so, or should we?

    I’m sure that there would be a hell of a lot of people out there who would agree with that idea, but I’m interested to find out the opinions of those who support having decrepit old failures who can see barely past their own nose out there deciding the outcome of events which mean so much to so many.

  2. #2
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Mumbai India
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketGuru2006
    I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why, with not a shred of evidence from the 3rd Umpire, he decided to award yesterday’s match to England.
    There is : the law of the game.

    "A match shall be lost by a side which in the opinion of the umpires refuses to play."

    A further subsection adds,

    "If an umpire considers that an action by any player or players might constitute a refusal by either side to play then the umpires together shall ascertain the cause of the action. If they then decide together that this action does constitute a refusal to play by one side, they shall so inform the captain of that side. If the captain persists in the action the umpires shall award the match in accordance with above."

    Which part of this law did Hair not abide to? Before you answer remember, this law is not about what constitutes ball tampering but what are the circumstances under which a forfieture is made.

  3. #3
    International 12th Man deeps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    perth, australia
    If you're looking at the law, Hair did the right thing (his judgement is questionable none the less...) Common sense should have prevailed, and he should have waited for evidence (contacted 3rd ump), or waited till the end of the day/session.

    At the very least, he should have consulted Inzamam

  4. #4
    Cricketer Of The Year
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    If he had called Inzi over and warned him first he would still by inference be accusing the team of cheating and warning him that it must stop.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New umpires added to Elite Panel
    By chaminda_00 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 08:06 AM
  2. Neutral umpires !
    By chipmonk in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2005, 06:05 PM
  3. How umpires are assessed
    By Scallywag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-02-2005, 06:41 AM
  4. New Elite Panel, 4 Out, 2 In
    By umpire in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-02-2004, 06:38 AM
  5. World Cup Umpires Announced!
    By Eyes_Only in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 15-12-2002, 06:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts