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.