Black armbands - what a joke !

[chaminda_00]

Then why was no action taken against Doctrove?

He hasn't made as many bad calls over a long career. Also it way pretty clear that he was just follwoing the lead of the senior umpire.

[BoyBrumby]

There's a huge difference between an incorrect LBW decision and a dubious accusation of ball tampering or chucking. The former involves a spontaneous decision in which a judgment must be made in virtually a second. The latter requires substantial evidence, allows considerable time for observation and has a huge impact on a cricketer's career and reputation. If on-field umpires are too scared to call chuckers and ball-tamperers now, that's fine. The match referee, third umpire or another off-the-field committee should do it.

Why tho? Why do they require "substantial evidence"? If one completely ignores any extra-field of play concerns that would be a completely arbitrary statement. They're only deemed to require "substantial evidence" because of the presumed reaction by the teams on the wrong-end of them.

X umpire thinks ball-tampering has occured & makes that call, after the fact it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt & X is removed from the elite panal; Y umpire gives an LBW decision that hawkeye shows was missing off stump by a bit, Y umpire stands in his next alloted test with no questons asked. X's decision costs the bowling team five runs, Y's costs the batting team a wicket. Which, ignoring all extra-cricketing concerns, is the worse decision?

[Craig]

As far as I am concerned if you see something, call it.

[adharcric]

Why tho? Why do they require "substantial evidence"? If one completely ignores any extra-field of play concerns that would be a completely arbitrary statement. They're only deemed to require "substantial evidence" because of the presumed reaction by the teams on the wrong-end of them.

X umpire thinks ball-tampering has occured & makes that call, after the fact it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt & X is removed from the elite panal; Y umpire gives an LBW decision that hawkeye shows was missing off stump by a bit, Y umpire stands in his next alloted test with no questons asked. X's decision costs the bowling team five runs, Y's costs the batting team a wicket. Which, ignoring all extra-cricketing concerns, is the worse decision?

Nobody cares about the five runs. A ball-tampering or chucking call is a serious blight on a cricketer's integrity; you can't just ignore "extra-cricketing concerns" and pretend like cricket is a robotic sport in which common sense means nothing.

Besides, I'm not supporting the ICC's reasoning for sacking Hair, whatever it was. IMO he shouldn't be umpiring in the elite panel and now he isn't so I support the decision.
In other words, I'm not suggesting that Hair should've been sacked simply because he botched a ball-tampering call once. In fact, he probably shouldn't have.
It's the repeated incidents and his general attitude on the field that make him a poor umpire. These black ribbon folks should realize that he's not worth their time.

[Langeveldt]

Eh. I'm sure this could symbolise the death of something in terms of the umpires.

Exactly, no umpire in top flight cricket now will be able to make a stand against an illegal practise.. Death of umpiring as we know it, they might as well not bother having them

[BoyBrumby]

Nobody cares about the five runs. A ball-tampering or chucking call is a serious blight on a cricketer's integrity; you can't just ignore "extra-cricketing concerns" and pretend like cricket is a robotic sport in which common sense means nothing.

Besides, I'm not supporting the ICC's reasoning for sacking Hair, whatever it was. IMO he shouldn't be umpiring in the elite panel and now he isn't so I support the decision.
In other words, I'm not suggesting that Hair should've been sacked simply because he botched a ball-tampering call once. In fact, he probably shouldn't have.
It's the repeated incidents and his general attitude on the field that make him a poor umpire. These black ribbon folks should realize that he's not worth their time.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not a fan of Hair. He's (IMHO) a grandstanding maroon with a martyr complex (which means he's probably secretly delighted with the outcome, think of all that lovely advance on his next autobiography), but that doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. He was wrong to make such a show of it & possibly ill-advised to even make the penalty (but, again, I'm only saying that because I knew what the reaction would be, Hair's course of action at least has a strange kind of integrity), but his removal means it's more-or-less impossible for any standing umpire to make that call.

Let's suppose an umpire sees a fielder doing what he thinks might be ball-tampering; how can he call it now? He would have no idea if the cameras will have picked it up or not. What does he do? Call him on it & run the risk of losing his job? Ask the third ump to check footage? Ignore it? We're stuck with another law of the game that, to all intents and purposes, cannot be enforced in any meaningful way.

I don't think the umpires are wearing the ribbons to back Hair per se (although obviously there's some implied support for a brother umpire), rather the fact that their standing as the ultimate arbitors of the game has been further eroded.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, Brumby is on the money here, and I don't see how anyone could mount any sort of sensible argument to the contrary. Whatever you think of Hair, his decisions, his personality and his abilities as an umpire, the fact that he was an elite panel umpire before making the ball tampering call and now he isn't even getting ODIs gives a clear example to any other umpire who believes he has witnessed ball tampering in an international match at any time in the future. Don't call it, whatever happens, because if you do your career is over.

The black armbands symbolise that fairly well, I think.

[adharcric]

As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not a fan of Hair. He's (IMHO) a grandstanding maroon with a martyr complex (which means he's probably secretly delighted with the outcome, think of all that lovely advance on his next autobiography), but that doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. He was wrong to make such a show of it & possibly ill-advised to even make the penalty (but, again, I'm only saying that because I knew what the reaction would be, Hair's course of action at least has a strange kind of integrity), but his removal means it's more-or-less impossible for any standing umpire to make that call.

Let's suppose an umpire sees a fielder doing what he thinks might be ball-tampering; how can he call it now? He would have no idea if the cameras will have picked it up or not. What does he do? Call him on it & run the risk of losing his job? Ask the third ump to check footage? Ignore it? We're stuck with another law of the game that, to all intents and purposes, cannot be enforced in any meaningful way.

I don't think the umpires are wearing the ribbons to back Hair per se (although obviously there's some implied support for a brother umpire), rather the fact that their standing as the ultimate arbitors of the game has been further eroded.

Pretty much agree with the points you've made, but I don't see why there's such a problem in having the match-referee or third-umpire take responsibility for making calls on ball-tampering or chucking. Is it really that difficult? Is it so essential to uphold the umpires' standing as the ultimate arbitors of the game?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pretty much agree with the points you've made, but I don't see why there's such a problem in having the match-referee or third-umpire take responsibility for making calls on ball-tampering or chucking. Is it really that difficult? Is it so essential to uphold the umpires' standing as the ultimate arbitors of the game?

There are a range of reasons. Authority of the umpire and ability to enforce rules on the field the main ones. This same point comes up every time with chucking under the new laws (Shabbir for example), but it also applies to ball tampering - if it can only be enforced by the match referee after reviewing video and so on, it has no bearing on the match. A player could hack up the ball, take 8 wickets with reverse swing and win a test series, and then cop the punishment after the match is over, if he was even caught conclusively on tape, to the detriment of the team that was the victim of the cheating.

Umpires are appointed with the belief that they will be impartial, and it is the entire foundation of the enforcement of rules in the game. If umpires are biased or cheats, we can't even trust the LBW law, yet nobody is calling for the LBW law to be scrapped because it is not always properly enforced, be it through human error or anything else. Obviously it is a different issue in terms of the impact on the offending player or team, but the point remains that it is absurd to set up the enforcement of a law around the assumption that umpires are incapable of enforcing it fairly. If the umpires can't enforce it then it shouldn't be against the rules at all.

Even worse in this situation that the law remains but umpires will simply be afraid to enforce it properly for fear of ruining their careers.

[adharcric]

There are a range of reasons. Authority of the umpire and ability to enforce rules on the field the main ones. This same point comes up every time with chucking under the new laws (Shabbir for example), but it also applies to ball tampering - if it can only be enforced by the match referee after reviewing video and so on, it has no bearing on the match. A player could hack up the ball, take 8 wickets with reverse swing and win a test series, and then cop the punishment after the match is over, if he was even caught conclusively on tape, to the detriment of the team that was the victim of the cheating.

Why can't the match-referee make judgments via real-time video analysis? It's not like he does anything else of note throughout the duration of the match.

[Matt79]

How can you consider the match referee better placed to take note of changes to the condition of the ball than the field umpires. The umpires are the only authority figures who regularly handle and inspect the ball through the course of play. To suggest that the match referee can maintain a similar level of vigilance via cameras is not realistic - the only way it could conceivably work would be to have an extremely zoomed in camera focusing on following the ball the entire time, and having somebody watching that feed the entire time - which is still a poor substitute for regularly reviewing the condition of the ball.

Hair could have handled this situation better, but honestly the way he handled this situation was only a part of the problem - the other part was the ongoing clash of personalities/perceptions of bias amongst Pakistan regarding Hair. It wa a bad situation and I don't know what a better solution would have been.

Despite that, the fact remains that Hair being sacked as a consequence of making a call that he felt was merited will be a significant disincentive to other umpires to make calls they think are risky. Its highly likely now that umpires will not call cheating when they see it because they know they won't be able to win the trial by media that will ensue. That's a bad outcome for the sport IMO, and a pathetic response from the ICC - you have to back your officials or you undermine the credibility and authority of ALL your officials - its not about the man, its about the uniform.

[silentstriker]

Exactly, no umpire in top flight cricket now will be able to make a stand against an illegal practise.. Death of umpiring as we know it, they might as well not bother having them

Overreacting much?

[adharcric]

How can you consider the match referee better placed to take note of changes to the condition of the ball than the field umpires. The umpires are the only authority figures who regularly handle and inspect the ball through the course of play. To suggest that the match referee can maintain a similar level of vigilance via cameras is not realistic - the only way it could conceivably work would be to have an extremely zoomed in camera focusing on following the ball the entire time, and having somebody watching that feed the entire time - which is still a poor substitute for regularly reviewing the condition of the ball.

The umpire can judge the condition of the ball and refer a suspicious situation to the match referee, who can then review the recent and current video to check for misconduct.

That's a bad outcome for the sport IMO, and a pathetic response from the ICC - you have to back your officials or you undermine the credibility and authority of ALL your officials - its not about the man, its about the uniform.

You don't have to back your players or the sport itself? Hair was a poor umpire. The ICC would've been accused of bias if they had supported him and rightfully so.

[FaaipDeOiad]

The umpire can judge the condition of the ball and refer a suspicious situation to the match referee, who can then review the recent and current video to check for misconduct.

And what if it's not caught on video? There are various ways one could alter the condition of the ball that would escape video surveillance, and in the modern era of TV coverage anyone who genuinely wished to tamper with the ball would obviously attempt to think of a way to do it that wouldn't be discernable from afar on camera.

Anyway, it's unrealistic to expect that a match referee will view ALL the available footage and come to a conclusive decision in the sort of time an umpire can make up his mind, or even anything vaguely comparable. The key is to be able to judge the condition of the ball and the actions of the fielders and make a decision to prevent cheating from occuring. Taking it out of the hands of the umpire merely ensures that anyone who does cheat will reap whatever available rewards before any sort of punishment can be given. If that means a world cup final or the deciding test of an Ashes series, that's a pretty big problem.

You don't have to back your players or the sport itself? Hair was a poor umpire. The ICC would've been accused of bias if they had supported him and rightfully so.

Err, by what possible definition of bias? The only bias the ICC would have shown was towards supporting their officials in their decision making, which is exactly what they should do. Who exactly would they be biased against if they said that Hair was the appointed official for the match and they trusted his judgement about the condition of the ball and believed he acted in good faith, regardless of whether or not his decision was correct?

[adharcric]

Well it is a tough problem to solve for sure. I don't think umpires should have too much power but they should definitely call ball-tampering if they've seen it.
As for chucking, I'm not sure if an umpire should be able to make a call just like that - he could end up no-balling a wicket-taking ball.