• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Black armbands - what a joke !

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I disagree with the wearing of a black armband because he hasn't died, he lost his job that's all.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Perm said:
I disagree with the wearing of a black armband because he hasn't died, he lost his job that's all.
Exactly. I disapprove of using a symbol of mourning for someone who has died when someone has simply lost their job.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Black armbands aren't only used to mourn the dead. They've been used to make political statements in the past - eg Andy Flower.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
True, but they referred to that as the "death of democracy", so it was in a sense still a symbol of mourning.
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
_Ed_ said:
True, but they referred to that as the "death of democracy", so it was in a sense still a symbol of mourning.
Eh. I'm sure this could symbolise the death of something in terms of the umpires.
 

_Ed_

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But isn't it a bit of an exaggeration? People were (and still are) dying at the hands of the Zimbabwean government.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Says "black ribbons" in the article, TBF. Same principle tho, obviously, just not so ostentatious.

You may or may not like Hair (I'm probably more in the latter camp TBH), but with the fallout from the 4th test has implicitly eroded umpire's authority to make calls, much as the current nonsense of a chucking law we have has done.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
Says "black ribbons" in the article, TBF. Same principle tho, obviously, just not so ostentatious.

You may or may not like Hair (I'm probably more in the latter camp TBH), but with the fallout from the 4th test has implicitly eroded umpire's authority to make calls, much as the current nonsense of a chucking law we have has done.
They still have the authority to make the right the calls, if they don't make the right calls then they should be held accountable just like Hair was.

I have no problem with them wearing ribbons to support him, it good to see umps get behind each other. But it would be more worthwhile getting behind someone who is half decent umpire, not just some show pony.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
chaminda_00 said:
They still have the authority to make the right the calls, if they don't make the right calls then they should be held accountable just like Hair was.

I have no problem with them wearing ribbons to support him, it good to see umps get behind each other. But it would be more worthwhile getting behind someone who is half decent umpire, not just some show pony.
They aren't tho, are they? If an ump makes an incorrect LBW call he isn't hauled before an ICC commitee. Well, not yet anyway... They're only "held accountable" regarding certain calls like ball tampering & chucking, which is probably their point with the armbands.

I mean no-one (not even Hair before his removal from the elite panal) calls chucking any more. & I don't blame them, frankly. Can you imagine the outcry if one of the umps had called Shabbir for throwing (correctly as it would've turned out) in the 1st test v us last year?
 

adharcric

International Coach
BoyBrumby said:
They aren't tho, are they? If an ump makes an incorrect LBW call he isn't hauled before an ICC commitee. Well, not yet anyway... They're only "held accountable" regarding certain calls like ball tampering & chucking, which is probably their point with the armbands.

I mean no-one (not even Hair before his removal from the elite panal) calls chucking any more. & I don't blame them, frankly. Can you imagine the outcry if one of the umps had called Shabbir for throwing (correctly as it would've turned out) in the 1st test v us last year?
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.
 
Last edited:

cameeel

International Captain
chaminda_00 said:
They still have the authority to make the right the calls, if they don't make the right calls then they should be held accountable
.
Then why was no action taken against Doctrove?
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
cameeel said:
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

Englishman
adharcric said:
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?
 

adharcric

International Coach
BoyBrumby said:
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. :)
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
SirBloody Idiot said:
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
 

Top