Neutral umpire policy - time to give it the flick?

[pasag]

Something I've been thinking for a long time is the OTTness nature of neutral umpires and the length we go to, to eliminate any perceived possibility of bias from the game when as it stands, there probably wouldn't be any in the first place.

I have no doubt that the umpires today, regardless of certain incidents in history, would not favour either side no matter what country they're from. I can't name one umpire on the panel who I would think for a second would be biased to his country. This whole thing is as pointless as disallowing football umpires to referee in the matches they supported as a kid or so on.

The main issue is that there aren't alot of umpires on the panel and it's well documented how worn out they are, travelling for huge lengths of times on tours away from their families, never being allowed to umpires at home and so on. This would take an incredible toll on not only their decisions, but on their health as seen with Mark Benson in SA last year. Furthermore you have the recent critique of it here, the article which prompted me to start this thread finally, that the biggest events of the year aren't being officiated by the best umpires (Taufel) merely becuase he's Australian. So by removing any notion of bias, we've sacrificed the quality of decision making to a pretty large extent.

Obviously removing bias is an important thing and there is a solid reasoning behind neutral umpiring, I just don't think it's enough to outweigh all the cons which certainly aren't "flimsical".

Thoughts?

 

[vic_orthdox]

My biggest issue with the neutral umpire policy is the amount of travelling that the umpires are forced to do. It'd probably have to be more than the players. You won't attract all the best umpires if this remains the case. As much as I don't like saying it, umpires are humans too.

 

[wpdavid]

Interesting question. Until now, I'd have disagreed with you, simply because perception is everything and sides can feel cheated even when they aren't. At least when lousy decisions happen nowadays, most serious observers don't claim anything more sinister than human error. However, given the increasing possibilities of technology and the possibility of appealing against duff decisions, there may be a stronger case for using "home" umpires for all the reasons you listed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The other thing is that you even see around here that the neutral umpires get accused of having a bias. People will always see fault where they want to see fault.

 

[Richard]

My perception of it is that the independent (Umpires are, by definition, neutral - (C) Dickie Bird) Umpires are there not to eliminate hometown bias but to eliminate the suspicion of it.

While someone Umpires in a game involving his team, that suspicion of bias will always be there, and if someone makes an error favouring his own team, it will always cause more outrage than otherwise.

 

[Matt79]

Its the referees as well. Besides the final, I'm not aware of anything that Crowe has stuffed up previously, but the ICC's best referee was twiddling his thumbs (so far as I know, Fuller's not taken them) during the final, and the confusion, because he's Sri Lankan.

I think the neutral umpire thing IS desirable, because it does remove the appearance of bias and that kind of confidence is integral to their role. Unfortunately, there will be a price to pay in terms of always having the best guys available for big matches. And it must be a killer for the umps on the elite panel. I wonder whether any of them, if they were married, still are?

 

[Pratters]

However, given the increasing possibilities of technology and the possibility of appealing against duff decisions, there may be a stronger case for using "home" umpires for all the reasons you listed.

Good point mate.

We should see why we went to neutral umpires in the first place. The problem with home umpires earlier was every x, y, z from country a, b, c started umpiring in international matches. Their standards weren't the best. Add to that, there were obvious blatant biases in so many cases, neutral umpire was the way to go.

However, we see umpires quit the game because of the extensive travel given the impractical nature of the exercise (Peter Willey being a famous case). Quality is a key and after we pick an elite panel, we should make the travel calendar of these umpires as practical as feasible.

The best umpires may be doubted by some but I think it is fair to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their home nations.

Also, umpires from the home nation umpiring adds a distinct advantage. They tend to know the local conditions better than ones coming in from abroad and so can make decisions regarding whether to come off or not if there is clouds in the sky for instance much better. So if an umpire is elected in the elite panel, he should be given as many home games as possible.

Most umpires would want to umpire in their home grounds as well. If I was an umpire and never got to umpire a match at the Eden Gardens while umpiring all over the world, I certainly wouldn't like it.

 

[Goughy]

My perception of it is that the independent (Umpires are, by definition, neutral - (C) Dickie Bird) Umpires are there not to eliminate hometown bias but to eliminate the suspicion of it.

While someone Umpires in a game involving his team, that suspicion of bias will always be there, and if someone makes an error favouring his own team, it will always cause more outrage than otherwise.

I agree.

The neutral umpires issue is far less than the potential can of worms that maybe opened if we go back to the 'old' system.

It actually worked both ways, some umpires favoured the home side and others appeared to go too far the other way to show no bias and favoured visiting teams.

Neutral umpires are here to stay, and rightly so, IMO.

Now there is a case for expanding the number of umpires on the Elite Panel. Thats something I would have no issues with in order to reduce travel etc.

I just think there is something very comforting in the knowledge that mistakes are due to incompetance or errors in judgement rather than any bias.

 

[Langeveldt]

If we went back to the old system, the moment a few bad calls are made, people would be shouting for neutral umpires again.. They are there for a reason, and now we have them, the only thing we can use to point the finger is incompetence..

 

[silentstriker]

Agreed, definitely need it just to remove any suspicion of bias.

 

[Pratters]

Now there is a case for expanding the number of umpires on the Elite Panel. Thats something I would have no issues with in order to reduce travel etc.

More would mean reduction of quality which is why I am apprehensive about having too many more umpires in an elite panel.

 

[PhoenixFire]

More would mean reduction of quality which is why I am apprehensive about having too many more umpires in an elite panel.

Not at all. Just give the ones that are allowed onto the Elite Panel better training etc.

 

[Pratters]

Not at all. Just give the ones that are allowed onto the Elite Panel better training etc.

That is an ideal scenario different from the crop's ability at hand.

 

[Richard]

Also, umpires from the home nation umpiring adds a distinct advantage. They tend to know the local conditions better than ones coming in from abroad and so can make decisions regarding whether to come off or not if there is clouds in the sky for instance much better.

That's a very important point - and it's why Third- and Fourth-Umpires (who are always hometown) should play a large part in that sort of decision-making.

 

[marc71178]

Not at all. Just give the ones that are allowed onto the Elite Panel better training etc.

And when do you propose fitting that in around the hectic schedules they already have?

 

[LA ICE-E]

neutral umpire's the way to go. During the World Baseball Classic, we had American umpires and the umpires we accused of being American biased etc etc. So neutrals good.

 

[Athlai]

I think Richards quite right in the idea that home umpires are quite likely to be lynched at an error in judgement that favours their own team. A storm of outrage would certainly come from it, which is something the game doesn't need.

 

[Poker Boy]

No. It's all about perception. The home umpires would be accused of bias if they made decisions in favour of the home side, and on odd occaisons when home umpires favoured the visitors they were accused of over correcting (BC Cooray suffered this during the 2001 SL-England Test series (remember the "BC bats for England" banner?) and english umpires were accused of favouring Alderman's LBW appeals in the 1989 Ashes.

 

[andyc]

Voted for Dasa, but had he not been there I would have went no.

 

[Fusion]

Yeah I'd say in order to eliminate any suspicion of bias, neutral umpires must stay. Besides, the problem of bad umpiring doesn't have anything to do with whether they're neutral or not. Even if this rule didn't exist, there's only one Tuefell. He can't officiate EVERY match. Even if he did, how do you account for the 2nd umpire on the field? The solution here is to raise standards of the umpiring panel IMO.

Edit: Love Dasa voting for himself btw!