• 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.

Martin Crowe's idea

Craig

World Traveller
Basically Martin Crowe yeasterday came up with this theory, that with the umpire review system, that eventually it will make the game more honest, about the idea of bringing back home umpires for Test matches, but only those that have earnt it. So umpires that have proven themselves (like Simon Taufel) would be allowed to umpire a Boxing Day Test at the MCG or the New Year's Test at the SCG, or Ian Gould could umpire a Test at Lord's (his words not mine). So for the new international umpires, they do the hard yards by traveling around the world and umpire and Tests and ODIs etc. and then when they have more experience, proven themselves, and not to be useless, then an umpire could do a home Test.

The other reasons he stated this was that, for a home umpire, it would be just as special as say Taufel umpiring a Test at the MCG or the SCG as it is for an Aussie Test cricketer playing a home Test there. Also it is a way of cutting down umpire fatigue (and therefore less mistakes) and travelling time. Crowe said that Rudi Koertzen had traveled up to 50 hours to umpire in the 1st Test between New Zealand and Pakistan in Dunedin, but ended up having to act as the 3rd umpire instead. Craig McMillan was also in argeement.

IMO, if the umpires are really good enough then yes, I doubt you would get any biased decisions from a guy like Taufel.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
With the review system in place this is a great idea, if you think the umpire is deliberately making bad decisions not only can the world see but you can also over turn them. Doubt bias would come into it at all personally.
 

KiWiNiNjA

International Coach
Great idea from Crowe, but nothing will happen for a while. 5-10yrs down the track the Poms will change a few things, give it a snazzy new name, and all of a sudden it will be their idea!

:ph34r:
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
It could also mean that players stop making completely pointless appeals. If they're concerned that the umpires might start making partial calls when there are no appeals left, they'll be more likely to conserve them for when the umpire has clearly made a mistake.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Why? No way.

Why would you introduce something with very little upside and a whole lot of crappy downsides? Umpiring controversies of the recent past not enough? The Sydney fiasco would be maginfied ten times if the umpires were Australian.
 

Craig

World Traveller
It could also mean that players stop making completely pointless appeals. If they're concerned that the umpires might start making partial calls when there are no appeals left, they'll be more likely to conserve them for when the umpire has clearly made a mistake.
There is an easy answer to that. If players are making appeals to decisions that are clearly out (like Sammy in Adelaide this morning) and are just wasting time, then fine the player 15% of his match fee. That will stop them pretty quickly.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Why? No way.

Why would you introduce something with very little upside and a whole lot of crappy downsides? Umpiring controversies of the recent past not enough? The Sydney fiasco would be maginfied ten times if the umpires were Australian.
Or if the referral system had been in place, the Kumble could of gone upstairs and Symonds would of been out.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Or if the referral system had been in place, the Kumble could of gone upstairs and Symonds would of been out.
Well of course, but you only get two incorrect referrals, which if they run out and you get wrong decisions, you get biased accusations instead. Or if an umpire is having a horrible innings, and let's say he gives four decisions, two are overturned and two aren't, and then he has a couple more bad ones.

In sport, it is vitally important to avoid impropriety, and almost as important, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are no advantages to having umpires stand in home Tests. None. I'd rather have ten other mediocre umpires in the elite panel if the workload is too high than have a biased umpire.
 

Craig

World Traveller
I know you don't care about ODI cricket, but we still have home umpires for them. It's still international cricket, and we still cope. No mater who was umpiring, unless Symonds was out, all the rabid Indian fanboys would of accused Bucknor (or whoever else) of bias.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
It wasn't close to one single decision by the way, but your point doesn't make sense. If you think accusations of bias will fly around anyway, why make it ten times worse by introducing the nationality of the umpires into it?
 

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Well of course, but you only get two incorrect referrals, which if they run out and you get wrong decisions, you get biased accusations instead. Or if an umpire is having a horrible innings, and let's say he gives four decisions, two are overturned and two aren't, and then he has a couple more bad ones.

In sport, it is vitally important to avoid impropriety, and almost as important, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There are no advantages to having umpires stand in home Tests. None. I'd rather have ten other mediocre umpires in the elite panel if the workload is too high than have a biased umpire.
When I was growing up with home umpires I couldn't stand the australian umpires. So quick to give our batsman out. Now with neutral umpires I can't blame the umpires any more.
Definitely Crowe's idea would help with the problem - but I would sooner make Rudi travel for 50 hours.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Exactly. It doesn't matter if its true, if people think it is, it could be just as damaging to the game. It's why even talking abou the weather to bookies is so frowned upon - it's about the appearance of impropriety as much as it is about the actual crime itself. Sport has to be seen to be neutral.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Hell, I am hardly rabid if but it were two Australians standing in the Sydney Test, would I have wondered? More than wondered I think.

Downside: Alienating millions of fans, creating random controversies or making them worse.
Upside: Rudi doesn't have to travel 50 hours.

Sorry Rudi, we'll give you some comp time instead.
 
Last edited:

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Why? No way.

Why would you introduce something with very little upside and a whole lot of crappy downsides? Umpiring controversies of the recent past not enough? The Sydney fiasco would be maginfied ten times if the umpires were Australian.
I agree. Once the 2 appeals are used up, what if the "home" umpire makes a mistake then? Could lead to all those nasty acrimonious tours of the 1980s repeating.

The only benefit is to the sanity of umpires who wouldn't have to travel the world to get to umpire (could see Peter Willey back at the test match level, for example?)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I agree. Once the 2 appeals are used up, what if the "home" umpire makes a mistake then? Could lead to all those nasty acrimonious tours of the 1980s repeating.

The only benefit is to the sanity of umpires who wouldn't have to travel the world to get to umpire (could see Peter Willey back at the test match level, for example?)
I think people forget how bad it got from time to time in the 80s, and why the whole neutral umpire thing was introduced in the first place?
 

Top