Independent Test Umpires - is this really necessary?

[Tom 1972]

Independent Test Umpires - is this really necessary?

I'd hope that Test level umpires should be completely professional and above match fixing, plus as an Aussie, I have had to endure pretty persistent "howlers" from the likes of Billy Bowden, Steve Bucknor and Rudi Koertzin. Not just decisions against Australia, but bad decisions against our opposition too, which can turn Test matches.

What do people think? Should the best umpires be able to umpire the biggest matches? I've seldom seen Simon Taufel umpire Tests.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have full confidence in the umpires to be unbiased and however the appearance of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. If, for example, Taufel made a terrible, match-turning decision in favour of Australia in a Test against India, even due merely to human error, I can't even begin to imagine what the reaction would be like. The sort of accusations that we levelled at Bucknor in similar circumstances and the mess surrounding that even though he isn't Australian gave us just a glimpse.

There are absolutely no positives for doing away with neutral umpires and there's a pretty obvious negative or two, so I'm firmly opposed to it.

 

[Tom 1972]

I have full confidence in the umpires to be unbiased and however the appearance of impartiality is almost as important as impartiality itself. If, for example, Taufel made a terrible, match-turning decision in favour of Australia in a Test against India, even due merely to human error, I can't even begin to imagine what the reaction would be like. The sort of accusations that we levelled at Bucknor in similar circumstances and the mess surrounding that even though he isn't Australian gave us just a glimpse.

There are absolutely no positives for doing away with neutral umpires and there's a pretty obvious negative or two, so I'm firmly opposed to it.

Good points. But you'd think that the technology and referral system should reduce the likelihood of that happening. But I guess prevention is better than cure.

On Bucknor, he was simply past it and umpired a couple of years beyond when he should have.

 

[Noble One]

Good points. But you'd think that the technology and referral system should reduce the likelihood of that happening. But I guess prevention is better than cure.

On Bucknor, he was simply past it and umpired a couple of years beyond when he should have.

ICC need to enforce mandatory UDRS on all cricketing boards before the idea of a return to home-based umpiring.

 

[aussie]

ICC need to enforce mandatory UDRS on all cricketing boards before the idea of a return to home-based umpiring.

Yea this.

 

[Spark]

icc need to enforce mandatory udrs on all cricketing boards before the idea of a return to home-based umpiring.

You can leave out the second half on that sentence and I'd still be in absolute agreement.

PS. That does meant they have to help pay for it too.

 

[Jarquis]

While UDRS would help counteract bad decisions made by the Umpires... the criticisms and accusations of bias would still be levelled at the Umpires. Despite it being rectified, the mistake would still have been made. That's without considering what happens if a side has run out of referrals.
As EWS said, there's no real worthwhile advantage that exceeds the risk/negatives.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The advantage would be more umpires on the panel, there are supposedly those who don't find the lifestyle at all appealing, with constant travel and rarely spending time in your own country, as you have to be overseas to do all your umpiring.

 

[wpdavid]

The advantage would be more umpires on the panel, there are supposedly those who don't find the lifestyle at all appealing, with constant travel and rarely spending time in your own country, as you have to be overseas to do all your umpiring.

Yup, and those are valid points. And perhaps UDRS would make it viable. otoh attitudes are so much less tolerant nowadays, especially now there's a championship involved. I'm not sure I could stomach a repeat of the bad feeling between England & Pakistan in the 1980's, or John Snow et al not being quite good enough to secure a single LBW decision from Aus umpires in 1970/71.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes it is.

I do not ever want to see umpires from the home countries. Ever. Deadset against that idea completely even if UDRS is expanded to cover most decisions.

 

[Faisal1985]

Yeah i guess, the game has become quite fast now a days. Even though its hard to say that the umps are pure saints but i don't think they are biased when it comes to that split second where they have to make a decision. Its hard to be prejudiced in that short term anyway.

But i am in full favor of UDRS for some big bad decisions, i.e. inside edged lbws (which i have seen a lot off lately, possibly due to the floodlights, speed of bowlers, movement of the ball), wrongly claimed catches deliberately or not, snicks etc...these are turning points for a game like cricket and i think not only that 3 or so reviews are allowed per team. Any decision could be reviewable. Yes they will have to flex there contracts a bit with Sponsors or Broadcasting companies, but for the sake of the game it is crucial. I mean look at other sports, NHL, NFL, Soccer, they all have review systems with no limitations, close calls are looked at asap. On the other hand in cricket, only boundaries are given that level of importance, whether its a 4 or a 6 or nothing etc. It is about time that some fairness is created. Not to blame the umps in any way, but because the game has changed quite a bit now.

 

[marc71178]

Erm football doesn't have any review systems.

 

[Faisal1985]

Erm football doesn't have any review systems.

For a sport like soccer you would generally not need a review. But if things are close ie. the ball crossed the line or not for a goal, (major issues like that) would be reviewed however, rarely. I guess it was a bad example...but Cricket is a different sport all together and it requires the availability of reviews.

 

[marc71178]

No, that's the whole issue with football at the moment, such incidents aren't reviewed or dealt with!

 

[Faisal1985]

No, that's the whole issue with football at the moment, such incidents aren't reviewed or dealt with!

Bad example then....

 

[BoyBrumby]

I definitely favour neutral umpires but it does seem a slight in consistency that home umpires are allowed to stand in limited overs internationals, but not tests.

I, like I suspect most of us, regard them of less importance than tests, but the principle is the same, surely?

 

[Prince EWS]

I definitely favour neutral umpires but it does seem a slight in consistency that home umpires are allowed to stand in limited overs internationals, but not tests.

I, like I suspect most of us, regard them of less importance than tests, but the principle is the same, surely?

I don't like them standing in ODIs either. I'd do away with that too if I had the power.

 

[Sanz]

Yes.

 

[Uppercut]

It's generally well understood that no umpire gives enough of a crap about how their country does in an ODI to pull off anything dodgy.

 

[zaremba]

The hysteria that surrounds umpires these days (particularly when certain supporters dust off their trusty persecution theories) means that it's not now remotely possible to have home town umpires, at least in most series. That may or may not change with the UDRS. I suspect it might, for the reason given by vic: namely that having all fixtures being "away" fixtures for umpires make it a pretty unattractive job for anyone who doesn't like living out of a suitcase, and so plenty of good umpires just won't want to be on the panel.