Really good umpires!

[JBMAC]

Col Egar, David Shepherd, Simon Taufel

 

[ImpatientLime]

shep was superior to dickie bird by a long way.

 

[honestbharani]

TJB's so good at getting people to bite he doesn't even have to bait the hook

The lamest excuse for stupid posting is "baiting"..

 

[TheJediBrah]

The lamest excuse for stupid posting is "baiting"..

Do you always have to try and start something?

just let it go

 

[Lillian Thomson]

During Dickie Bird's peak years a lot of the county pro's considered David Constant and Ray Julien to be the best umpires on the domestic circuit. Both good umpires but when Constant made an error it tended to be a real howler.

 

[honestbharani]

Do you always have to try and start something?

just let it go

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Kettle borough

 

[jimmy101]

Pretty sure the ICC implemented neutral umpires in 1994 (at least one per match anyway).

Before then there were numerous instances of home umpires being accused of making biased calls.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Pretty sure the ICC implemented neutral umpires in 1994 (at least one per match anyway).

Before then there were numerous instances of home umpires being accused of making biased calls.

Part of the problem was that English umpires were perceived as good honest men making mistakes while Australian, New Zealand, Indian and Pakistani umpires were seen as cheats. The other countries didn't have professional umpires who stood every day and didn't develop the same instincts as the English umpires and made a lot more errors. How much actual cheating went on it's impossible to say. I suspect there wasn't much.

 

[Dan]

Not *****.

 

[Dan]

Can't believe we got to, what, 30 posts without that joke being made ftr.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can't believe we got to, what, 30 posts without that joke being made ftr.

First reply here

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/76529-really-bad-umpires.html

 

[SteveNZ]

Nah that rule is there for a reason

did you ever see a tour of India in the 90s?

Yes.

Umpiring is a full-time, well paid and reasonably competitive profession now. If you're going to be biased or in any way incompetent at your job, you won't have one any more. Should be effective enough in weeding out the cheats.

I know a couple of umpires who have come up in the ranks in NZ and are now in the international arena. I doubt those blokes even like our players after years on the circuit But seriously, they have zero affinity to their national side. They just want to be successful at their job. They see batsmen with black helmets, not NZC logos.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes.

Umpiring is a full-time, well paid and reasonably competitive profession now. If you're going to be biased or in any way incompetent at your job, you won't have one any more. Should be effective enough in weeding out the cheats.

I know a couple of umpires who have come up in the ranks in NZ and are now in the international arena. I doubt those blokes even like our players after years on the circuit But seriously, they have zero affinity to their national side. They just want to be successful at their job. They see batsmen with black helmets, not NZC logos.

While you're right, the rule is still necessary.

The problem imo hasn't ever been that home umpires will necessarily favour the home team, it's the impression that they favour one team. Say they get a big decision wrong purely due to incompetence and it goes in favour of his nation's team, there'll inevitably be loads of talk about favouritism. There's no way around it. The topic will always come up. This is really damaging because : a) discussions like that can get very unsavoury and b) it diverts attention away from the actual problem (ie) the competence of the officiating.

It can sometimes be annoying, because it can lead to situations where the clear best man for the job doesn't get to officiate the game. eg: Taufel not being allowed to stand as umpire for the 2007 WC final and Bucknor standing in for him, which in turn led to him and Dar making a complete hash of things at the end of the match. But it's still something that needs to be there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

While you're right, the rule is still necessary.

The problem imo hasn't ever been that home umpires will necessarily favour the home team, it's the impression that they favour one team. Say they get a big decision wrong purely due to incompetence and it goes in favour of his nation's team, there'll inevitably be loads of talk about favouritism. There's no way around it. The topic will always come up. This is really damaging because : a) discussions like that can get very unsavoury and b) it diverts attention away from the actual problem (ie) the competence of the officiating.

It can sometimes be annoying, because it can lead to situations where the clear best man for the job doesn't get to officiate the game. eg: Taufel not being allowed to stand as umpire for the 2007 WC final and Bucknor standing in for him, which in turn led to him and Dar making a complete hash of things at the end of the match. But it's still something that needs to be there.

You also have the potential situation arising of a local umpire trying too hard to make sure it doesn't look like he's favouring the home team and going the other way

 

[Adders]

While you're right, the rule is still necessary.

The problem imo hasn't ever been that home umpires will necessarily favour the home team, it's the impression that they favour one team. Say they get a big decision wrong purely due to incompetence and it goes in favour of his nation's team, there'll inevitably be loads of talk about favouritism. There's no way around it. The topic will always come up. This is really damaging because : a) discussions like that can get very unsavoury and b) it diverts attention away from the actual problem (ie) the competence of the officiating.

It can sometimes be annoying, because it can lead to situations where the clear best man for the job doesn't get to officiate the game. eg: Taufel not being allowed to stand as umpire for the 2007 WC final and Bucknor standing in for him, which in turn led to him and Dar making a complete hash of things at the end of the match. But it's still something that needs to be there.

So basically what this tells us is that cricket fans and pundits are ****s?...........Sounds about right.

 

[Black_Warrior]

While you're right, the rule is still necessary.

The problem imo hasn't ever been that home umpires will necessarily favour the home team, it's the impression that they favour one team. Say they get a big decision wrong purely due to incompetence and it goes in favour of his nation's team, there'll inevitably be loads of talk about favouritism. There's no way around it. The topic will always come up. This is really damaging because : a) discussions like that can get very unsavoury and b) it diverts attention away from the actual problem (ie) the competence of the officiating.

Excellent post. Below two posts highlight why neutral umpires were necessary. Imran Khan who was basically the chief architect of the movement in the late 80s just got sick of the "Pakistani umpires cheat, but English umpires make mistakes". Ideally we should have at least 7-8 really competent umpires so even if a Taufel misses out, we have one from a country not playing the World Cup finals

Nah that rule is there for a reason

did you ever see a tour of India in the 90s?

And there has never been a case of an Australian home umpire being a biased ****wit has there.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Not *****.

If ***** was an international umpire, he would barely manage to officiate in a handful of matches given his loose and flexible use of the pronoun "We"