pasag
RTDAS
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?
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?