• 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.

3rd Test at Headingley, Leeds

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Decision making as an umpire isn't limited to LBWs and caught behinds.

Administrative tasks can influence a player's career just as much - a lot of it has to do with code of conduct violations.

Match management is an aspect of umpiring that is never discussed on broadcast and wildly underrated by fans who have little to no experience with it - it's the difference between a side copping a bad decision and moving on, Vs them pulling their side off the field all together.

It's also vitally important to follow procedures and protocol to the letter - any wavering or inconsistency can be misinterpreted as bias towards a side, which is obviously a massive issue. Good umpires follow the book perfectly, but also have to know when to read between the lines and apply common sense. It's a very fine line to walk.

And ultimately it is the match officials team that gets held accountable if a game overruns the schedule or ends in disrepute. Yes the players get penalised, but the match officials team takes a hammering for not handling the game better. I've heard of these stories from umpires who have been in these situations first hand at Associate level.
Yep, and that's precisely the issue. They have to do too much other management to be judged solely on decision making*. The ones that are really good at decision making may never make it to the top. This is why we have umpires that we deem as sub-par at high levels.

*I personally define this as anything requiring them to signal to the scorer or respond to an appeal.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Why would umpires be involved in coaching/team management? I thought "administrative tasks" was mainly a euphemism for paperwork, booking Ubers to the ground, flicking the bails off convincingly at the end of every session etc.
At an associate level a lot of it is who you know as opposed to what you know. My ex school coach is an international umpire and he barely umpired local games even before he graduated from all those courses.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Yep, and that's precisely the issue. They have to do too much other management to be judged solely on decision making*. The ones that are really good at decision making may never make it to the top. This is why we have umpires that we deem as sub-par at high levels.

*I personally define this as anything requiring them to signal to the scorer or respond to an appeal.
What makes a good umpire at international level cannot be drastically different to what makes a good umpire in club cricket because then you would have no pathway to identify/develop umpires.

It's not practical for 99% of all cricket played to have an onfield umpire that does nothing but make decisions while someone else handles all the match management.

And besides, this isn't even a big problem. Every professional I've spoken to, and 99% of public figures in cricket have all said the same thing - umpires mistakes are part of the game, we just accept it and move on. Heck most people in this thread have said the same thing.

It's only a vocal minority on CW that has such a hard time accepting this, along with armchair experts and casual fans on social media. Websites like Cricinfo love fanning the flames of this sort of outrage as well.
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
In trying to emphathise with umpires, does anyone have any experience of umpiring to really quick bowling? Must be bloody tough
 

cnerd123

likes this
At an associate level a lot of it is who you know as opposed to what you know. My ex school coach is an international umpire and he barely umpired local games even before he graduated from all those courses.
Singapore and Malaysia are infamous for this and it doesn't apply to the rest of the Associate umpiring world from what I've heard and seen TBF.

The ICC also is reluctant to get involved. To my understanding, the heada of Asia Associate umpire development are located in Malaysia/Singapore, and as a result just use that power to appoint themselves and their friends, rather than doing what they should be and grooming umpires from all around the region.

Most of this is just what I've heard over a few drinks by old angry men so take it with a grain of salt if you must. But in HK, umpire development is very meritocratic.
 

cnerd123

likes this
In trying to emphathise with umpires, does anyone have any experience of umpiring to really quick bowling? Must be bloody tough
I've umpired Tanwir Afzal and Aizaz Khan. They're medium pace by international standard and yet I understood why umpires have a hard time calling front foot no balls.

Hoping to eventually umpire the likes of Kyle Christie/Imran Arif/Jay Davison when they're in full rhythm just to see what that's like. They probably push 130ks at their quickest.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What makes a good umpire at international level cannot be drastically different to what makes a good umpire in club cricket because then you would have no pathway to identify/develop umpires.

It's not practical for 99% of all cricket played to have an onfield umpire that does nothing but make decisions while someone else handles all the match management.

And besides, this isn't even a big problem. Every professional I've spoken to, and 99% of public figures in cricket have all said the same thing - umpires mistakes are part of the game, we just accept it and move on. Heck most people in this thread have said the same thing.

It's only a vocal minority on CW that has such a hard time accepting this, along with armchair experts and casual fans on social media. Websites like Cricinfo love fanning the flames of this sort of outrage as well.
I actually agree with all that. It's just a limitation and an explanation for why the best at decision making may not be at the top.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was that the same test where Chris Broad was given out stumped despite his foot never moving from being about seven inches behind the crease?
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Was that the same test where Chris Broad was given out stumped despite his foot never moving from being about seven inches behind the crease?
I don’t recall that. He was given out in the second innings caught behind when he missed it by 6 inches and refused to go. Graham Gooch had to drag him away from the crease and he walked off pointing at the Pakistanis and calling them effing cheats. It was farcical. They just gave everything out. The same thing happened to Australia who toured the following year.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just what you get on the SC without neutral umpires I suppose

The irony of course being Pakistan was cheating to actually win
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
What Ben Stokes, Jack Leach and Headingley 2019 tell us about Test cricket - King Cricket

'It's six or out....

It's six!'
-Jonothan Agnew, Test Match Special

Have you seen No Country For Old Men? You should watch No Country For Old Men.

No Country For Old Men is a striking and excellent film and while the ending is not immediately satisfying, that’s kind of the point. You’ll find you think about No Country For Old Men a fair bit more than the average film after it finishes.

One of the most exciting scenes involves Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh tossing a coin.

Heads or tails is not an especially exciting thing in itself. This coin toss is exciting because there’s something riding on it. Quite a lot in fact. No-one states it explicitly, but it is very clear that for this particular coin toss, the gas station attendant’s life is at stake.

Heads or tails?


Imagine that. A coin in the air and just two possible outcomes, one of which is unthinkable.

Watching the film, you feel this. It’s horrible, but it’s exciting.

Jeopardy
It was pointed out to us recently that we use the word ‘jeopardy’ a hell of a lot more than the average person. Despite this, the word is almost exclusively reserved for when we’re talking about cricket.

Jeopardy is at the heart of cricket drama. It is the reason why a six during a Test match run-chase with nine wickets down is infinitely more exciting than a six in the first over of a limited overs match.

Test Match Special commentator Jonathan Agnew put it best at the end of the 2019 Headingley Test. England were eight runs from victory and Australia were one wicket from victory and Ben Stokes had just launched the ball into the air.

“It’s six or out…” he said, and as the ball sailed through the air, all we could do was ponder which.


Imagine that: the ball in the air and just two possible outcomes, one of which is unthinkable.

Watching or listening, you felt it. You felt it so much more because of what was at stake. It was horrible, but it was exciting.

A six is not a six
The shortest formats are specifically engineered to encourage batsmen to try and hit sixes; to make them feel safe to do so. With ten wickets to use in 20 overs (or 100 balls), they can hit with near impunity.

But you can’t buy excitement so easily. By reducing the jeopardy, you also diminish the six. It’s not the fact that it arrives more frequently – it’s because of what’s at stake.

Imagine that before he tossed the coin, Chigurh had told the gas station attendant that it wasn’t all on this one toss; that he was willing to give him a good few chances and he’d toss several times.

The scene’s not quite so tense now, is it? It’s not quite so exciting.

No shortcuts
This is not to lay into the T20 format like there’s nothing of merit there. The aim here is to celebrate Test cricket and point out that its epic nature and long hours are precisely what help it transcend other sport.

You can’t strip away all but the most exciting 100 deliveries and expect a match to feel the same.

There are no shortcuts. Context is everything.

Take Ben Stokes, for example. The Ben Stokes story starts way back, but even if we limit it to this one Test match alone, he has a back story.

He is the guy who played a **** shot in the first innings when England were bowled out for 67.


He is the guy who bowled a leviathan of a spell and took crucial wickets when England found they were running out of fit bowlers in Australia’s second innings.

He is also the guy who had made three runs off 72 balls before he finally hit a boundary.

It all matters, but that last one is the biggie really. Taken in isolation three runs off 72 balls is not especially exciting. It was, in fact, excruciating to watch and doubtless just as excruciating to produce.

But it added to what was to come. The fact that Stokes played like that despite not knowing that it would add to what was to come only serves to elevate the importance of that passage of play further.

Ben Stokes made that investment against the odds and if you watched him, hoping that he would ultimately succeed, you made an emotional investment against those same odds.

The other hero
Superheroes are dull when they can do anything. The most memorable heroes are human and vulnerable. Cricket delivers this brilliantly because it always has the least competent batsman at the crease when the stakes are highest.

If you’re going to fail, fail early, because there is nothing more painful than getting close and losing. Nine wickets down, one shot from victory, both teams are as close to victory as it is possible to be. With all the work to get to that position, all that emotional investment, losing doesn’t come more painful.

Precisely because of this, the tension rises. Tension rises and the guy who’s batting now is the worst batsman of all – which only raises that tension further.


Number 11s are elite cricketers. They are elite bowlers who are also obliged to do a job for which they have no exceptional competence whatsoever.

They are fallible. This is why nine-wickets-down jeopardy is the greatest sporting jeopardy of all.

A top order batsman might thrill you with a lofted drive, but every single delivery a number 11 faces is a coin in the air with everything at stake. And in a Test match, it can go on like this indefinitely.

On day four of a five day Test match, there was no deadline in sight for Jack Leach. He had to block, he had to survive, and he had to keep on surviving while Ben Stokes accelerated time from the other end.


That No Country For Old Men scene is four minutes long and we don’t see the gas station attendant beforehand. All we know of him is what we see in that scene. That’s our entire emotional investment and yet those few seconds before he calls heads are excruciating.

A Test like Headingley 2019 provides a lot more back story than that, but the protracted tension of the climactic moments feeds into our emotional investment too.

Ben Stokes and Jack Leach batted together for an hour and every minute of that hour was more exciting than the last.

Heads or tails, we wondered.
 
Last edited:

Top