Nope, Bucknor alone. In the wake of Sydney, demanding Bucknor be removed because he gave Dravid and Ganguly out (myself, only the Dravid one was clearly wrong) was ridiculous. And the scheduling is an issue with the ICC too.
You poor flower in the oppressed majority.Christians ftw.
No dispute there. This is not the same as claiming bias, though.
The other guy made some shockers too. It was not because of that. That was simply what put it over the edge. My comment was regarding the complaints they filed over the years, and the flak they get from posters such as Nnanden here because of it. And obviously ICC just ignored it. So at some point, if your repeated petitions don't work, you'd get fed up.
No, the reason Bangladesh barely plays any Tests and Australia play so many is that Australian board schedules a lot more and has more people willing to play them. ICC would be fine as long as they played two tests home and away every six years.
I'm not. India haven't either, though some fans have. All of their complaints were specific regarding the incompetence during the specific matches in question. There is no point in playing if you feel you have to play against the umpire too.
Well, the complaint was of incompetence. Whether he is biased is a subjective decision that really can't be proven in a game like cricket.
True. Is there a mandatory retirement age laid down for these guys? Wonder if there should be really.
Well if he is "incompetent" mostly in the sense that he makes decisions that consistently disadvantage a certain team, there's a good case to be made that he is biased. Otherwise, he would be universally incompetent.
In a game like cricket though, that is almost impossible to prove outside of someone admitting it. If someone is truly biased, they would be situational in their bias, to give decisions at crucial times, while perhaps still maintain overall neutrality. And even if they weren't that calculating, and were subconsciously bias, the sample size is too small for someone to establish it. I think umpires generally do want to get it right as much as they can, and I've read a really good quote that I try to go by: Never attribute to malice that what can be explained by incompetence. I know many people think he was biased, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he would be acting upon bias even if he had it because even if he didn't like a team in particular (we're all human), I'd think he'd be professional enough to keep his neutrality and do his best as an umpire at an elite level.
That's predicated on the assumption that the complaint is justified. If India claim he's incompetant, then let's see the proof it's true (and not just against them). If they're claiming he's just incompetant against them, they're essentially claiming a bias. If they're claiming a bias, let's see some proof (tall claims require tall proof) and if they can't, the BCCI need to suck it up.
You're using this as an example of a good thing? It's total crap. If you win the cricketing battle but lose because you got shafted by the umps, you should do something about it. It's unfair, and there is no point in playing the sport. You're not doing the sport any favors by 'getting over it' - you should absolutely raise hell and try to get that changed. There was controversy with an NFL ump, whose blown call potentially cost a team the game. It was one call, and he almost got fired. And rightly so. Umpiring in cricket is harder, so you can't expect all calls to be correct, but there is a certain baseline competence level you need and then it starts becoming a sham, and that's what it became with Bucknor in those matches. He is a professional doing a job and getting paid for it. You don't do that job well, and it should be sayonara.
Yes, of course. I watched those games, and I thought it was. Obviously, you may disagree.
But you are putting an undue burden on them. It's not the BCCI's job to prove bias, nor would they be able to. In the games they mention, the BCCI thought the standard of umpiring was below what an international umpire should perform, so therefore they lodged a complaint. The reasoning behind why the umpiring is substandard is irrelevent. It's not their responsibility to psychoanalyze him. The complaints were simply that - for this particular game, we found his performance to be unsatisfactory.
Well, yes, of course they did. If you repeatedly keep getting shafted by the same guy and the administration keeps 'disagreeing with you, you'd get pissed too. At that point, there is no other recourse for you if you really feel you are losing matches because of it.
And rightly so.
Which response is that? Refusing to play if he was an umpire? If you don't have faith that the game is being adjudicated at a level that you feel is necessary to ensure a fair outcome, you have every right to refuse to play because it's not a competition at that point. All the parties participating have to have faith in the fairness of the outcome, or the competition becomes meaningless. The ICC, in turn, has the right to fine you for that stance.
Surely you are talking crap.
Let the preachers cry loudly .I enjoy that.And this guy got the best retirement possible.
To be honest in that series, thought both standing umpires was piss poor, not just Bucknor, to victimise and single out Bucknor wasn't the right thing to do in that case...
As has been mentioned several times, that series was merely the culmination of frustration with Bucknor.
Of course. But, again, no-one else seemed so have much of a problem with Bucknor. The ICC, the organisation in charge of running the game, rates him. He is clearly meeting his core competancies otherwise, like the others who haven't, as you said, he'd be gone. It really is that simple and all the cage-rattling the BCCI has done just serves to embitter the rest of the world as they (finally, as it's turned out) get their way. They won in the end but at what cost?
Personal opinion but I don't believe for a second the BCCI's interest in getting rid of Bucknor was benevolently about umpiring standards. The ruckus would not have been half as great had they drawn the match, in my view.
it was about bucknor's umpiring standards...the match in all fairness should have been drawn and when the horrendous umpiring turned a draw into a defeat, the "ruckus" as you put it reached a crescendo....whether bucknor was biased or totally incompetent, the end result was the same for india...all umpires make mistakes, but when the mistakes reach ridiculous proportions and when one side is disproportionately on the wrong end of it repeated times, what exactly is wrong about complaining?
Nothing wrong with complaining. Having a hissy fit and demanding the replacement of an official no-one else has a problem with and who meets said organisation's competancy standards, that's where I and the BCCI differ. Sorry but I'm still not convinced it's purely about his umpiring standards, either. I strongly suspect they think he's just a biased git.
