ICC’s elite umpiring panel not reliable any more - R Mohan

[suraj]

ICC’s elite umpiring panel not reliable any more By R Mohan When the age of electronic reference to the television umpire was in its infancy in the early 1990s, Steve Bucknor had refused to refer a run out to the camera and a reprieved Jonty Rhodes helped save the Test for South Africa. The era of neutral umpires is fully upon us and Bucknor is still around to give the strangest interpretations to the concept of neutrality that was supposed to take the bias out of decision making. It is being very politely suggested by some Australian writers that Bucknor’s time is up, polite because his officiating has been so tilted towards Ricky Ponting’s men that it would have been almost embarrassing to the world champs. The South Africans are incensed but cannot say it. The conclusion is inescapable that but for such eccentric officiating, especially by Bucknor, that the series verdict may have been quite different, possibly even 1-1 rather than a whitewash. It was another West Indian, Billy Doctrove, who gave the crass leg before decision against Makhaya Ntini that allowed Australia to grab the 2-0 lead in Durban. The match carried on in a pool of artificial light on the final day that was in sharp contrast to the alacrity with which light was generally offered most evenings to Aussie batsmen. South African criticism of the conditions in which the second Test was forced to a conclusion by the two neutrals from the Caribbean is thought to have triggered such a terrible reaction in Bucknor that he took his job to its logical conclusion in the final Test. Anyone who saw two leg before decisions refused against Mike Hussey early in the Australian second innings would have come to the conclusion that there was a lot more to all this than meets the eye. It was suggested mildly somewhere that if Bucknor continues to adjudicate like this, electronic help for umpires in LBW situations might become compulsory. Hawkeye kept saying the ball was hitting the middle of the centre stump after pitching in line. Having lost 3-0, the South Africans can hardly complain. The system will, however, carry on with the celebrated Bucknor who has now stood in 111 Tests and four World Cup finals because he is a clear establishment favourite. How elite the elite panel of the ICC is too well known. Those Asian umpires who have been excluded from the elite panel on the avowed criterion of performance must be laughing up their sleeves at the failure rate of the favoured few like Bucknor. This is the official who mocked Dravid after having him put on the mat on a ball tampering charge. Bucknor’s handling of the (bumped) catch granted on Matthew Hayden’s word was in direct contrast to another appeal in similar circumstances in Johannesburg when Dipenaar took a catch quite cleanly in the same Test. His offering of light to the Aussies after Brett Lee failed to pick up the flight of one ball at the Wanderers was commented upon with acerbic wit on television. The option of bowling spinners under lights that was given to Ponting was not offered to the South Africans. The ICC will insist its technical assessment is right to a ‘T’. The umpires panel officers will spew statistics about how their panelists are 95 per cent right. What they may not record is the number of goofups of their favourites. Nor will they see the pattern that appears to suggest something else. The system is so loaded it appears colonial times are upon us again as it used to be when the ‘I’ in ICC stood for ‘Imperial’. With its multi million dollar budget in these sponsored times, the elite panel may have become something of a closed club. The Indian on the panel was conveniently retired at the age of 58 while an Englishman stood until attaining the ripe age of 65, because conveniently that is the retiring age in his country. One Asian was busted for incompetence while others with as poor a record continue to jet around the world. Having done little about streamlining the system when an Indian was heading the international panel, Indian cricket cannot really complain. The dichotomy of paying umpires the equivalent of what they earn in their home country, which is terribly evident when, while one official gets Rs 50,000 his colleague at the other end takes home Rs 4 lakhs from a Test, has been pointed out often enough. The flawed system continues because it suits those favoured by it.