Umpiring : The Way Forward

[DesiChap]

Technology the only answer: Shepherd SIMON BRIGGS

David Shepherd has called for more technological help for officials after the flare-up in Australia. Shepherd, 67, whose total of 92 Tests is exceeded only by Steve Bucknor’s 120, believes it is unfair that viewers at home have better information than the men making the decisions. He has personal experience of what he calls “trial by television” — a media storm after an England collapse at Old Trafford in 2001 in which four wickets fell to unnoticed no balls came close to driving him into retirement. “Technology has got to be used more,” Shepherd said. “We are judged by technology and people have started thinking that the technology is better than the umpires. That’s not true: on an lbw appeal, an umpire is better placed to judge whether the ball will hit the stumps. But perhaps the TV could help check whether there was an inside edge. “Cricket will lose something of its spirit as more decisions are referred but ultimately it is a game for players, not for umpires, and something has to be done.” Shepherd’s feelings are shared by some of the top men at the ICC. The incoming president, David Morgan, takes a particularly strong stance. “Increasingly there’s a view that we have to embrace technology more than we are,” he said. “The executive board will be looking at this at our next meeting in March.” Shepherd’s main concern is that the use of replays and other aids should not add too many interruptions. “Perhaps the system where each team can call for a certain number of referrals could be the way forward.” Shepherd is also worried about the strain on the umpires. “When I see things like this, I think ‘Thank God I’ve retired’. I went through the wringer with the Old Trafford Test and it nearly finished me. “I can’t imagine what the guys out in Australia are going through now. Imagine if this had happened in the first of two back-to-back games: someone would have had to turn around and go back out there just a couple of days later.”

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080109/jsp/sports/story_8759989.jsp

[varun]

“Cricket will lose something of its spirit as more decisions are referred but ultimately it is a game for players, not for umpires, and something has to be done.”

This coming from one of the most famous umpires ever ! Take that you "umpires are an integral part of the game" ppl :P

[DesiChap]

I feel for Steve: Darrell A STAFF REPORTER Calcutta: Darrell Hair says he feels for Steve Bucknor and knows what he going through, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald. The ICC, bowing to pressure by India, has axed Bucknor from next week’s third Test between India and Australia in Perth in the wake of the controversial Sydney Test. “I feel for Steve,” Hair was quoted as saying by the paper. “In a way, it’s probably the best for him to stand down and relieve the pressure a little bit.” ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, announcing the decision, compared the controversies to those of the forfeited Oval Test, which led to Hair’s being dropped from the Elite Panel. Should Bucknor share the same fate, Hair could fill the breach. He is up for review in March. “The desire to come back is strong,” Hair said. “I am still working with the ICC at the associate level and I will be working as an umpiring assessor at the youth World Cup, but I would love to make it back to the top level again.” Hair also wants the ICC to embrace an umpiring referral system that could help relieve pressure on the umpires. He also supported the ICC’s referral system that will allow players to appeal against decisions by the umpires.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest dada_rocks]

He was one of the most unassuming character despite being the best ever in his field.. hats off to sir.. Appeal system sud be brought in asap.. wonder what is Sunny gavaskar doing

[Guest dada_rocks]

This coming from one of the most famous umpires ever ! Take that you "umpires are an integral part of the game" ppl :P

:two_thumbs_up:

[fineleg]

I know a soul or two here at ICF who are going to be devastated. One of the supposedly most "charming" umpires, has now said Technology the only answer. ================= BRING IN TECHNOLOGY to LBW, Edges/snicks, clean catches, run outs, you name it. Bring in appeals/challenge systems...Here is hoping for it. :yay:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Anakin]

I suppose Shepherd also can't think independently or whatever the cra.p some people take pride in.

[Mr. Wicket]

Shepherd's wrong. The game will lose its charm and the variability and randomness that comes from umpires' decisions. :P

[Brainfade]

Shepherd's wrong. The game will lose its charm and the variability and randomness that comes from umpires' decisions. :P

I am OK with the variability and randomness as long as they are evenly distributed among the 2 sides. It is the blatant bias that is a problem.

[Anakin]

I am OK with the variability and randomness as long as they are evenly distributed among the 2 sides. It is the blatant bias that is a problem.

Not a problem, you'll have customary few words of criticism of that, and then the truckload of criticism why one team still can't save a match or win a match despite those umpiring blunders and against a very good team.

[beetle]

yeyyyyyyyyyyy Shepherd uncle ji ki jai ho!:yay:

[Sachinism]

I know a soul or two here at ICF who are going to be devastated. One of the supposedly most "charming" umpires, has now said Technology the only answer. ================= BRING IN TECHNOLOGY to LBW, Edges/snicks, clean catches, run outs, you name it. Bring in appeals/challenge systems...Here is hoping for it. :yay:

hawkeye for LBW's would result in some very low scoring games

[DesiChap]

Bucknor's replacement is no pin-up January 09, 2008 GETTING Billy Bowden to replace Steve Bucknor for the Perth Test may have saved the series, but the eccentric New Zealander is no pin-up in Australia. Two years ago a poll of Australia's players rated him by far the worst umpire on the ICC's elite panel. Almost three-quarters of Australia's 25 contracted player put him bottom of the pile. Apart from his flamboyant gestures, which leave him open to criticism of grandstanding, Bowden has often been under scrutiny for decisions made in matches involving Australia. Two years ago he and Pakistan's Aleem Dar lost the confidence of both Australia and South Africa teams in their at times fractious series in Australia. Even Richie Benaud was critical of their mishandling of the Sydney Test, where the umpires kept the players off the field when everyone, including the players, wanted to get on with the game. Earlier in that summer, Bowden was one of the umpires cited in an official complaint made by the visiting West Indies team. But the ICC had little choice in this matter once they had determined to sack their most experienced umpire, Steve Bucknor, to appease the Indian team and board. Bowden was already down to share fourth Test duties with Asad Rauf, and with series' currently in South Africa and New Zealand, and three Australians on the 10-man panel (Simon Taufel, Daryl Harper and Darrell Hair) ineligible, the choice was limited. The ICC has already announced plans to expand the elite panel from 10 to 12, and the dramas of the past week may serve to hasten moves towards introducing technology to assist the next generation of umpires. During the Sydney Test ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed canvassed a proposal for the batsmen and the fielding side to have a limited number of challenges – perhaps three per innings – in which they can ask for a decision made by an on-field umpire to be referred to a television umpire for review. Speed said the notion was gaining currency among the 10 ICC members and could be trialled as early as September's Champions trophy in Pakistan. But Cricket Australia is yet to be convinced that it will work, and is not minded to vote in favour of the trial. The support of seven of the 10 voting members of the ICC is required for the trial to go ahead. "We need to recognise that (umpiring) is a seriously hard job," Speed said. "The umpire gets to see it once in real life. We get to see it 10 times on television with all sorts of technological aids, and we still can't make up our mind in many cases. "The dilemma we face is that technology has got better. It's available. What do we do with it?" AAP http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23028071-23212,00.html

[DesiChap]

"We need to recognise that (umpiring) is a seriously hard job," Speed said. "The umpire gets to see it once in real life. We get to see it 10 times on television with all sorts of technological aids, and we still can't make up our mind in many cases. "The dilemma we face is that technology has got better. It's available. What do we do with it?"

You use it you moron. You really need someone to tell you to use something good and useful ?

[aussiefan]

how no pinup? you think he is unattractive man? needs a haircut? or are you against disabled people? it's not his fault he can't straighten his fingers out anymore....:haha:

[Ram]

The Way Forward

The Way Forward

Before we get on to the actual subject matter, a specific public safety warning to some concerned parties. If your name is either Steve Bucknor or Mark Benson and by some weird co-incidence, you also happen to part of the ICC Elite panel of the umpires, you would be well advised to stay in a safe undisclosed location, change your telephone numbers and e-mail addresses and avoid public glare for the time being. The warning is valid till the controversy surrounding the 2nd test played at Sydney between India and Aus dies down. Truly, such has been the eruption of public angst at the umpires following Sydney test that at some point, both the umpires would have feared for their safety. You wouldn’t be too off the mark, if you are tempted to think whether this is the most action packed, controversial test in the history of the game since the Bodyline series. Bodyline provoked a diplomatic crisis, the Sydney test stopped just micrometers short of that. A spree of umpiring errors that literally turned the game on its head, accusations of unsportsmanlike play, a nail-biting finale with victory achieved just minutes before close of play, racism allegations, a team that refused to travel to its next venue, a threat of boycott, you name it, this test has had it all. There is a very fine line between an exhibition of sporting talents and sports entertainment. This test series seems to have crossed that line. If you are a true sporting connoisseur, you will totally hate till what has happened till now. If you like controversies, this will be a marquee series that will stand highlighted. A central aspect of all the controversy surrounding this series so far has been the issue of incompetent umpiring. Criticism of the umpires in this test match has ranged from the extreme to the reasonable “This is all a grand conspiracy against the brown man” bellow some, while other screech “The umpires deliberately favored Australia” in their shrill voices. How much credence needs to be given to such allegations is better left to the imagination and common sense of the reader but an undeniable fact of Sydney test has been the umpiring decisions played a too much of a role in deciding the outcome of the game. As Anil Kumble himself said “Thing happen on the field, but in this test, too many things happened on the field”. This issue HAS to be addressed. In such dramatic circumstances, it is important for us, as cricket loving public to not fall prey to extreme voices that have gone kaboom since the test finished and have totally hijacked the debate on umpiring. Controversy is opportunity for moderate reform, and not radical measures. The question we need to specifically ask ourselves is , “ Is this an issue of the role of umpires in a cricket match, or is this, actually, an issue of incompetent umpiring ? “ A little thought will make it as clear as daylight that umpiring, as a phenomenon by itself, is not meant to cause controversy. The issue is one of incompetence, where the umpires have committed glaring errors which they have done even gotten close to. Therefore, we would do well to first specifically address the issue of competency of umpires, rather than going bellicose over the role of umpires in a cricket match. If I can draw a corporate analogy here, If a manager is found to be performing very badly, the top brass will probably fire him and hire a new one and not conclude “It’s time to replace all our managers by Artificially intelligent Neural Networks that will take all the decisions from here on” Also, is it any co-incidence the scrutiny on umpiring errors has multiplied in several magnitudes in the last decade, when there has been an explosion in technology used to showcase the game to the viewer. Thanks to geeky additions like snickometer, Hawkeye and Hotspot, the cricket viewer is now able to see visuals he has never seen before, hear sounds he never heard before. The sole unlucky party in this new phenomenon has been the umpire. Simply put, if you are considering a career switch to become an international umpire, think again. For its part, its vital that the ICC takes a series of short, medium and long-term measures to restore public faith in the game. It is incumbent on them to address every constituent of the cricketing audience and that includes the extreme voices. If they let this chance slip, they may never get it back again. For starters, ICC must,

• Introduce the referral system on an experimental basis. Crucial decisions gone wrong at vital stages of the match can make the decisive difference. There has already been talk of this happening in the ICC Champions trophy to be played in Pakistan later this year. It will be interesting to see what the feedback is, both from the players and the viewer after that experiment is conducted

• Standardize the circumstances under which line calls and doubtful catches are referred to the third umpire. There is no question that the Ganguly catch in the second innings of the Sydney test should have atleast been referred to the third umpire. Also, a recent development has been the players walking back into the field, after seeing the replay of their dismissal on the giant screen and finding it to be controversial. All these finer points of when a catch should be referred, or a when player can walk back into the field needs be ironed out. We cannot possibly have two different players given two contrasting decisions under the same circumstances, especially when technology is involved

In the medium term, the ICC must strongly consider carrying out a comprehensive re-assessment of various responsibilities an umpire carries out on a cricketing field and try to relieve him of certain non-critical roles which take a lot of his time and concentration but act as an impediment to fulfilling his primary role, which is that of getting the decisions right.

• In this regard, the umpires’ responsibilities on the cricket field must be restricted to

1. Giving LBW and caught behind decisions
2. Declaring wides , byes and leg-byes

3. Ensuring on-field discipline

4. Stop ball and pitch tampering
5. Keeping track of playing and pitch conditions.

• Counting balls , overs, signaling boundaries and keeping count of overs by different bowlers should be done by some other match official like the T.V umpire , who for most times , sits and idles away his time

• The ICC must also explore ways to use technology to find out no-balls due to over-stepping. The single biggest roadblock for an umpire to get LBW and faint-nick decisions right is that fact that he has to watch out for over-stepping and then immediately shift focus to the delivery as it reaches the batsman at the other end . We should consider using state-of –the art technologies like using piezo-electric transducers to determine of the bowler has over-stepped.

And in the long-term and this probably forms the crux of the most important steps that need to be taken, the ICC must,

• Establish a Center of Excellence for umpires that has accredited, sophisticated curriculum and methodologies to train umpires. To be more precise, to become an international umpire, it must not sufficient to merely pass a knowledge test and clear the minimum levels of “hearing” and “seeing” requirements. A Holistic approach that focuses on the different regimens that an umpire needs to be put through, to help him get his mechanisms that he uses to make his decisions right needs to be put in place. This includes a standard fitness and diet regimen, usage of latest audio-visual aids that help simulate match simulations etc. With such a system in place, we can expect a new batch of well-trained, fit umpires to start entering “service” in 5-6 years time.

• The ICC should also consider drastically lowering the retirement ages of umpires. It is inconceivable to think old men past their 60s have to stand for upto 7 hours at a stretch, sometimes in oppressive conditions, and are expected to get all their decisions right, through the day. Every possible measure that can help to increase umpiring efficiency, including the use of a new set of umpires every session needs to considered. The focus must not be on the how much cricket the umpire has played at the FC or international level, but how good he is at making split second decisions.

If such measures are taken, it is quite reasonable to think umpiring standards will get better and we all can start watching and enjoying cricket for what it is best known for , a competition between bat and ball and not what its famous for now, a total farce sometimes decided by umpiring incompetence.

[yoda]

nah, we should just enjoy all the excitement human element brings into the game.

[yoda]

Finally...someone from the ICC accepts umpiring was below par http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330129.html

Meanwhile, ICC president Ray Mali also backed the decision to remove Bucknor from officiating in Perth. "We recognised from the outset that the umpiring in the second Test was below the very high standard we have come to expect from our Elite Panel and we noted with concern the enormous reaction to it and realised that we could potentially have a serious international diplomatic incident on our hands," Mali said. "By standing Steve down for the third Test we have successfully defused the situation, at least for the time being, and so what was a sporting issue has not become a political crisis.

Is the ICC to blame for the poor standards of umpiring by refusing to even acknowledge that they had a problem on hand? All we have heard in the past was how the "elite" umps got 95% and 99% of the decisions correct when the cricket viewing public considered just a single umpire (Taufel) worthy of his job. If the ICC goes back to brushing aside the quality of umpiring and keep hyping them up, it is fair to expect the standard to keep falling. Why would anyone be motivated to do a better job (especially when most of them are borderline incompetent) if they are already being given high praise for sucking at it?