Teams selecting umpires

[sledger]

The fact that you think it would it happen at all leaves you in la la land. The number of people who would seriously accuse Taufel of cheating is very small and those that do obviously doesn't follow cricket very closely, probably spend too much time reading books.

Tbh the British public are pretty stupid and easily influenced, wouldnt be at all surprised to see him become some sort of hate figure, english people always find some sort of scape goat to lay blame on whatever sporting misjustice that follows the previous one, anyone with any sense mind you wouldnt accuse him at all, however, stupid people are in greater numbers than those with common sense unfortunately.

 

[Richard]

The fact that you think it would it happen at all leaves you in la la land. The number of people who would seriously accuse Taufel of cheating is very small and those that do obviously doesn't follow cricket very closely

It's not very small, if you think it would be that leaves you in la la land.

 

[Mister Wright]

Bucknor has had a brilliant umpiring career. Hope he gets back into form.

Yeah, he's the person I feel for the most in all of this. He has been such a great umpire for so long. And he was so nice signing things and posing for photos when I was in the Caribbean for the World Cup. Can only imagine how it is affecting him, as I would imagine he puts a lot of pride in his performance.

 

[jeevan]

Teams vetoing umpires based on a very strong evidence of incompetence or misconduct is very different from teams picking them. Only two instances of this so far, Hair and Bucknor. And those precedents are good for raising umpiring standards, hopefully other umpires will not perform their duties in such an egregious manner.

(In this test, if Bucknor and Benson had reviewed their own performance after each day, by the 4th and 5th day they should've been far more receptive to atleast calling for 3rd umpire referrals. Could've cut some of the mistakes down).

If there is a shortage of really talented umpires, it actually simplifies the case for introducing technology and referrals. Which also is a good thing.

 

[Engle]

Before the match starts, both teams must have full and complete confidence in the ability of the umpires to adjudicate fairly, competently and without bias.
This is the very essence of umpiring.

If one team does not have the full confidence of a certain ump, then you're asking for trouble by selecting that ump.

Rocket science ? I think not.

 

[Bob Bamber]

The Worst decision made in a long while. The ICC have buckled under financial pressure from the BCCI.

This sets an extremely dangerous president , which will cause huge problems in the future.

 

[Richard]

Before the match starts, both teams must have full and complete confidence in the ability of the umpires to adjudicate fairly, competently and without bias.
This is the very essence of umpiring.

If one team does not have the full confidence of a certain ump, then you're asking for trouble by selecting that ump.

Rocket science ? I think not.

Yeah, that's pretty much my feelings on the matter.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Teams vetoing umpires based on a very strong evidence of incompetence or misconduct is very different from teams picking them. Only two instances of this so far, Hair and Bucknor. And those precedents are good for raising umpiring standards, hopefully other umpires will not perform their duties in such an egregious manner.

(In this test, if Bucknor and Benson had reviewed their own performance after each day, by the 4th and 5th day they should've been far more receptive to atleast calling for 3rd umpire referrals. Could've cut some of the mistakes down).

If there is a shortage of really talented umpires, it actually simplifies the case for introducing technology and referrals. Which also is a good thing.

Well, if you actually think about it, no it isn't. One's just the thin end of the wedge for the other.

Taufel's decision to give Sachin LBW to Collingwood in the second test over here was worse (IMHO) than any of the decisions Bucknor gave in the game just finished, yet he's more-or-less universally acknowledged as the best about. That being so, what does make a decision so egregious in its error as to constitute very strong evidence of incompetence or misconduct one wonders?

The Worst decision made in a long while. The ICC have buckled under financial pressure from the BCCI.

This sets an extremely dangerous president , which will cause huge problems in the future.

Eeek. None of us want that.

 

[silentstriker]

Taufel's decision to give Sachin LBW to Collingwood in the second test over here was worse (IMHO) than any of the decisions Bucknor gave in the game just finished, yet he's more-or-less universally acknowledged as the best about. That being so, what does make a decision so egregious in its error as to constitute very strong evidence of incompetence or misconduct one wonders?

A series of those errors, all in the same match.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A series of those errors, all in the same match.

Like Howell in the (English) summer you mean? Again, no calls for his head.

I'm no great fan of Bucknor, but whichever way you cut it he's been hung out to dry because the BCCI say so. It rankles, frankly.

 

[duffer]

Like Howell in the (English) summer you mean? Again, no calls for his head.

I'm no great fan of Bucknor, but whichever way you cut it he's been hung out to dry because the BCCI say so. It rankles, frankly.

How about mostly against one team? Considering the history we've had with him too I can understand the Indian side having no confidence in him making the right decisions.

Right decision was made in the end

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How about mostly against one team?

Right, and that's essentially what this comes down to. In reality, it shouldn't matter if an umpire makes 10 errors spread evenly across two sides or 10 errors all favouring one team. It might, in a sense, be better for the balance of the contest if they were more evenly spread, but it certainly doesn't reflect in any meaningful way on their capacity as an umpire. A mistake is a mistake and naturally the victim of it is going to be essentially random.

The only reason it would matter if all those umpiring errors went against one team would be if there was reason to believe they were not in fact errors, which is obviously a totally different accusation from one of incompetence.

I don't object at all to Bucknor being removed from the elite panel if it is deemed by the powers that be that his abilities are no longer good enough, but it is somewhat distasteful that a veteran umpire of over 100 tests who has many plenty of mistakes in the past (as all umpires do) was last week considered capable by the ICC but is no longer, because of the protest of one particular cricketing body about one series of errors that happened to go mainly against one side. If Australia had copped half a dozen bad decisions and India only a couple, would the BCCI have lobbied for Bucknor's removal? I think the answer to that question is obvious, and in that case he'd probably still be umpiring in Perth for the third test, and that's the problem here.

Removing umpires who are not up to the necessary standard is a good thing. Removing them because one team doesn't like that they got more bad decisions than the opposition in the last test and they happen to have a lot of money backing them is not.

 

[sledger]

Right, and that's essentially what this comes down to. In reality, it shouldn't matter if an umpire makes 10 errors spread evenly across two sides or 10 errors all favouring one team. It might, in a sense, be better for the balance of the contest if they were more evenly spread, but it certainly doesn't reflect in any meaningful way on their capacity as an umpire. A mistake is a mistake and naturally the victim of it is going to be essentially random.

The only reason it would matter if all those umpiring errors went against one team would be if there was reason to believe they were not in fact errors, which is obviously a totally different accusation from one of incompetence.

I don't object at all to Bucknor being removed from the elite panel if it is deemed by the powers that be that his abilities are no longer good enough, but it is somewhat distasteful that a veteran umpire of over 100 tests who has many plenty of mistakes in the past (as all umpires do) was last week considered capable by the ICC but is no longer, because of the protest of one particular cricketing body about one series of errors that happened to go mainly against one side. If Australia had copped half a dozen bad decisions and India only a couple, would the BCCI have lobbied for Bucknor's removal? I think the answer to that question is obvious, and in that case he'd probably still be umpiring in Perth for the third test, and that's the problem here.

Yes, completely agreed, gun post.

 

[funnygirl]

Umpires should act neutral ,they have no right to take decisions lacking any sense .

What explanation Bucknor has to say for not reffering a close stumping to 3rd umpire ?

Why did he make fun of Dravid in a previous series .He is an umpire ,who has to be a neutral .

Players need assurance that a particular umpire has no such bias .In this case that faith is not there, from the past experinces as well .

A player can be dropped for his poor form ,so is umpire .One bad day in office is fine ,but 5 bad days,not tolerable .

 

[silentstriker]

Bucknor does have a bit of history with India tbh. Calling the umpire biased would be unfair, as there is no proof...but you can't ignore the reality of one side having no faith in the ability of an umpire to judge the game fairly. The whole business of cricket (unless we get some much-needed change in umpiring) relies on the absolute final word of the umpire, and you can't really officiate something if you aren't trusted to make the right decision.

 

[sledger]

Bucknor does have a bit of history with India tbh. Calling the umpire biased would be unfair, as there is no proof...but you can't ignore the reality of one side having no faith in the ability of an umpire to judge the game fairly. The whole business of cricket (unless we get some much-needed change in umpiring) relies on the absolute final word of the umpire, and you can't really officiate something if you aren't trusted to make the right decision.

imo though, lacking faith in an umpire is no excuse for squealing foul play as soon as a few decisions go down against you, no matter how bad the decisions may be, hardly a professional approach.

 

[jeevan]

Like Howell in the (English) summer you mean? Again, no calls for his head.

I'm no great fan of Bucknor, but whichever way you cut it he's been hung out to dry because the BCCI say so. It rankles, frankly.

So, India shouldnt complain about Bucknor, because presumably some other team didnt complain about Howell?

It would have been abominable if, say, there was an umpire who made many many mistakes, but coincidentally 80% of them favoring India. And then the opposing team tends to get him removed and BCCI threw it's weight around to stop that removal from happening.

 

[jeevan]

imo though, lacking faith in an umpire is no excuse for squealing foul play as soon as a few decisions go down against you, no matter how bad the decisions may be, hardly a professional approach.

It is not a faith question. A string of hard documentary evidence that a certain umpire is making far too many mistakes that completely alter the nature of a game.

Nobody is merely alleging or suspecting that Hair was officiating inappropriately or that Bucknor is incompetent.

 

[sledger]

It is not a faith question. A string of hard documentary evidence that a certain umpire is making far too many mistakes that completely alter the nature of a game.

Nobody is merely alleging or suspecting that Hair was officiating inappropriately or that Bucknor is incompetent.

whether that is the case or not, what gets my rag, is the fact that as previously mentioned the ICC obviously rated him as a decent umpire at the start of the match, and still did untill the Indian Cricket Board started to whinge, and him being replaced being based more on this than anything else.

 

[silentstriker]

whether that is the case or not, what gets my rag, is the fact that as previously mentioned the ICC obviously rated him as a decent umpire at the start of the match, and still did untill the Indian Cricket Board started to whinge, and him being replaced being based more on this than anything else.

The alternative is to let him umpire in the next match when one team does not have confidence in his ability. I don't see that as a good outcome either.