hmmm that is true, but then again, him not umpiring this match pretty much rules him out of umpiring a match involving either of these teams again, and if this sort of thing continues there will be a huge list of various umpires who are ineligible to umpire certain matches simply because of the amount of whinging that has gone on.
That's highly doubtful.
That's an interesting reading of my post, not one supported by the actual words I used of course, but interesting nonetheless.
...if he officiated in the next Test and made an error against Ind, all hell would break loose. Not to say the same would not happen if the error went against Aus.
Because one team has lost faith in his ability to fairly adjudicate a Test match.
I'm not disputing that he is, actually. It's obvious he'd been past his best for some time (although I did actually think he'd improved a little of late, which seems a bit ironic in the context of recent events) and should've been quietly lead out to pasture for his own good a while ago.
But can one game not provide evidence of the incompetence of an umpire? Forget the accusations of bias - why should an umpire be considered good enough if he makes this many mistakes? Just because he didn't make as many last match, doesn't really mean anything if he completely lost it this match.
Which is just a polite way of calling his impartiality into question.
But they have. That's the truth. They can certainly lie and say we have faith in him and let him continue on, but what would be the point? That situation would not be any better, where one team is constantly afraid that one specific umpire may cost them a close match again. And then let's say one more mistake is made? You can't play the game if you can't trust the guy making the decisions. It's really that simple.
If it was his first test, possibly. It wasn't tho, it was his 120th. To dismiss him as incompetent based on that is like saying Bradman was a bunny 'cos he scored zero in his last innings.
TBH the mistakes that he made were atrocious.
I'd far rather that than the precedent that has been set.
I suppose we disagree then. I see no point in sport where the participants don't believe the outcome is fair.
The participants are (almost) certainly wrong that the outcome was unfair, and as a result that's their problem IMO.
The outcome was unfair, the question is if it was due to simple errors and a one time thing, or if its something long term with an umpire.
The outcome was, but assuming that it was nothing deliberate on Bucknor's part, it's just as likely to be unfair on the Aussies next match.
And for whatever reason, the ICC would have been ok with that?