Bucknor DONE!!

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In fairness, among umpires on the ICC Elite panel, Bucknor makes the worst mistakes, if not the most mistakes.

 

[johnperichon69]

FFS, so you Bucknor-hating people are telling me that no-one's ever missed a blatant nick before? The way people have carried-on here is ridiculous. It's one decision! Yes, there might have been another one of a similar nature 5 years ago, but so? There are many Umpires who tend to make mistakes far more often than Bucknor.

He had a shocking time 2002-2004\05 and I presumed his time as a useful Umpire was finished, but he's actually been damn good again the last 2-and-a-half years.

He had originally planned to retire after WC2007, and I don't know why he hasn't. But to call for his retirement because of one decision, however annoying that decision has ended-up being, is plain ridiculous.

mate the nick was heard from people seated in row 16 of the SCG and he couldnt hear it from the middle of the ground, on TV Ian Chappell called it the 'worst decision he had seen where a supposed edge had been involved'

 

[Richard]

Ian Chappell calls a lot of things a lot of things.

It was a poor decision, that's not in doubt. It's also one decision. To castigate an Umpire because of one decision is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Pratters]

FFS, so you Bucknor-hating people are telling me that no-one's ever missed a blatant nick before? The way people have carried-on here is ridiculous. It's one decision! Yes, there might have been another one of a similar nature 5 years ago, but so? There are many Umpires who tend to make mistakes far more often than Bucknor.

He had a shocking time 2002-2004\05 and I presumed his time as a useful Umpire was finished, but he's actually been damn good again the last 2-and-a-half years.

He had originally planned to retire after WC2007, and I don't know why he hasn't. But to call for his retirement because of one decision, however annoying that decision has ended-up being, is plain ridiculous.

FOR FFS. Do you ever watch any cricket?

First Vaas is greater than Zaheer Khan right now,

Now this.

Maybe you should start watching cricket for a change and not remain stuck in the 90s.

 

[Richard]

So Bucknor has been poor since 1 January 2000?

 

[Son Of Coco]

FFS, this is the third in a week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I was talking about when I said some team's supporters let them off the hook by blaming everything except the team. Sure, it was a terrible decision, and India's efforts after it showed terrible application. Throw the toys out of the cot and let the Aussies coast to 300+.

 

[silentstriker]

So Bucknor has been poor since 1 January 2000?

Pretty much, actually. Yes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Pretty much, actually. Yes.

He wasn't that good before either.

 

[Evermind]

FOR FFS. Do you ever watch any cricket?

First Vaas is greater than Zaheer Khan right now,

Now this.

Maybe you should start watching cricket for a change and not remain stuck in the 90s.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Pratyush, but...yes. Only someone who doesn't watch cricket would think Bucknor has made only 1 gaffe recently. He has been almost uniformly awful for the past 5 years or so, in nearly every series he has been in. He's as bad as a Rauf or a Hair ATM.

 

[Laurrz]

Another one in the '96 World Cup was when Pakistan lost to India, a Pakistani fan shot his TV and then himself

eh


and i thought cricket was involved in my life a bit too much....

 

[Richard]

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Pratyush, but...yes. Only someone who doesn't watch cricket would think Bucknor has made only 1 gaffe recently. He has been almost uniformly awful for the past 5 years or so, in nearly every series he has been in. He's as bad as a Rauf or a Hair ATM.

Rubbish. Bucknor, as I said, was poor between 2002 and 2004\05. He has been roundly good - not faultless, as no-one is, but good - since 2005. He's just made an error yesterday. He's at an age when he probably should retire, else he might go into terminal decline.

But the way people have reacted to this sole decision - if there've been so many, why has there been no threads of this nature for the past year? I haven't watched every Bucknor Test, but nor do I need to - a match report can easily sum-up who's made errors. I've barely watched Daryl Harper in the last 5 years, but I still know he's absolutely awful. Far worse, I dare say, than Bucknor has ever been.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ian Chappell calls a lot of things a lot of things.

It was a poor decision, that's not in doubt. It's also one decision. To castigate an Umpire because of one decision is ridiculous in the extreme.

And several ones equal many. Bucknor makes many mistakes.

 

[Richard]

I'd be interested in seeing someone catalogue blatant mistakes since English summer 2005. I'd be prepared to bet they'd be minimal compared to most other Umpires, and certainly to the likes of Daryl Harper and Ian Howell.

But... funny thing... Daryl Harper's been awful for years and years. Yet I've never seen one thread about how awful he is, in my 4 years on CW (admittedly there might have been some when I've been absent).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd be interested in seeing someone catalogue blatant mistakes since English summer 2005.

All mistakes should be catalogued IMO. If an umpire is getting the simple decisions wrong, it's an issue, but if he has 10 difficult decisions to make and gets the majority of them wrong, that's also an issue. The elite panel should consist of umpires able to manage the simple and difficult.

 

[Perm]

Bucknor's poor day yesterday was the straw that broke the camels back for this poster I suppose, and that's understandable. No doubt these threads occur more often immediatly after a mistake, as people realise how poor a particular umpire has been for a number of years, and those poor performnces are put in the spotlight moreso because of a recent incident.

 

[Flem274*]

Sadly Bucknor isn't the only one giving out poor descisions, over here that fat Aussie bloke and one of the kiwi umpires, Baxter I think, have been absolutely dire. Tony Hill as far as I remember has been fine though.

I always thought Asoka De Silva was the worst I've seen in recent years. Granted he's umpired alot of the tests I've watched and I haven't seen some umpires alot.

 

[Jono]

Indian fans remember 2003/04 v Australia very vividly.

Another howler.

That's God awful.

Let's not forget at the Gabba in 03/04 where he gave Sachin out to Gillespie when it was missing by so much its not even funny.

 

[anoop4real]

Bucknor should be thrown out ..........Indian newspapers have already given him the title " BLIND IN WHITE"

 

[Richard]

All mistakes should be catalogued IMO. If an umpire is getting the simple decisions wrong, it's an issue, but if he has 10 difficult decisions to make and gets the majority of them wrong, that's also an issue. The elite panel should consist of umpires able to manage the simple and difficult.

Agree completely. It's time "the shibboleth that the Umpire is always right" ((C) Graeme Wright) was abandoned by I$C$C if they're going to insist on not using maximum technological aids. Instead of the indeterminate "Umpires get 95% of decisions right" there should be simple statistics of "number of wrong decisions" from each Umpire. It's not remotely difficult to tell what's a bad decision and what's not - obviously if someone gives n\o something that might have been clipping leg-stump that's not a poor decision. But if they miss a nick or a glove, don't refer a decision they should have referred, give a blatantly out lbw n\o, or give a bad "out" decision, that should be catalogued.

Then people can stop stupid guesswork-based innuendo like we see in this thread. We can say for certain who's made mistakes and who's just happened to have made 2 mistakes in 2 matches that annoyed Person X and his half-brother who also happened to be watching some other Test 9 years ago.

Of course, the best thing would be to simply use everything we can - at every level of the game we possibly can - to make every Umpiring decision as right as it possibly can be.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think there are statistics of the sort, because I remember Simon Taufel being said to have had a 90something% accuracy rating on his decisions in a given year. The number seemed a bit arbitrary to be an estimation or made up. Can't remember where/when I read it though.