**Official**VB Series 2005 Australia,Pakistan,West Indies.

[Top_Cat]

t just had to be out. I'm sick of reputations influencing decisions. Do you think that would have not been given if it was Lee bowling to Butt or Umar. This is simply wrong and I'm afraid that their is a large trend of bias emerging in umpiring towards Australia. This is coming from an Australian.

Total load of rubbish. You're accusing an international umpire of bias but using the 'hometown umpiring' justification? That's logically inconsistent. Allegations of bias are pretty serious and difficult to prove. So what's your proof other than the number of decisions going the Aussies' way (bearing in mind there have been a few to go the other way too - given, not as blatant)?

Koertzen made a mistake. A HUGE one (to the naked eye at full speed, it looked dead) but a mistake nonetheless. It happens. It'll happen on the Aussies' tour to England and the same argument will come up again but against the home team. It just doesn't wash.

Stuff like this just shows that there are a few things which should be taken over by the computers and the no-ball thing is one AT LEAST which shouldn't be in the hands of the umpire on the field. It's hard enough to tell what is a no-ball and what isn't if that was your only task let alone having to then judge caught behind and LBW decisions. Bring on Hawkeye for no-balls.

 

[Scallywag]

Mate if they don't know where the stumps, even with the batsmen in front of it they shouldn't be umpiring internationals. U don't need to come around the wicket if u are swinging it back in to left hand batsmen.

Be reasonable, you are talking about a ball pitching 3-5 meters in front of the stumps at 130 kmh and the umpire standing 20 meters away and you think he should be able to tell within 2-3 inches if it is in line with the stumps even though the batsman is blocking the view of the stumps.

 

[amokk1]

I'm sick of reputations influencing decisions. Do you think that would have not been given if it was Lee bowling to Butt or Umar. This is simply wrong and I'm afraid that their is a large trend of bias emerging in umpiring towards Australia. This is coming from an Australian.

Nope, disagree with you there. I think are umpires may be inconsistent but I don't think it has anything to do with being bias. Unless of course, it's Darrell Hair umpring against a subcontinent country

 

[6-28]

I am not suggesting bias to the Australians as a team, only on reputation. An umpire may be less likely to give out a major entertainer like Gilchrist than a no 10 or 11. Some people can live with this but I think its unfair. The only reason the Australians have the best of the decisions is due to the number of high profile stars in their squad, not bias from Australian or overseas umpires to the team. If it was Katich I think it would have been given.

 

[Top_Cat]

I am not suggesting bias to the Australians as a team, only on reputation. An umpire may be less likely to give out a major entertainer like Gilchrist than a no 10 or 11. Some people can live with this but I think its unfair. The only reason the Australians have the best of the decisions is due to the number of high profile stars in their squad, not bias from Australian or overseas umpires to the team. If it was Katich I think it would have been given.

Fine. Proof?

 

[Dydl]

I am not suggesting bias to the Australians as a team, only on reputation. An umpire may be less likely to give out a major entertainer like Gilchrist than a no 10 or 11. Some people can live with this but I think its unfair. The only reason the Australians have the best of the decisions is due to the number of high profile stars in their squad, not bias from Australian or overseas umpires to the team. If it was Katich I think it would have been given.

I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that the batsmen was Gilchrist. The umpires try to do what they are out there to do. To give the right decisions regarding the delivery and how it is played. There is no reason for the superiority of the batsman to affect the umpires decision. If you think that there is I am open to hear why.

 

[6-28]

well obviously it's just opinion and a number of people will not agree with me, but I'm sure that a number of others will.

 

[Dydl]

When I see those people post and support you.....

 

[chaminda_00]

I can't see how umpires are baised towards Australia, it just that when they have a decision go their way, they make the most of it. This makes those decision looks worse then they actually are. At the end of the day umpire are neutral, regardless wher they are born or where they live.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm just saying it's a bit of a stretch logically and I can't think of a reason why a bias like that would play a part.

 

[amokk1]

It's interesting to see Micheal Clarkes Strike Rate. He seems to be playing a whole different game then he was before. Unless, he is trying to get him self demoted back to his usual spot and get Hayden back in

 

[Duncan]

Clarke gone.

 

[6-28]

I'm not trying to knock umpires too much I think that the pressure of trying to umpire in those conditions must be intense but I think sometimes reputation and the crowd can play a part. Remember day 5 in Calcutta 2001 when the umpires I believe felt pressured by the crowd and gave india the benefit of the doubt with every lbw. Again you can say I'm wrong and that's okay and part of the beauty of cricket that some much is open to interpretation. I just want to make clear that my use of the word 'bias' was wrong and i apologise for that.

 

[chaminda_00]

I'm just saying it's a bit of a stretch logically and I can't think of a reason why a bias like that would play a part.

It doesn't play a part it just that Australia make the most of bad decision, unlike other teams. So these bad decision get glorified.

Clarke is gooooone, it looks like Hyaden back for next game and Clarke back down the order.

 

[Arrow]

Looks like my theory about clarke was corrent. He cant handle the responsibility and pressure of being the incumbent. Mirror image of the first final.

 

[Dydl]

Clarke is bowled by Mohammad Hafeez for 38 off 75 balls trying to play a pull shot. Damien Martyn will now join the Aussie captain out in the middle.


Oh, and Symonds has an Achilles tendon injury??

 

[Duncan]

Looks like my theory about clarke was corrent. He cant handle the responsibility and pressure of being the incumbent. Mirror image of the first final.

I don't think he is as good as everyone thinks he is. He fails in pressure and he gets so many chances.

 

[Dydl]

It has been 67 balls since the last boundary!! Pakistan have fielded well, like they did 2 days ago. Will they collapse when batting as well or will they force the Australians to play another match??

 

[Scallywag]

Its a bit of a farce really, the umpires are never going to be 100% correct and no one claims they are.

Sure replays will show the have made mistakes but to say they deliberately have you would need to believe that they could make the correct decision all the time but choose not to.

The problem is when you compare them to replays knowing full well they do not have the advantage of slow motion replays and drawing lines to see where the ball pitched.

Thats the worst part as people expect them to be so accurate, it is impossible for the umpire to measure up to that kind of scrutiny. So knowing that the umpire is never going to be as accurate it is hypocritical to then say that the umpire deliberately make mistakes.

Batsmen fielders and bowlers make mistakes all the time and teams have to learn to live with that, you dont bring out a bowling machine in the game because it can bowl a better line and length consistantly better than a person. And its the same with umpires you just learn to accept that its not perfect but thats cricket.

 

[amokk1]

I'm not trying to knock umpires too much I think that the pressure of trying to umpire in those conditions must be intense but I think sometimes reputation and the crowd can play a part. Remember day 5 in Calcutta 2001 when the umpires I believe felt pressured by the crowd and gave india the benefit of the doubt with every lbw. Again you can say I'm wrong and that's okay and part of the beauty of cricket that some much is open to interpretation. I just want to make clear that my use of the word 'bias' was wrong and i apologise for that.

You could be right there. Sometimes it feels that a players reputation plays a huge part. Umpires might sometimes feel a little uncomfortable giving out high profiled players out when they are not actually 100% sure. I guess your opinion might work on some umpires.

I don't think it's bias....but it seems like pressure. If they get a wrong decison..they will be under the spotlight.

When Darrel hair gave Tendulkar out LBW for ducking a bouncer, it was racism. When Bucknor gave him LBW for a ball that hit the high pad, he was bias. When Bowden gave Shewag out LBW for inside edge to pad, he was a circus clown.

It's not easy to umpire, and I am sure that no umpire would favour Australia and neither would they favour their home side. They are professionals and it their job.

As they say man, some times it goes your way and sometimes it doesn't. Every dog has it's day and RUDI Kourtzen is the best going around at the moment.