***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The strength of the appeal should not matter and therefore there's no justification in simply saying, "the umpire didn't give it because there wasn't enough conviction in the appeal". Umpires must be held accountable for the decisions regardless. Aleem Dar has made one exceptional decision and a series of attrocious ones in this match.

The fact that the team appeals at all shows that they'd like to know whether the batsman is out. Is it that the appeal wasn't loud enough for Dar to see a fairly obvious bit of glove? Or is it that Warne's appeal against Dwayne Smith yesterday was loud enough for Dar to ignore the obvious bat involved? It's ridiculously substandard umpiring regardless of which team is getting the majority of the bad calls against them.

If a player is out, the umpire must give him out. He can't go around thinking, "well, it looked out, but I'm not impressed by that appeal - not out". It applies to the reverse.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So you are saying an umpire shout be equally as likely to give a half shout out than a full blown appeal?

Why not? Out is out. The appeal is simply asking if it's out. Out is out. Not out is not out.

Players shouldn't be encouraged to appeal more vociferously because umpires respond better to it. That just encourages substandard umpiring, whereby bad decisions are influenced.

 

[Top_Cat]

The strength of the appeal should not matter and therefore there's no justification in simply saying, "the umpire didn't give it because there wasn't enough conviction in the appeal". Umpires must be held accountable for the decisions regardless. Aleem Dar has made one exceptional decision and a series of attrocious ones in this match.

The fact that the team appeals at all shows that they'd like to know whether the batsman is out. Is it that the appeal wasn't loud enough for Dar to see a fairly obvious bit of glove? Or is it that Warne's appeal against Dwayne Smith yesterday was loud enough for Dar to ignore the obvious bat involved? It's ridiculously substandard umpiring regardless of which team is getting the majority of the bad calls against them.

If a player is out, the umpire must give him out. He can't go around thinking, "well, it looked out, but I'm not impressed by that appeal - not out". It applies to the reverse.

You miss the point and are acting like it's a conscious decision by the umpire to say "Hmmmm...... not bad but the 'keeper didn't go up so not out." The point is that it's a sub-conscious problem; if you've ever umpired, you'll know even when you think you're damn sure of a decision, ignoring a really raucous appeal and going back to your own judgement is REALLY tough. I couldn't imagine what it must be like with a screaming team and 50 000 people behind them in a Test-match, for example. You can't help but question your own judgement, even if you're later shown to be right. This can obviously affect subsequent decisions you make. Accept it; umpires DO respond unconsciously to the intensity of the appeal, whether that means they are intimidated into giving a decision out which was not out or whether they assume an out was not-out because the fielders didn't go up. They are human beings. Fully-functional emotional human beings. Hence, whether a decision is given out or not, there's always a rather high chance they'll get it wrong.

It's only sub-standard if your standard is perfection. By the standards set by current and former umpires, the standard has been maybe slightly below in this series. I think the standard would dramatically increase if technology available was utilised and they didn't have to worry about such minutae as whether a bowler is 1mm over the front-line or 2mm behind it.

 

[roseboy64]

If the umpire's strong enough mentally then he won't be influenced by the players. In school cricket over here I've seen the entire team appealing loudly and it's been given not out while only a few players have appealed only half heartedly and have gotten the decision in their favour.

 

[Top_Cat]

Players shouldn't be encouraged to appeal more vociferously because umpires respond better to it. That just encourages substandard umpiring, whereby bad decisions are influenced.

But people do it anyway, encouraged or not, malicious intention or not. What do you expect; a bowler steams in all day playing for his country, the opposition is 1/200, you've been bowling your guts out and you get a ball through the defence of a guy who's on 100 and looking for more. Do you honestly expect him to politely inquire of the umpire "Sir, how was that?" Come off it. Players will always appeal loudly and whether that's deliberate or not is immaterial; it will influence decisions. The only way you could control it and therefore help to mediate the reaction of the umpire is to impose decibel limits on appeals or something similar illogical. Just telling them to do it quieter wouldn't work. So what do you think would?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You miss the point and are acting like it's a conscious decision by the umpire to say "Hmmmm...... not bad but the 'keeper didn't go up so not out." The point is that it's a sub-conscious problem; if you've ever umpired, you'll know even when you think you're damn sure of a decision, ignoring a really raucous appeal and going back to your own judgement is REALLY tough.

I've done a fair bit of umpiring and even did a short course on it. Initially, yes, those problems were very evident and I caved in to pressure a few times. However, after a few games I started to grow in confidence and became more certain of my judgement. If I was able to function after a few games without being influenced by the strength of appeal, surely the likes of Dar and Bowden can too? These guys are on the elite panel for Curly's sake!

I couldn't imagine what it must be like with a screaming team and 50 000 people behind them in a Test-match, for example. You can't help but question your own judgement, even if you're later shown to be right. This can obviously affect subsequent decisions you make. Accept it; umpires DO respond unconsciously to the intensity of the appeal, whether that means they are intimidated into giving a decision out which was not out or whether they assume an out was not-out because the fielders didn't go up. They are human beings. Fully-functional emotional human beings. Hence, whether a decision is given out or not, there's always a rather high chance they'll get it wrong.

It's only sub-standard if your standard is perfection. By the standards set by current and former umpires, the standard has been maybe slightly below in this series. I think the standard would dramatically increase if technology available was utilised and they didn't have to worry about such minutae as whether a bowler is 1mm over the front-line or 2mm behind it.

No. It's substandard if the standard is above mediocrity. I don't expect umpires to be machines and get everything right and never question themselves, but to say that to criticize certain umpires for doing it excessively is me appealing for an idealistic situation is incorrect.

I'll say it again - Simon Taufel has proven that quality umpiring is possible. He's human, so he makes mistakes and does cave into vociferous appeals occasionally, but the fact is that he gets the decision right much more often than the majority of umpires these days.

That's my standard. Not perfection, but Simon Taufel - a quality umpire.

 

[Top_Cat]

If the umpire's strong enough mentally then he won't be influenced by the players. In school cricket over here I've seen the entire team appealing loudly and it's been given not out while only a few players have appealed only half heartedly and have gotten the decision in their favour.

So you bring up too rare examples in relatively low-intensity cricket and that's somehow supposed to invalidate the opposite? So what? I've seen exactly the same thing. Doesn't mean it's going to occur on every decision though. Doing it once is easy; doing it for an entire Test match umpiring career would be impossible. No-one could possibly come up with an example of an umpire who gets all decisions right or is able to resist the players/crowd screaming loudly.

Have you ever umpired? Give it a try.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But people do it anyway, encouraged or not, malicious intention or not. What do you expect; a bowler steams in all day playing for his country, the opposition is 1/200, you've been bowling your guts out and you get a ball through the defence of a guy who's on 100 and looking for more. Do you honestly expect him to politely inquire of the umpire "Sir, how was that?" Come off it. Players will always appeal loudly and whether that's deliberate or not is immaterial; it will influence decisions. The only way you could control it and therefore help to mediate the reaction of the umpire is to impose decibel limits on appeals or something similar illogical. Just telling them to do it quieter wouldn't work. So what do you think would?

And now you're missing my point. I'm not saying that loud appeals are unacceptable. Rather I'm saying that I don't think it's right to encourage it on the basis of umpires responding better to it. By all means, appeal with heart, soul and respect, but don't attempt to influence an umpire by your appeal. You're not trying to sell anything. At the end of the day, however loud the appeal is, you're still just asking, "Sir, how was that?"

 

[roseboy64]

So you bring up too rare examples in relatively low-intensity cricket and that's somehow supposed to invalidate the opposite? So what? I've seen exactly the same thing. Doesn't mean it's going to occur on every decision though. Doing it once is easy; doing it for an entire Test match umpiring career would be impossible. No-one could possibly come up with an example of an umpire who gets all decisions right or is able to resist the players/crowd screaming loudly.

Have you ever umpired? Give it a try.

Liam's umpired and he said basically the same thing. No one expects the umpire to be perfect but you can't keep making mistakes all the time. Especially those mistakes which any idiot who knows the rules can see without the aid of technology. A ball going down leg can't be out no matter how strong the appeal is.

 

[Top_Cat]

However, after a few games I started to grow in confidence and became more certain of my judgement. If I was able to function after a few games without being influenced by the strength of appeal, surely the likes of Dar and Bowden can too? These guys are on the elite panel for Curly's sake!

You did it for a few games. Try doing it for a season, let alone an entire career. You might feel confident now but you won't in other circumstances and in those, who knows, you might bugger up a few which might lead to a few more, etc. They're on the elite panel because they're the best, not even close to perfect. Taufel included. I've seen him make some howlers often enough. As often as Dar, Bowden and Rudy too. They haven't had great series' but this doesn't invalidate all of the fantastic series' they've had.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So you bring up too rare examples in relatively low-intensity cricket and that's somehow supposed to invalidate the opposite? So what? I've seen exactly the same thing. Doesn't mean it's going to occur on every decision though. Doing it once is easy; doing it for an entire Test match umpiring career would be impossible. No-one could possibly come up with an example of an umpire who gets all decisions right or is able to resist the players/crowd screaming loudly.

The intensity of cricket shouldn't matter for the purpose of example, as the greater the intensity of cricket, the better the umpire should be. No one is asking for perfection throughout a career. I certainly am not aiming my comments at any of the umpires who have been consistently good (or even adequate) with the odd bad patch. I'm referring to umpires who have been consistently poor.

 

[Top_Cat]

And now you're missing my point. I'm not saying that loud appeals are unacceptable. Rather I'm saying that I don't think it's right to encourage it on the basis of umpires responding better to it. By all means, appeal with heart, soul and respect, but don't attempt to influence an umpire by your appeal. You're not trying to sell anything. At the end of the day, however loud the appeal is, you're still just asking, "Sir, how was that?"

That's naieve. Just as in law when the right decision isn't always handed down, deep down as a bowler, you are also trying to influence the umpire. The only way you could say otherwise is if you, as a bowler, never, ever went up for anything but the decisions you absolutely knew were out and if you weren't sure, you would politely ask.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Moderator fight! Moderator fight!

*hoots*

 

[Top_Cat]

The intensity of cricket shouldn't matter for the purpose of example, as the greater the intensity of cricket, the better the umpire should be.

It does matter. We've all seen countless examples of where it does. It shouldn't but it does. You bringing up an unrealistic ideal (that umpires be entirey resistant to the level of cricket they play/intensity of the appeal) is unconstructive because it will never happen. The umpires are better but they are still human and subject to the above. That's reality.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You did it for a few games. Try doing it for a season, let alone an entire career. You might feel confident now but you won't in other circumstances and in those, who knows, you might bugger up a few which might lead to a few more, etc.

A few games is not a couple of games. By a few games I mean 20+ in school and another 3 for my club - that was me umpiring and having to hear my own team-mates appeal for wickets.

They're on the elite panel because they're the best, not even close to perfect. Taufel included. I've seen him make some howlers often enough. As often as Dar, Bowden and Rudy too. They haven't had great series' but this doesn't invalidate all of the fantastic series' they've had.

It seems to be enough for Bucknor though... but that's beside the point.

The point is that Aleem Dar has not had a bad match or a bad series with the finger. He's been consistently mediocre for the most part that I've seen over the past year or so. Billy Bowden has been shocking of late, and Rudi... well, I used to have a lot more respect for him as an umpire.

The fact remains that Taufel gets it right more often than the others from what I've seen, and I've seen a lot of Taufel. That he makes as bad decisions as the others at times does not deter the suggestion that he makes them less frequently.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It does matter. We've all seen countless examples of where it does. It shouldn't but it does. You bringing up an unrealistic ideal (that umpires be entirey resistant to the level of cricket they play/intensity of the appeal) is unconstructive because it will never happen. The umpires are better but they are still human and subject to the above. That's reality.

I'll say it again. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for less inadequacy.

(there's a Nick joke to be made here somewhere...)

I'm asking for less imperfection.

 

[Slats4ever]

Until the ICC clearly state that they have a problem with Australia/Pakistans/Englands or anyone else for that matters appealling methods I don't see what basis you're arguing upon. If they saw it as a major issue they'd definately step in. You guys are just trying to find an excuse/a way to tarnish the Australian's bowling success

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's naieve. Just as in law when the right decision isn't always handed down, deep down as a bowler, you are also trying to influence the umpire. The only way you could say otherwise is if you, as a bowler, never, ever went up for anything but the decisions you absolutely knew were out and if you weren't sure, you would politely ask.

If you're not sure then you still go up as loud as you like, but if it's not out, it's not out. You don't try to influence the umpire into making the wrong decision. You appeal hoping that the decision goes your way, but at the end of the day, that it be right. Yes, part of you will be saying that "I don't care if it's the right decision, it's a wicket for me", but I personally couldn't play the game knowing that I was beating another team largely due to poor decisions.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What concerns me is that the Australians, in my view, do appeal over-zealously at times, and instead of being punished for it, they're getting wickets as a direct result. And their reactions after receiving a not-out verdict do seem to create the impression that they were robbed, and puts more pressure on the umpire, especially in a home game.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'll say it again. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm asking for less inadequacy.

(there's a Nick joke to be made here somewhere...)

I'm asking for less imperfection.

Okay. Ignoring the use of technology (because I think that's the way to go), how would you do it? Considering the myriad of things umpires have to mindful of, I say it's not possible. Taufel has the distinct advantage of being much younger than the others so aside from hiring younger umpires, how would you improve the standards of guys like Dar, Taufel and the rest?