***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[roseboy64]

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

What!! Even Australian supporters have had problems with the appealing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

I'm not actually levelling criticism at any country.

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.

Granted, others appear to be doing so. Fair enough.

 

[Top_Cat]

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. 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.

Don't be stupid. Umpires at Test-level should be able to resist that and adjudicate on all decisions based purely on merit and independent of the level they're umpiring at, the intensity of an appeal and reactions afterwards.



Looks like my idea of mutant umpires seems to be the way to go.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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?

You can't simply improve a poor umpire. You either replace him or hope that he improves on his own whilst not making too many attrocious decisions in the mean time.

And well, if there aren't enough quality umpires to use, technology is the only answer.

 

[Top_Cat]

You can't simply improve a poor umpire. You either replace him or hope that he improves on his own whilst not making too many attrocious decisions in the mean time.

And well, if there aren't enough quality umpires to use, technology is the only answer.

My contention is that, ultimately, standards umpires are expected to adhere to will exceed those that are possible and technology is logically were we are headed. So why waste time finding out what we all already know?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

That's an entirely different issue and an entirely different pressure on the umpire. IMO an umpire may be easier excused for giving in to a loud shout than for giving in to a batsman's reaction.

This whole nonsense with "the batsman didn't automatically glance behind, therefore I doubt he nicked it" has to go. I know personally that it's not as hard as some people let on to act like you didn't hit a ball. I admit that I have used body language in the hope of influencing an umpire, but that's not to say that I was right in doing so.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My contention is that, ultimately, standards umpires are expected to adhere to will exceed those that are possible and technology is logically were we are headed. So why waste time finding out what we all already know?

Up with technology. I agree.

Still, Taufel is the best umpire in the world for a reason. If every umpire made as many mistakes as he does, with the same frequency, I'd be happy. It won't be perfect, but it would a lot better than it is now. It shows that those who aren't satisfied by anything other than perfection must have technology in their game.

Those who will compromise, whilst maintaining a relatively high standard, can get by. Improbable, but not impossible.

 

[aussie]

well, Lara is done in Australia. Hopefully he comes back here in 2007 so i could get to see him one more time..

 

[vic_orthdox]

Don't be stupid. Umpires at Test-level should be able to resist that and adjudicate on all decisions based purely on merit and independent of the level they're umpiring at, the intensity of an appeal and reactions afterwards.



Looks like my idea of mutant umpires seems to be the way to go.

I think they've just let it get out of hand, that's all. It wouldn't be difficult for the match referee, or an umpire, to warn a side about "over enthusiastic" appealing, that shows the game in a bad light and appears to be intimidatory towards the umpire.

Because nothing like this has taken place, in addition to the fact that the Australians probably still feel hard done by because of the Ashes (rightly or wrongly), where the English appealed very well throughout, there's a movement to try and, IMO, intimidate or coerce more strongly, an umpire into giving a favourable decision.

Wording isn't quite right there, but I believe that it is against the whole "Spirit Of Cricket" thing that Australia has been red hot on over the past 24 months. Funnily enough, that's straight after a series loss...

 

[vic_orthdox]

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

That's an entirely different issue and an entirely different pressure on the umpire. IMO an umpire may be easily excused for giving in to a loud shout than for giving in to a batsman's reaction.

My quote was in reference to the Australian bowlers when they're bowling, and they don't get someone out. Either you misconstrued it, or I'm just slow. Probably the latter.

 

[Top_Cat]

Still, Taufel is the best umpire in the world for a reason. If every umpire made as many mistakes as he does, with the same frequency, I'd be happy. It won't be perfect, but it would a lot better than it is now. It shows that those who aren't satisfied by anything other than perfection must have technology in their game.

Those who will compromise, whilst maintaining a relatively high standard, can get by. Improbable, but not impossible.

Delaying the inevitable, in my view. I'm, personally, fine with bad decisions sincerely made in the game but whilst people continue to demand perfection, the current lot will always fall short. Hence, the only logical route is to give the umpires all available faculties to make correct decisions.

Because nothing like this has taken place, in addition to the fact that the Australians probably still feel hard done by because of the Ashes (rightly or wrongly), where the English appealed very well throughout, there's a movement to try and, IMO, intimidate or coerce more strongly, an umpire into giving a favourable decision.

Seriously now, that's no different to just about every side I've ever played in. Obviously, we never had the burden of being 'role-models' but still, I don't think it's anything new.

Wording isn't quite right there, but I believe that it is against the whole "Spirit Of Cricket" thing that Australia has been red hot on over the past 24 months. Funnily enough, that's straight after a series loss...

No-one who knows anything about Australia cricket and cricketers in general would have been surprised to see that happen.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My quote was in reference to the Australian bowlers when they're bowling, and they don't get someone out. Either you misconstrued it, or I'm just slow. Probably the latter.

Upon reading over, it's actually the former, though my first part would apply to the latter too.

Being influenced by a fielder's/bowler's reaction at receiving a 'not out' decision is basically umpiring based on anticipation. If they're going to take the 'real time' out of umpiring, up technology!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Delaying the inevitable, in my view. I'm, personally, fine with bad decisions sincerely made in the game but whilst people continue to demand perfection, the current lot will always fall short. Hence, the only logical route is to give the umpires all available faculties to make correct decisions.

It depends on what you define as a bad decision.

An acceptable error:

- OUT, but ball pitched an inch or two outside legstump.
- OUT, but ball hit pad an inch or two outside offstump.
- OUT, loud noise as ball passed bat, but no deflection...upon 4th replay.

Bad decisions:

- OUT, hit on the pad of a left-hander with off' and middle stumps in plain sight and a right-arm bowler coming from around the wicket.
- OUT, potentially bottom edged the ball into the ground before it hit the glove and was caugh behind.
- OUT, huge inside edge onto pad.
- OUT, padding up to a googly that made contact 2+ feet outside offstump with a good stride in.
- OUT, hit on the pad by a ball that pitched 5-8 inches outside legstump.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Seriously now, that's no different to just about every side I've ever played in. Obviously, we never had the burden of being 'role-models' but still, I don't think it's anything new.

As I said, I worded it rather poorly. On second thoughts, I guess the aim of appealing is to "coerce" the umpire to your view. It should never come to intimidation, IMO, and I'd hope in most people's. I think at times the Australian's have crossed that line, and cricket is uglier for it.

No-one who knows anything about Australia cricket and cricketers in general would have been surprised to see that happen.

Put it this way. If an Aus U/19 cricketer behaved the way that Ponting does on the field, there's a fair chance you'd end up with a big black mark next to your name.

Maybe they've just "given up" on the current generation behaviour wise, but there are definently one set of rules for some, and another set of rules for the rest of the cricketing fraternity in Australia.

 

[Slats4ever]

in my opinion no there's not. if Ricky Ponting carried on the same way that all the captains in my competition did he'd be hung, shot, castrated and fed to goats.

 

[Top_Cat]

It depends on what you define as a bad decision.

An acceptable error:

- OUT, but ball pitched an inch or two outside legstump.
- OUT, but ball hit pad an inch or two outside offstump.
- OUT, loud noise as ball passed bat, but no deflection...upon 4th replay.

Bad decisions:

- OUT, hit on the pad of a left-hander with off' and middle stumps in plain sight and a right-arm bowler coming from around the wicket.
- OUT, potentially bottom edged the ball into the ground before it hit the glove and was caugh behind.
- OUT, huge inside edge onto pad.
- OUT, padding up to a googly that made contact 2+ feet outside offstump with a good stride in.
- OUT, hit on the pad by a ball that pitched 5-8 inches outside legstump.

Your 'acceptable' ones happen way more frequently than the 'bad' ones, which happen seldom enough for me to be fine with it. Of course, next time I get a 'acceptable' bad decision, I'll be throwing my bat over the pavillion, kicking the nearest available batsman or child (whoever is closest), swearing my head off and.............

Oh........... were you saying something?

Put it this way. If an Aus U/19 cricketer behaved the way that Ponting does on the field, there's a fair chance you'd end up with a big black mark next to your name.

Maybe they've just "given up" on the current generation behaviour wise, but there are definently one set of rules for some, and another set of rules for the rest of the cricketing fraternity in Australia.

Absolutely. And whilst that cricketer remains a cricketing nobody (on the international stage), that will be the case. Win an Ashes Test off their own bat, however, and ALL IS FORGIVEN! From that point onwards, anyway.

 

[greg]

I don't understand how people can criticise the umpires for not taking the strength of appeal into account. A strong appeal shouldn't influence them into giving appeals, I agree, but I don't see how people can criticise not giving half-hearted non-confident shouts. After all the umpire has a similar view to the bowler, and if the bowler doesn't seem to think it's out... (however "strength of appeal" shouldn't include how point, fine leg etc react - although having said that fine leg should be the ONLY player taken any account for on caught behinds down the leg side )

 

[Pratters]

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

The ICC not stepping into some thing does not prove whether its a right or wrong thing to do. The dissent point is pretty clear.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Good that Hussey had a chance to up his average some. Too bad Clown did nothing really.

 

[Pratters]

An appeal is essentially asking the umpire if its out. 'Hows that' - 'howzattt'.

Now an umpire should conisder an appeal as an appeal and nothing else. Regardless of the vociferous or non-vociferous nature. If that is not the case it just shows poorly on the umpire.