| 
Posts and words
steve-bucknor
Does India run the game?
By Will 2 years ago, mid-January, 108 Comments »
I find the sacking of Steve Bucknor a real worry. He was at fault numerous times in the Sydney Test, and from this bystander’s perspective didn’t appear to handle the pressure at all competantly. But what right do India have to threaten the abandonment of a tour unless an official is replaced?
Where does this end? What if his replacement in the next Test – Billy Bowden – has a similar shocker, and makes six or seven errors which, India feel, cost them the next Test? Will he too be stood down at the bequest of an agitated India?
India alone contribute 70% of the game’s finances, and in that respect they do run the game. Heck – three New Zealanders have been banned from appearing in a film by their employers, the BCCI, because of their involvement in the Indian Cricket League!
This sets a horrible precedent. Will umpires who are sent to officiate in India Tests now decline or go on strike? Why would they want to work on a Test in which they don’t have the full backing of their employer?
So, does India run cricket now or not? Oh, and incidentally – India say the tour will go ahead, but only if the ICC overturn the banning of Harbhajan Singh. This is an utter outrage. How can they be allowed to behave in this way?
Loading ...Here come the effigies
By Will 2 years ago, at the start of January, 36 Comments »
Surprisingly delayed, but here come the effigies of the three doomed members of the Sydney Test: Ricky “boooo” Ponting; Steve “Edges” Bucknor. And Mark “give us a” Benson:
Here’s how to make your point. LOTS OF FLAMES AND FIRE AND BURNING THINGS:
I have to tip my hat to this one though. Inspired use of the roadside donkey:
All in all, a disgraceful turn of events. Let them abandon it and let them bugger off home. Just spoken to my Indian friend who diplomatically asked my opinions on it. I told him how India have dug themselves a hole, and continue to act as though Australia have nicked their dummy. He and his mates, all Indian, agree. I fear he and they are in the minority.
Get over it.
36 Comments »Harbhajan banned; India apoplectic
By Will 2 years ago, at the start of January, 57 Comments »
So Harbhajan Singh has been banned for three Tests after calling Andrew Symonds a monkey. This is the correct decision, but the fallout could be quite monstrously messy.
There are already reports (from the never-really-to-be-trusted Press Trust of India) that India are considering abandoning their tour of Australia. Judging by the splenetic feedback we received today at Cricinfo (much of it was unprintable and vile), the issue many people have isn’t with Harbhajan but the umpires. I watched a TV news channel in India hold an impromptu discussion surrounding it. “Umpired out in Sydney” screamed the headline. “India fall victim of umpires” read another. One member of the audience said that if Bucknor were to visit India, he wouldn’t return alive. It was greeted with warm applause.
Yes, India, I’m afraid you were victim of some absolutely horrific umpiring decisions and I’m sure Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor will be penalised accordingly. But do not expect players to walk: this is not part of cricketers’ clauses in their contract. It is up to the umpires to adjudge whether a player is out or not and, if they say it’s not out – then live with it. There is a vast amount of luck involved in sport; what comes around goes around.
Frankly, I find the BCCI’s decision to demand an investigation into the umpiring pathetic. Every other country has series like these, where decisions go against them, but everything related to Indian cricket seems to be magnified to an extraordinary level; that they are victimised and the whole cricket world is against them, when it is not. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Indian government get involved in the next few days.
Equally, the attitude of Ricky Ponting and some of the Australians was extraordinary in the extreme. Appealing to Benson for Dravid’s wicket, which was turned down, Ponting sunk to his knees and was muttering away as though nothing had gone Australia’s way in the entire Test. Come off it, Ricky. In situations like these, when you’ve clearly had the immense rub of the green, some diplomacy and dignity would count for rather a lot.
What a shambles. Happy new year everyone.
57 Comments »ICC innovations structure isn’t very appealing
By Scott 4 years ago, at the start of May, 6 Comments »
It has been reported in today’s paper that the ICC are considering a trial where players can appeal against the umpires decision. They are talking about using the Champions Trophy as a test bed for the idea. I noted the other day that the players don’t take the Champions Trophy very seriously, and it appears that the ICC does not either.
The ICC cricket committee, chaired by Indian great Sunil Gavaskar and including former Australian captain Allan Border, will debate whether players should be allowed to appeal against a certain number of decisions per innings if they feel they have been wronged by umpires.
An appeals system has been used in the National Football League for years, and the ICC denied such a process in cricket could undermine the authority of the standing umpires.
“What we are looking to do is increase the already high numbers of correct decisions made by our on-field umpires without diminishing their role and this approach has the potential to do just that,” said Dave Richardson, ICC’s general manager of cricket.
Presumably, a captain could appeal, say, two contentious decisions per innings and ask that they be referred to the third umpire. The standard of international umpiring has been a big issue recently.
The standard of international umpiring is in fact fine, if you ask me. Australia toured South Africa and Bangladesh and played 5 tests and 8 odi games and I don’t remember a single contentious decision.
While I am a crusty old curmudgeon, I do not in fact have a problem with new ideas in cricket. However, I do have notions about the proper place to test new ideas, and the ICC Champions Trophy, whatever its merits, or otherwise, is not in fact one of those places. If the ICC had asked a member country to test its ’supersub’ rule in a domestic competition, the flaws in the idea, which were manifest at the time anyway, could have been demonstrated in a slightly less public manner.
6 Comments »