| 
Posts and words
umpiring
An upside of the UDRS
By Will 2 months ago, 3 Comments »
I even hate the acronym. Anyway, my colleague Brydon Coverdale reports that the decision to have neutral umpires in Tests may be scrapped for the Ashes, so confident is the ICC in the UDRS. For all its flaws, this may be a welcome consequence of the system’s continued use.
The ICC could allow Australian and English umpires to stand in the Ashes series later this year as its confidence with the umpire decision review system continues to grow. Despite the controversial video-official judgments in the Johannesburg Test over the past few days, David Morgan, the ICC president, said the UDRS was proving successful enough for the ICC to consider scrapping the neutral-umpire system.
“The decision review system is making good progress,” Morgan told Cricinfo. “There have been problems at the Wanderers that I can’t go into because that’s being investigated by the International Cricket Council. But I think the progress with the DRS has been extremely good indeed, to the extent that I think we should be thinking about the best umpires being appointed to Test match cricket irrespective of whether they come from the participating teams or not.”
I have missed English umpires in English series. Fans (particularly in England, I felt) grew fond of their home umpires. Dickie Bird, Peter Willey, David Constant and, of course, David Shepherd all lent the game an air of fun, occasionally humour, but most of all authority. Players respected them. Perhaps it’s easier for an umpire of the same country to give one of “his” players a ticking off. Perhaps, too, players listen to those umpires more readily than they might an official from another, distant country.
I hope it happens.
3 Comments »The use of technology in cricket, part 17
By Will last year, at the end of December, 3 Comments »
And so the dreaded decision review system is back. It’s matured enough to be own its own acronym, DRS, but not enough to quell the doubters such as me, nor more eloquent observers of the game: Mike Atherton.
Those who would wish to watch the relentless march of perfectionism — the ultimate endgame of professionalism — should ask themselves what watching sport without human error would be like. And to those who say that if sport is worth playing, then it is worth playing properly, I would simply quote Gideon Haigh, occasionally of this parish: “When cricket is thought to be too important to be left to mere humans, then it is in danger of mattering too much to be enjoyed.”
Cricket has lost something rare and precious and it was not what Collingwood or those in thrall to automated perfectionism were searching for.
The entire article deserves your attention, even if you’re in favour of the relentless march towards isolating the on-field umpires in pursuit of apparent perfection. Such a notion, as Atherton points out, is entirely false in a breed of entertainment which thrives on risk and chance and derring do and bravery such as sport.
What saddens me most with technology in cricket, apart from the speed with which it has changed the sport in the past ten years, is understanding who it is supposed to benefit. It isn’t the spectators, on TV or at the ground. It might once have been to protect the on-field umpires, but has instead stripped them of the powers bestowed on them by the laws of the game. Their word was once final, but not any longer. So what purpose – other than counting to six; stretching their arms horizontally and vertically; occasionally standing on one leg; drawing an imaginary TV screen in the shape of a square or helping to calm angry players – do they now serve?
The impact has so far been that more players – fractionally more, because the reviews are limited in number – are receiving the correct decision, and near-total justice has been achieved. But the system isn’t yet (and won’t be for years, if ever) foolproof enough to ever allow officials to be 100% certain about each decision, which makes you wonder why we ever went down this path in the first place. Well, it ought not make us wonder. We know who runs the game, and it’s certainly not the ICC.
Since when did sport, a mere game – harmless folly between one human being and another – become in need of a judicial system thereby ostracising the very people it was invented to help entertain?
3 Comments »David Shepherd dies
By Will last year, at the end of October, No Comments; be the first!
We’d heard he was ill for quite some time, but it was still sad to hear that David Shepherd – Shep to friends and fans – died on Tuesday. It’s horribly cliched to say so, but he really was a character, an individual – aspects of the sport, if not society, which are dwindling remarkably quickly.
Shep attracted friends and fans for lots of reasons. He looked like a normal, approachable bloke. He grinned at curfuffles in the middle before quickly dissipating them, sometimes diplomatically, often with a stiff wag of his finger. Players would put their arms round him at the close of play, joke about a near lbw decision, but they knew he was boss. The balance between his professionalism and humanity was old-fashioned and correct, and the public loved him for that. He enjoyed his food. And no one with a thick Devonian accent can ever attract controversy or enemies.
My Dad had the massive fortune of spending a few hours with him years ago, when we were at The Oval watching West Indies. He seemed down to earth yet forthright and authoritarian; above all, he loved the game. I remember a few years ago, he flicked off the bails at the end of the second session of play and said to the stump mic: “That’s over, and time…for a devonshire clotted cream tea!”
There’s more on Shep here at his tag, most of which is dull. Cricinfo is not dull, and has a nice package, including the news piece, a tribute from Simon Taufel (who couldn’t be more different a character, frankly), an archive from David Foot that’s worth reading, and a cool gallery.
Patrick Kidd’s clearly been stealing my ideas again, and wonders why we don’t warm to umpires like we did with Shep (and lots of other former officials). Technology is the biggest culprit; the two on-field umpires no longer have the final say, and their authority is cut in half. They are human representatives, living in fear of public humiliation when the dreaded replays prove whether their decision was correct or not. But also, so much cricket is being played nowadays that matches, tournaments and series all roll in and out of one another. It’s hard enough keeping track of who’s playing, who’s injured, let alone who’s officiating.
But when you heard Shep bleat “Over – left hand” in his comfortably thick Devon accent, you knew the match was in safe hands.
No Comments »The Collingwood howler
By Will 2 years ago, mid-December, 12 Comments »
Paul Collingwood has worn a sore loser’s face for a long time now, and with good reason. He seems to be magnetised to poor umpiring decisions, and today’s was about as bad as it gets. Have a look at the screengrabs below (kindly stolen from Patrick – cheers Paddy). The great irony is that over in New Zealand, the ICC is continuing its trial into the video-review appeal system – Chris Gayle’s successful challenge prevented Daniel Flynn from reaching his hundred yesterday. Hmm. I think now might be the time to “let this idea float”, as those sickly marketing types might say. Just check these howlers out:
Poor technology hampers cricket
By Will 2 years ago, mid-July, 9 Comments »
Michael Vaughan dives to catch Hashim Amla. Or did he? (© Getty Images)
I really want technology to work in cricket, for it to help umpires, and avoid those unnecessary delays. But today highlighted just why no current technology can really be trusted to confirm or correct an umpire’s decision.
There were two incidents, one from each team. Andrew Strauss edged to AB de Villiers at third slip, who dived across and claimed a catch low to his right. Very low. One glance at the slow-mo replay – that is all it took – confirmed the ball had bounced well before de Villiers, and even when the ball made it into his hands, he was not in control of it. It was simply not out, despite his and all the other South Africans’ insistence. Strauss stood his ground and the replay clearly confirmed he was right to do so. I’ve no problem with de Villiers claiming the catch. It’s his duty, and if he felt he caught it, fine.
The second incident is trickier. Hashim Amla fended off a brute of a bouncer from Andrew Flintoff, the ball ballooning tantalisingly in front of Michael Vaughan. Amazingly, for someone with only half a knee, he made a terrific effort to reach the ball, diving in front of him and apparently scooping it up with his fingertips before it hit the ground. He immediately celebrated, whooping with delight, and it looked a clear winner.
Amla headed off, but his coach and captain gesticulated for him to stay, prompting the use of a replay which couldn’t confirm whether Vaughan’s catch was clean or not. From one angle, it looked like he had got his fingers underneath it and it never touched the grass. From another, you couldn’t see the ends of his fingers, so the ball appeared to be grounded. In short, it was inconclusive and Amla was allowed to stay. It could be a decision that defines the series should Amla go on to score a hundred.
Technology ought to be helping cricket, but at the moment we’re stuck in this awful halfway house. The players aren’t sure. The umpires are frightened that their errors will be exposed, and understandably refer it to the television official. But when that last line of defence is so utterly indecisive, the biggest losers are the players and the public for having to wait several minutes for a non-decision. It’s utterly crap.
I have no solution to this. We will have to wait another decade or more for technology to improve, but I’m sure it will. Eventually, I can see the day where all players are wired up, their fingers acting as remote sensors for a television official. When players’ hands touch the ball, it’ll send a signal; perhaps the ball’s own shape could be monitored, signalling to the umpire when it’s touched the ground. Maybe it’ll turn automatically turn green if it’s not-out, or explode for a player who continually abuses the referral system.
Who bloody knows. Maybe we’re asking too much of technology. It works almost flawlessly in tennis, but cricket is far more complex. Many more players on a much larger outfield (of varying sizes and shapes) makes it so hard for science and technology to monitor things…tennis is reliant on the lines on the court and sensors on the nets, and hawkeye has made that process brilliantly slick.
There’s no chance we’ll ever revert to players walking, accepting fielders’ puppy-eyed nodding that they took the catch. So what exactly is the solution until technology catches up?
9 Comments »New Zealand robbed
By Will 2 years ago, mid-June, 1 Comment »
You have to feel some degree of sympathy towards New Zealand. Their tour reminds me of most that England went on in the 1990s. Not only was there discontent with management and selection, but injuries would occur at the worst possible moment, and any luck they had was all bad.
Yesterday’s match was as close to a farce as one-day cricket can produce. The kiwis only needed seven runs from the 20th over (which constitutes a match) to beat England, but the match was called off after 19 overs owing to the lashing rain. And the fact it was nearly pitch black. It was a fair decision by the umpires to take them off when they did, but New Zealand should never have been in that situation – and they wouldn’t have, had the regulations not stipulated on a 30-minute interval between innings.
How impossibly pathetic it was. We had all waited until 3pm for the start as the rain poured down, and worse was forecast for 7pm. The emphasis was to get the game done and dusted as quickly as possible, yet this ridiculous, anal regulation held up play for 30 precious minutes, and all the while the clouds lifted and light remained good.
More at Cricinfo if you’re interested, but it’s probably best we ignore this game and never think about it again.
1 Comment »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 ...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 »Breaking news: Simon Taufel threatens to smile
By Will 3 years ago, at the end of November, 2 Comments »
Unconfirmed reports from Delhi indicate Simon Taufel, the Australian umpire, showed signs of smiling in the first Test between India and Pakistan. Danish Kaneria, bellowing a raucous appeal for Sachin Tendulkar’s wicket, begged and pleaded Taufel to raise his finger but Kaneria topped over backwards. Taufel remained unmoved, and initially refused to see the funny side of Kaneria’s unplanned back flip, but the left-hand-side of his mouth did show signs of unfolding into a smile.
His parents and wife declined to comment.
2 Comments »So Hair wasn’t banned from internationals entirely…
By Will 3 years ago, mid-January, 3 Comments »
So the news came through this morning, from our good friends in Kenya no less, that Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire, will officiate in next week’s tri-series. This caused no end of confusion.
He was banned from umpiring in internationals in November – but only from matches involving Full Member sides. He is perfectly entitled to umpire matches between the Associates – in spite of the ICC’s executive board stating in November that they have “come to the conclusion that they’ve lost confidence in Mr Hair”. I’m not the only one who tripped over this inexplicable condition.
What message does this send to the Associates? Do the ICC not feel they deserve anyone better than a banned umpire? Why ban him for some one-dayers and not others? This tri-series has been awarded official ODI status so there is no doubt (or at least there shouldn’t be) that the ICC are taking the series seriously, as they should. Why, then, is he allowed to umpire the Associates but not Full Member sides? It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s like firing someone from their job for incompetence but letting them share the tea duties. Well, not quite, but you get my drift.
Martin Williamson has written a thorough and accurate comment which is worth a read. And if you can make sense of the whole fiasco, leave a comment.
3 Comments »Bad Hair Day
By Scott 4 years ago, at the start of November, 31 Comments »
The ICC has decided that Darrell Hair has raised his last finger in international cricket, deciding that he will not officiate in any more fixtures, until his contract runs out in 2008. A vote of the full ICC board went 7-3, with only Australia, New Zealand and England voting for him to continue.
Given the lack of confidence in Hair by so much of the international cricket fraternity this decision does not come as a surprise.
Count me in as a reactionary if you like, but I think this is a dreadful day, one that continues the trend of the last two decades in undermining the authority of the umpires. One of the key points of the old game was that you accepted the authority of the umpires, regardless of whether or not you agreed with his decisions. The ICC, like it or not, have sent a pretty clear message to Hair’s colleagues here, and that message is, “Don’t look to us for help, we won’t back you up. You are on your own out there.”
The way things are continuing, you can expect to see other undermining principles like automatic third umpire decisions for leg-before appeals before too much longer, and the umpire’s main job will be to hold the bowler’s sweater.
Oh well. Roll on the Ashes!
31 Comments »Line and Lens
By Emma 4 years ago, mid-September, 6 Comments »
The role of the camera on the cricket pitch is frequently scrutinised. The Oval ball-tampering saga, and the lack of video evidence, is just one of the more recent examples.
To what level should cameras be used as proof? What happened in the fourth over of England’s reply yesterday raised this question in the more usual fashion. With both fielder and batsman adamant, and neither umpire certain, inconclusive camera shots gave Strauss the benefit of the doubt. Such scenarios come often enough. Whilst ‘Hi-Motion’ technology exists, it isn’t used on regular coverage, and the frame-by-frame replays the third umpires get can be described as ‘bitty’ at best. Cameras are imperfect recorders. The long-angled lenses used in sailing make the boats look as if they’re all about to crash, and whilst those tend to cover huge distances, cricket footage is hardly close study work. You can never find the ideal replay in a 2D, single angled image. Circles have infinite angles and Sky do not have infinite cameras.
In general terms, I do think technology is a good thing. Especially in the outfield, where so much relies on the word of the fielding side in games that are not televised. A recent county game I went to saw a batsman run out off a ball the crowd believed went for four. Sometimes, a fielder can honestly have no idea if he let go of the ball before or after he touched the rope. Equally, who can blame the umpire who prefers to trust the pause button on a camera that is in position in judging a run out? But when judging the cleanness of catches, I feel there is an overuse of replay footage. The laws, amended by the ICC to include TV umpires, state:
“Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, a not out decision shall be given by the bowler’s end umpire. Only if the line of vision of both umpires is obscured shall the bowler’s end umpire be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpireâ€
Can anyone remember an instance where a questionable catch wasn’t referred?
During India’s tour of the West Indies, Billy Doctrove refused to judge on a fairly referred catch. Chaos ensued. Yesterday, replay upon replay upon replay still left those commentating split. Whilst television can often do no better than the real time appreciation of the field umpires, surely this law should only be used in times of complete uncertainty.
6 Comments »Cricinfo’s Wicket to Wicket part deux
By Will 5 years ago, mid-October, 2 Comments »
Cricinfo’s new blog Wicket to Wicket, as mentioned yesterday, looks pretty promising. I like the idea of having a debate, and allowing the senior writers free-reign to offer their opinions. Looks like it will work pretty well. As ever, if you have any thoughts on it, leave a comment and I’ll pass them on. The debate this week is the use of technology and TV to aid umpiring, following the experiments in the recent Super(flous) Series (TM Dileep).
2 Comments »Farcial umpiring and a poor deal for spectators
By Will 5 years ago, at the end of January, 5 Comments »
…decisions take so long in Cricket. The players came back onto the field for one over. 6 balls. Strauss couldn’t pick up the ball at all. Umpires appeared to offer the light to the batsmen who rightly took it (as any batsman would), but they didn’t take a light reading. Off walk Strauss and Thorpe. Smith and South Africa stayed on the pitch, wondering what was going on – then spent a couple of minutes looking at the stump camera’s cable to see if the ball would go underneath it! What the hell’s going on?
Vaughan at the Wanderer’s was fined his entire match fee – 100% – for asking for consistency in offering the light to batsmen. It’s an utter farce and the umpires must be held responsible, especially Bucknor.
(d) If at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of
ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and
foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire, so that
it would be unreasonable or dangerous for play to take place,
then notwithstanding the provisions of (b)(i) and (b)(ii) above,
they shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to
commence or to restart. The decision as to whether conditions
are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires
alone to make.
I don’t think this clause has been used all series. Certainly not at the Wande I don’t think the umpires are interpreting this rule correctly. It is my understanding that the light’s quality during a Test match is “tested” at various intervals. For argument’s sake, let’s say good/excellent light equals 10. At 4pm it starts to get gloomy, and the umpires re-test the light which comes to 8, a minor reduction. Why can’t there be a standardised format, which would introduce much better consistency, for light metering? If the light falls below X, take another reading. If it then falls further to Y, offer the light and don’t come back on the park until it reaches X.
Another suggestion: how about having a light meter embedded in the stumps? This would be accurate, and constantly monitored by the 3rd umpire. It could even be relayed to “The Big Screen” for spectators to see? I suppose the argument against this could be it could cause a tactical change in captains, who would be able to see whether the light was decreasing (but – they’ve got eyes, they can see the bloody light anyway).
Post your thoughts if you have any.
5 Comments »