Neutral umpires at both ends Imran's dream turns into reality
AK
Veteran English umpire David Shepherd had faced no harsh and disciplinary action
when he declared four England batsmen out on no-balls in the second Test against
Pakistan in Manchester in June last year.
By Ghalib Mehmood Bajwa
Imran Khan's long awaited dream and ambition turned into reality on April 11,
2002 at Georgetown when two ICC Elite Panel neutral umpires took the field to
officiate the first match of the five-Test series between West Indies and India.
Surely, it was a memorable day in Test cricket history and it should be
celebrated by the teams which had been the major victims of biased and partial
umpiring for long long time.
It was a belated but most positive and badly needed step of the International
Cricket Council (ICC) which should have been taken much earlier for the
betterment of the game. Now cricket lovers all over the world would enjoy and
watch more genuine and neat and clean cricket and above all the deserving sides
would win the matches.
Pakistan cricket legend Imran Khan and former BCCP chief Air Marshal (retd) Nur
Khan were the stalwarts who raised their voice for neutral umpires for the first
time in the early 1980s. As a result of Pakistan's repeated calls for neutral
umpires and other relevant measures, ICC first introduced match referees in
1991-92. And then in 1993, the practice of one neutral and one home umpire was
started in a bid to make the game more transparent. But after watching the flaws
and 'wrong doings' in this system too, the ICC decided to take help from
technology and thus a few months later, the post of the TV umpire (third umpire)
was created in 1994.
In fact in Georgetown, it was not the first occasion when two neutral umpires
officiated a Test match. In 1986-87, Pakistan won the distinction of inviting
neutral umpires for the first time in cricket history against the West Indies in
a three-Test rubber. Two Indian umpires V K Ramaswamy and P D Reporter stood in
the last two Tests of the said series at Lahore and Karachi. Again in 1989-90,
exactly after three years, Pakistan invited English umpires J H Hampshire and J
W Holder for a four-Test home rubber against arch-rivals India.
It is true that the ICC took various steps from time to time including the
induction of match referees, one neutral umpire, TV umpire, walkie talkie and
other relevant instruments but unfortunately the ultimate goal of completely
transparent cricket could not be achieved. And finally it had to accept Imran's
long time demand of two neutral umpires.
The game of cricket has not got this facility (neutral umpires) overnight.
Cricket and its fans had to undergo a lengthy and testing period spanning 125
years during which a total of 1,597 Test matches had been played without two
ICC-appointed neutral umpires. It may be remembered here that during Pakistan's
above mentioned two home rubbers against West Indies and India, the two neutral
umpires were appointed with the mutual consent of the respective cricket boards.
Formerly, it was a common practice that some umpires were accused of favouring
home sides but now all the teams whether batting or bowling will honour and
accept all umpiring decisions with an open heart. In other words it can be said
that the ICC, by deputing neutral umpires at both ends, has ended an era of
complications and controversies.
There have been a number of examples of biased umpiring in the world of cricket.
But in recent times Pakistan and New Zealand teams have been the prominent
sufferers of the decision makers' non-sporting and partial attitude. Pakistan
could have been the winners in their last tour to West Indies two years ago but
for some miserably poor umpiring decisions in the last Test of the rubber.
During the same season, Pakistanis were the victim of extremely poor umpiring in
Australia too.
Similarly, the New Zealanders, who have been playing considerably well for the
last one year, were deprived of a well deserved series victory a few months back
in Australia. The results of several other past matches could have been
different too had there been neutral umpires at both ends.
Pakistan's senior most Test umpire Khizer Hayat while appreciating the ICC's
effort said that cricket's international governing body has taken a much needed
step but the Elite Panel could not be termed a complete unit without the
participation of Pakistani umpires. While defending our national umpires he said
that Pakistani umpires are the best in the world.
If they have not been included in the ICC Elite Panel there must be something
wrong with them. Either the ICC misjudged their abilities or the PCB did not
properly pursue their case at the ICC.
Another of Pakistan's Test umpires and a former Test spinner Nazir Junior, while
recording his comments on neutral umpires, said that it was a positive step on
part of the ICC. He said that now a number of controversies relating to umpiring
and match results will ultimately come to an end.
Nazir said that on a number of occasions Asian umpires especially the Pakistanis
have been made victims of partiality and injustices but on the other hand the
'Goras' always got a soft and friendly attitude altogether. This clearly
reflects the double standard of the world cricket governing body.
For instance veteran English umpire David Shepherd had faced no harsh and
disciplinary action when he declared four England batsmen out on no-balls in the
second Test against Pakistan in Manchester in June last year. It may be recalled
here that Pakistan had won that match by 108 runs to level the two-Test rubber.
Interestingly, a few days later, Shepherd even admitted his mistakes.
Nazir regretted that had there been any Pakistani umpire instead of Shepherd, he
would have been penalised, reprimanded or removed. In another such instance
Australian umpire Daryl Harper, one of the members of Elite Panel, gave two
controversial decisions during the final of the Asian Test Championship between
Pakistan and Sri Lanka at the Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore in March 2002 which played
a vital role in deciding the fate of the match. First, he gave Inzamam out lbw
off a no-ball that even hit the batsman's pad over the knee. Then he gave Waqar
Younis out caught at silly-point when the batsman had not played the ball.
Such poor decisions could have been started a stir in the foreign media if those
were given by a Pakistani umpire. To minimise such blunders, the ICC should use
cameras/third umpires permanently to aid field umpires in calling no-balls. By
doing so the ICC can offer more neat and clean cricket to its lovers the world
over. Nazir said that the neglecting of Pakistani umpires was a sort of insult
for us. He demanded of the PCB to take notice of this injustice being meted out
to Pakistani umpires
The Wog
the
> last one year, were deprived of a well deserved series victory a few
months back
> in Australia.
By the abysmal neutral umpire Robinson. How that we've been subjected to
Tiffin in a couple of ODI's, I can see for myself how Robinson managed to
keep his No. 1 ranking in ZIM. (By contrast, Taufel showed that it is
actually possible to umpire well while standing in one's own country.)
> The results of several other past matches could have been
> different too had there been neutral umpires at both ends.
Yeah, it could have been umpired poorly at both ends.
>
> Pakistan's senior most Test umpire Khizer Hayat while appreciating the
ICC's
> effort said that cricket's international governing body has taken a much
needed
> step but the Elite Panel could not be termed a complete unit without the
> participation of Pakistani umpires. While defending our national umpires
he said
> that Pakistani umpires are the best in the world.
If so, where are they? None of them were good enough to keep out Tiffin
apparently.
>
> Another of Pakistan's Test umpires and a former Test spinner Nazir Junior,
while
> recording his comments on neutral umpires, said that it was a positive
step on
> part of the ICC. He said that now a number of controversies relating to
umpiring
> and match results will ultimately come to an end.
Yep, as we have observed by the conduct of several series now with
absolutely no umpiring debacles or controversies. Not.
>
> off a no-ball that even hit the batsman's pad over the knee. Then he gave
Waqar
> Younis out caught at silly-point when the batsman had not played the ball.
>
> Such poor decisions could have been started a stir in the foreign media if
those
> were given by a Pakistani umpire.
Although when Venkat gave two batsmen out caught in WI not even playing a
shot (and not within a foot of the ball), one of them with only the barest
quizzical half-appear, there was barely a peep.
Wog
Moby
> > Similarly, the New Zealanders, who have been playing considerably well for
> the
> > last one year, were deprived of a well deserved series victory a few
> months back
> > in Australia.
>
> By the abysmal neutral umpire Robinson. How that we've been subjected to
> Tiffin in a couple of ODI's, I can see for myself how Robinson managed to
> keep his No. 1 ranking in ZIM. (By contrast, Taufel showed that it is
> actually possible to umpire well while standing in one's own country.)
I was wondering how long it was going to take to re-write the record
books.
Paul Robson: Do you recall the eventual run-down of the bad decisions
of the series and agree that I might have a point WRT people's
memories of bad umpiring in Australia?
Moby
Andrew Dunford
"Moby" <mo...@unimail.com.au> wrote in message
news:6a082a8f.02062...@posting.google.com...
I'm not sure whether you're responding to the original article or The Wog's
follow-up.
I can't fault the latter: Robinson's performance *was* abysmal, and the
turning down of three clear-cut caught behind appeals made by NZ at Perth
meant his performance in that match probably worked against them.
That said, giving Robinson's umpiring at Perth as one of "a number of
examples of biased umpiring in the world of cricket" loses the article most
of its credibility. I saw nothing I thought was biased: it was simply a
case of an umpire who appeared to not be good enough to pick up the nicks,
but was at least consistent in giving them not out when he wasn't sure,
rather than the greater of sin of guessing at decisions and erroneously
giving some batsmen out in 'compensation' for earlier mistakes. So, if more
decisions appeared to go against NZ in that match, this simply reflected NZ
creating more chances in the match than Australia. I'd struggle to describe
this as having "deprived" NZ, who in the end simply failed to create enough
chances to force the issue. As for "well deserved series victory", I'll
leave that to someone with a more creative imagination than I.
If the article is guilty of rewriting history, the fault lies in picking the
Australia v NZ as a prime example of "biased umpiring" rather than being
simply wrong about the match in Perth. It's also possibly unfair to depict
that one match as representative of the whole series. If one wished to find
umpiring which had a profound influence on a series result, England's recent
tour of NZ is a much better example than the Australia v NZ series. However
the blame couldn't be attributed to the neutral umpire, so I suppose it
didn't suit the tenor of the article. The recent WI v India series also
appears to have featured contentious umpiring, but again it wouldn't
reinforce the writer's point (or perhaps the article is simply so old that
the WI v India series hadn't taken place at the time of writing
In summary: (a) I'm not Paul Robson; (b) I can't claim to be a neutral
observer although I believe I'm attempting to view the NZ v Aus series
objectively; (c) you have a point, in that beliefs about bad umpiring tend
to grow (and drift further and further from reality) over time, but (d)
don't get paranoid in your old age.
Andrew