Sri Lankan / Indian Umpires - Cheats or just Fucking Useless?
Marco
OK I thought the Asian trend towards home bias had been
eradicated, but in just four days so far it seems that Indian /
Sri Lankan umpires are just as bad as ever.
I can't decide if it's just incompetence or they have gone back
to the traditional Asian perspective where cheating is the norm
(as is bribery, corruption etc.)
Perhaps it's time that the 3rd umpire or match ref can recall
batsmen for blatantly wrong decision such as those we've
seen over the last few days?
Who umpires the umpires? If this Sri Lankan umpire *ever*
stands again Paul Condon should get involved to find out
why!!!
Larry de Silva
"Marco" <Marc...@idcom.net> wrote in message
news:5ovh9tgqqkc5kqv8k...@4ax.com...
> After the recent series in Pakistan where the umpiring was generally
> OK I thought the Asian trend towards home bias had been
> eradicated, but in just four days so far it seems that Indian /
> Sri Lankan umpires are just as bad as ever.
Oh no, of course the sub continent umpires will never be competent or good
as a non sub continent umpire I suppose. You goose, what did you expect with
a biased attitude like that already in your head? You saw/heard/read what
you wanted to. Easy enough for whingers like you I guess.
> I can't decide if it's just incompetence
ONLY incompetence? Why don't you add incontinence as well? Sounds alike.
>or they have gone back
> to the traditional Asian perspective where cheating is the norm
> (as is bribery, corruption etc.)
He he he. You wouldn't want to generalise now, would you! Of course, these
things NEVER happen ANYWHERE else! Oh no, never in your back yard. Bloody
silly Asians, what would they know about cricket :-)
> Perhaps it's time that the 3rd umpire or match ref can recall
> batsmen for blatantly wrong decision such as those we've
> seen over the last few days?
Better than that, why doesn't the batsman sook to the opposing Captain & ask
for another hit? After all, HE thinks he is not out, doesn't he?!
> Who umpires the umpires? If this Sri Lankan umpire *ever*
> stands again Paul Condon should get involved to find out
> why!!!
Of course! Who next? Venkat? AV Jayaprakash? Asoka de Silva? I suppose Paul
Condon is beyond reproach as an umpire competency expert as well as an
expert in other affairs! You idiot :-)
Larrikin
Yuk Tang
Larry de Silva wrote in message ...
[A load of stuff in response to Marco ending with]
>....You idiot :-)
I don't see why the smiley is there. From what I've seen in UKSC, Marco
seems to be an over-reacting so-so, so your remark can be taken at face
value.
I dunno about Indian umpires in general, since it's been a while since we
last played there, nor Sri Lankan umpires in general, but Stewart's decision
yesterday was atrocious. I'll chime in with more comments once I've seen
tonight's highlights, but if the Hick and Hussain decisions are as dubious
as people make them out to be, a significant part of the top order will have
been sawn off.
BTW, my first thought when Hussain was LBW in the first innings was that he
was hit outside the line. However, the replay showed that it was a good
decision. Let's see what the play was like before making any firm comments.
Cheers, ymt.
Marco
>Oh no, of course the sub continent umpires will never be competent or good
>as a non sub continent umpire I suppose.
Well on today's showing the SL umpires have a lot of
catching up to do!
>You goose,
Goose!!!!! I've never been called *that* before!
> what did you expect with
>a biased attitude like that already in your head? You saw/heard/read what
>you wanted to. Easy enough for whingers like you I guess.
>
You presumably haven't been watching this game then. I *saw* exactly
what happened, and if *you* did you should be ashamed that SL
can appoint an umpire this bad.
>> I can't decide if it's just incompetence
>ONLY incompetence? Why don't you add incontinence as well? Sounds alike.
??? Is that supposed to be your idea of a joke??.
>>or they have gone back
>> to the traditional Asian perspective where cheating is the norm
>> (as is bribery, corruption etc.)
>
>He he he. You wouldn't want to generalise now, would you! Of course, these
>things NEVER happen ANYWHERE else! Oh no, never in your back yard. Bloody
>silly Asians, what would they know about cricket :-)
Of course it happens everywhere, but at the moment it's happening
in Sri Lanka - or are you happy with the standard of umpiring
there?
>
>> Perhaps it's time that the 3rd umpire or match ref can recall
>> batsmen for blatantly wrong decision such as those we've
>> seen over the last few days?
>
>Better than that, why doesn't the batsman sook to the opposing Captain & ask
>for another hit? After all, HE thinks he is not out, doesn't he?!
Why don't you just address the point I made? Do you agree or not
that the 3rd Umpire should be able to recall a batsman?
>
>> Who umpires the umpires? If this Sri Lankan umpire *ever*
>> stands again Paul Condon should get involved to find out
>> why!!!
>
>Of course! Who next? Venkat? AV Jayaprakash? Asoka de Silva? I suppose Paul
>Condon is beyond reproach as an umpire competency expert as well as an
>expert in other affairs! You idiot :-)
He doesn't have to be an "umpire competency expert" as you put it. He
doesn't even have to be a cricket expert (nor is he, as far as I
know!). He is trained in rooting out crooks in any line of business.
It will be up to the ICC to decide if this Sri Lankan "umpire" is just
a complete nincompoop, or has more serious charges to answer.
Please answer just *one* question - are you happy with the
SL umpire's decisions in this game, or not? A one-word
answer will suffice.
Larry de Silva
> >
> >Oh no, of course the sub continent umpires will never be competent or
good
> >as a non sub continent umpire I suppose.
>
> Well on today's showing the SL umpires have a lot of
> catching up to do!
>
> >You goose,
>
> Goose!!!!! I've never been called *that* before!
Well, obviously others think you are one too then ;-). We cant all be wrong.
> > what did you expect with
> >a biased attitude like that already in your head? You saw/heard/read what
> >you wanted to. Easy enough for whingers like you I guess.
> >
> You presumably haven't been watching this game then. I *saw* exactly
> what happened, and if *you* did you should be ashamed that SL
> can appoint an umpire this bad.
No, I did not watch it but I followed nearly all the written commentary on
Cricinfo.
> >> I can't decide if it's just incompetence
> >ONLY incompetence? Why don't you add incontinence as well? Sounds alike.
>
> ??? Is that supposed to be your idea of a joke??.
Yes and no. I mean, why not call him something else as well while you are in
the position of abusing this fellow. Get it off your chest & resolve all
those issues you seem to have about sub continent umpires. Whinge away. Feel
any better?
> >>or they have gone back
> >> to the traditional Asian perspective where cheating is the norm
> >> (as is bribery, corruption etc.)
> >
> >He he he. You wouldn't want to generalise now, would you! Of course,
these
> >things NEVER happen ANYWHERE else! Oh no, never in your back yard. Bloody
> >silly Asians, what would they know about cricket :-)
>
> Of course it happens everywhere, but at the moment it's happening
> in Sri Lanka - or are you happy with the standard of umpiring
> there?
Wouldn't be able to tell you accurately as I have not resided there for over
30 years. However, I don't reckon it is any better or worse than the
standard of umpiring in Australia. And, to my knowledge, no one cheats in
umpiring in SL or anywhere else but at times, a couple of umpires (not SL)
have had some sub conscious bias against a certain player's bowling action.
> >> Perhaps it's time that the 3rd umpire or match ref can recall
> >> batsmen for blatantly wrong decision such as those we've
> >> seen over the last few days?
> >
> >Better than that, why doesn't the batsman sook to the opposing Captain &
ask
> >for another hit? After all, HE thinks he is not out, doesn't he?!
>
> Why don't you just address the point I made? Do you agree or not
> that the 3rd Umpire should be able to recall a batsman?
I disagree. The third umpire should be there for technical assistance and
clarification only. All decisions regarding dismissals should be made by the
central umpires.
> >> Who umpires the umpires? If this Sri Lankan umpire *ever*
> >> stands again Paul Condon should get involved to find out
> >> why!!!
> >
> >Of course! Who next? Venkat? AV Jayaprakash? Asoka de Silva? I suppose
Paul
> >Condon is beyond reproach as an umpire competency expert as well as an
> >expert in other affairs! You idiot :-)
>
> He doesn't have to be an "umpire competency expert" as you put it. He
> doesn't even have to be a cricket expert (nor is he, as far as I
> know!). He is trained in rooting out crooks in any line of business.
> It will be up to the ICC to decide if this Sri Lankan "umpire" is just
> a complete nincompoop, or has more serious charges to answer.
If he is as bad as you say he is, I'm sure that they will be assessing his
(& the other Indian umpire's) performance after the completion of the test.
I honestly don't believe any corruption is involved because in my ball by
ball reading of the commentary, BOTH umpires declined FAR more appeals for
dismissal than they actually gave out.
> Please answer just *one* question - are you happy with the
> SL umpire's decisions in this game, or not? A one-word
> answer will suffice.
So far, YES, because like I said (you should read them yourself to ease your
suspicions), according to the written commentary on Cricinfo, he gave many,
many more appeals not out than the ones he gave out. And according to the
writer, a few were extremely close to being out indeed. Cuts both ways, me
thinks, and usually evens out as the series progresses.
Larrikin
Larry de Silva
"Yuk Tang" <yo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:97b386$r4e$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Larry de Silva wrote in message ...
> [A load of stuff in response to Marco ending with]
> >....You idiot :-)
>
>
> I don't see why the smiley is there. From what I've seen in UKSC, Marco
> seems to be an over-reacting so-so, so your remark can be taken at face
> value.
>
> I dunno about Indian umpires in general, since it's been a while since we
> last played there, nor Sri Lankan umpires in general, but Stewart's
decision
> yesterday was atrocious. I'll chime in with more comments once I've seen
> tonight's highlights, but if the Hick and Hussain decisions are as dubious
> as people make them out to be, a significant part of the top order will
have
> been sawn off.
Like I have said in previous responses (maybe because it was mainly spinners
operating) but according to the Cricinfo written commentary, there were many
close appeals rejected by both umpires over the last two days as well. The
saw cuts both ways!
> BTW, my first thought when Hussain was LBW in the first innings was that
he
> was hit outside the line. However, the replay showed that it was a good
> decision. Let's see what the play was like before making any firm
comments.
I think this a good idea. It always tends to even out as the series goes on
IMO, in just about every test series these days, including here in
Australia.
Larrikin
Marco
>> >You goose,
>>
>> Goose!!!!! I've never been called *that* before!
>
>Well, obviously others think you are one too then ;-). We cant all be wrong.
You obviously missed the word "never" in my sentence!
>> > what did you expect with
>> >a biased attitude like that already in your head? You saw/heard/read what
>> >you wanted to. Easy enough for whingers like you I guess.
Why do you say "biased"? I call it as I see it. *You* haven't even
seen it yet. I would say that *you* are the one that's biased by
reacting to my comments *just* because they are anti-SL when
you haven't even seen what I'm talking about!
>> >
>> You presumably haven't been watching this game then. I *saw* exactly
>> what happened, and if *you* did you should be ashamed that SL
>> can appoint an umpire this bad.
>
>No, I did not watch it but I followed nearly all the written commentary on
>Cricinfo.
So how the hell can you have any sensible comment to put forward?
>> Of course it happens everywhere, but at the moment it's happening
>> in Sri Lanka - or are you happy with the standard of umpiring
>> there?
>
>Wouldn't be able to tell you accurately as I have not resided there for over
>30 years.
So shut up till you've seen it then come back and answer again.
(Must be a great place for you to have lived away so long!)
>> Why don't you just address the point I made? Do you agree or not
>> that the 3rd Umpire should be able to recall a batsman?
>
>I disagree. The third umpire should be there for technical assistance and
>clarification only. All decisions regarding dismissals should be made by the
>central umpires.
Agreed - except in cases like yesterday and today when, for
whatever reason, the ump gave a decision that was so out-
of-line. A bit like tennis where the ump can overrule the line
judge if they've made a blatant error.
>> Please answer just *one* question - are you happy with the
>> SL umpire's decisions in this game, or not? A one-word
>> answer will suffice.
>
>So far, YES, because like I said (you should read them yourself to ease your
>suspicions), according to the written commentary on Cricinfo, he gave many,
>many more appeals not out than the ones he gave out.
So what? The SL fielders appeal for anything - they appealed for a
catch yesterday when everyone could see that the ball came off
the batsman's thigh - that's cheating.
> And according to the
>writer, a few were extremely close to being out indeed.
You are obviously not familiar with the Laws of Cricket!
"Close to being out" is NOT OUT! Anyway all your
"knowledge" seems to have come second-hand from
a cricket report that for all I know has been written
by Sri Lankans!!
> Cuts both ways, me
>thinks, and usually evens out as the series progresses.
Usually on the sub-continent it doesn't!!
>Larrikin
>
>
>
Priyesh Patel
advantageous to send Atherton
and Trescothick back to the dressing room at the first opportunity. The rest
of the team are quite capable
of getting out themselves out without any help from the umpires.
The quality of umpiring isn't very good with some very bad decisions.
Hopefully, the organisers will be able to
rectify this in time for the next match.
Regards
Priyesh
============================================================================
======
www.london-uk.co.uk
Michael Creevey
Larry de Silva wrote:
>
> "Yuk Tang" <yo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:97b386$r4e$1...@lure.pipex.net...
[snip]
>
> > BTW, my first thought when Hussain was LBW in the first innings was that
> he
> > was hit outside the line. However, the replay showed that it was a good
> > decision. Let's see what the play was like before making any firm
> comments.
>
> I think this a good idea. It always tends to even out as the series goes on
> IMO, in just about every test series these days, including here in
> Australia.
>
> Larrikin
Some sage words from the Larrikin and the Yukmeister.
Larry I think you're mellowing in your old age- I think in 90% of series
I've watched in Australia (and indeed in other countries) the umpiring
decisions and non-decisions seemed to have evened themselves out roughly
in the 60-40 or better range
Regards,
Michael Creevey
samarth harish shah
read Charlie Austin's match report on CricInfo for all 4 days and *none*
of the controversial decisions so far have been attributed to Jayaprakash.
Continue flaming...
-Samarth [ who thinks AVJ is just out of "form"... or is saving his "best"
form for the Aussies ].
Chris Weston
Larry de Silva <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:WP8m6.5928$v4.2...@ozemail.com.au...
> > what happened, and if *you* did you should be ashamed that SL
> > can appoint an umpire this bad.
>
> No, I did not watch it but I followed nearly all the written commentary on
> Cricinfo.
Whoa there! You haven't *seen* any of the cricket? How can you possibly
defend the umpiring? You have taken one account of the game - the cricinfo
one which is *rarely* unbiased - and used it as a stick to beat *several*
other opinions, most of which come from people who have seen these incidents
with their own eyes on television. How the hell do you justify that?
--
Chris Weston
Marco
<larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>No, I did not watch it but I followed nearly all the written commentary on
>Cricinfo.
>
What, the same Cricinfo that wrote...
"An excruciatingly slow pitch made the cricket painstaking at times"
"Thirty minutes before the close his innings was cruelly cut short by
an appalling lbw decision from Umpire Peter Manuel" (re Stewart)
"Disconsolate players, perturbed administrators and patriotic
supporters were more concerned about plummeting confidence
in the umpires"
"England left the stadium tonight seething with the incompetence
of the umpiring"
"Hussain padded up to Muralitharan and was astonished to also be
given out lbw by Manuel"
"England have a right to feel hard done by"
"One Sri Lankan player though summed up the current situation
succinctly: "The problem we now have is that the umpiring is so
inconsistent"
maybe you "missed" those bits!
Also you may wish to see Hick "caught" off his pad, Croft
"caught" off his forearm ...etc. etc.
I *think* all of these dreadful decisions were given by the
home umpire, though you will no doubt say that is
coincidental!
David Blake
Easy. You dared to question a decsion that went in favour of *his*
team. Ask him about Messrs Hair and Emerson & you'll get a far
different account of what he thinks of umpires.
--
cheers,
Dave
I plan on living forever, so far, so good.
Larry de Silva
"Chris Weston" <Chris....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7Xbm6.6244$1e3.2...@news3.cableinet.net...
I wont justify bad umpiring if it warrants it, but to call them cheats is
out of order IMO. Whinge away & knock the umpires all you want (plenty of
other violins around I hear!) but to call them cheats is to cloud the issue
with other stuff.
Larrikin
Yuk Tang
Larry de Silva wrote in message ...
>
>news:7Xbm6.6244$1e3.2...@news3.cableinet.net...
>>
>> Larry de Silva <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:WP8m6.5928$v4.2...@ozemail.com.au...
>> >
>on
>> > Cricinfo.
>>
>> Whoa there! You haven't *seen* any of the cricket? How can you possibly
>> defend the umpiring? You have taken one account of the game - the
>cricinfo
>> one which is *rarely* unbiased - and used it as a stick to beat *several*
>> other opinions, most of which come from people who have seen these
>incidents
>> with their own eyes on television. How the hell do you justify that?
>
>I wont justify bad umpiring if it warrants it, but to call them cheats is
>out of order IMO. Whinge away & knock the umpires all you want (plenty of
>other violins around I hear!) but to call them cheats is to cloud the issue
>with other stuff.
Dear oh dear Larry. You're writing complete codswallop again. Run through
the paragraph Chris wrote, clause by clause, and you'll see that he's
calling the cricinfo commentary frequently biased. He's saying that you are
making a judgement based on that commentary, and arguing thus with people
who've actually seen the incidents on TV. Nowhere does he say or even imply
that the umpires are cheats. You'll have to stop attributing opinions to
people if you're to make a convincing case.
Cheers, ymt.
Phil Latio
> with some very bad decisions.
> Hopefully, the organisers will be able to
> rectify this in time for the next match.
When it comes to poor decisions in the home side's favour, Peter Willey is a
match for any Pakastani, Indian or Sri Lankan umpire.
Outside leg, hit the bat, never carried, played a stroke, suits you sir!
Harish Pahuja
Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
parive3
Michael Creevey wrote:
> Some sage words from the Larrikin and the Yukmeister.
> Larry I think you're mellowing in your old age- I think in 90% of series
> I've watched in Australia (and indeed in other countries) the umpiring
> decisions and non-decisions seemed to have evened themselves out roughly
> in the 60-40 or better range
>
> Regards,
> Michael Creevey
Not against the Windies Vs Aus. 80% of the bad decisions were in favour of
Australia. Not that it would have had such a big impact on the results but it
would have made the series a lot more enjoyable to watch.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:Not against the Windies Vs Aus. 80% of the bad decisions were in favour of
:Australia. Not that it would have had such a big impact on the results but it
:would have made the series a lot more enjoyable to watch.
How did you arrive at 80%?
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"It's precisely when humour is offensive that we need it the most. Comedy
should provoke, blast through prejudices, challenge preconceptions.
Comedy should always leave you different than when it found you."
-Duckman
V.
>If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
>Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
but that's hardly relevant to Phil's comment matching Peter willey's
alleged home bias with 'any' (not 'all') sub-continental umpires. Given the
furore over the standards in Oz too, it has nothign to do with which
country someone comes from, and all England reporters in SL have worked
very hard to not make any comments of bias, or of a racist nature. These
two umpires weren't up to the job. Simple as that...
V.
NP: Sandy Dillon
Mike Holmans
<v...@nospammingcynicalbastard.com> decided to opine:
>Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
>>If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
>>Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
>
>probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
>
>but that's hardly relevant to Phil's comment matching Peter willey's
>alleged home bias with 'any' (not 'all') sub-continental umpires.
One notes that "Phil Latio" is obviously a cocksucker.
Cheers,
Mike
--
1982 - last series England didn't lose to Pakistan
1962 - last series England won in Pakistan
2000 - England become first visiting team to win a Test in Karachi
Michael Creevey
"V." wrote:
>
> Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
> >If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
> >Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
>
> probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
Venkat is not the best umpire in the world, what a joke! Or even top 10.
If he is in the top 20 of international umpires, this bespeaks more of
the mediocrity of umpiring standards. Not that he is hopeless, but he's
got a long way to go before he is respected outside of India. People go
ape over him because he is the 1st Indian umpire in living memory who is
not laughably incompetent. Just on the lowish side of acceptable
competence.
As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
their side
Regards,
Michael Creevey
V.
wrote:
>
>
>"V." wrote:
>>
>> Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
>> >If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
>> >Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
>>
>> probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
>
>Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
I think it would be hard to prove either way. I don;t remember any glaring errors by
him in any Tests I've seen where he's officiated. I do by almost any other Umpire on
the list. Therefore, he ranks as one of the best, albeit in my subjective judgment.
>got a long way to go before he is respected outside of India. People go
>ape over him because he is the 1st Indian umpire in living memory who is
>not laughably incompetent. Just on the lowish side of acceptable
>competence.
or possibly, he's not given the same status as a western umpire would be, because the
colour of his skin is wrong. Or because he comes from the wrong country...
>As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
>including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
>their side
can't comment on that, having only seen a handful of the dodgy decisions...
V.
NP: havok mix
Uday Rajan
> Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
> Venkat is not the best umpire in the world, what a joke! Or even top 10.
> If he is in the top 20 of international umpires, this bespeaks more of
> the mediocrity of umpiring standards.
It's been a while since I've seen a match umpired by Venkat, so no
comments on this one.
> Not that he is hopeless, but he's
> got a long way to go before he is respected outside of India. People go
> ape over him because he is the 1st Indian umpire in living memory who is
> not laughably incompetent.
At a time when the cricket world is mourning the loss of the Don, it
is clear that living memory dates back to the days before India had ever
played a Test. If you really believe that every other Indian who has ever
umpired a Test was laughably incompetent, there's nothing further to say on
this thread.
> Just on the lowish side of acceptable
> competence.
> As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
> including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
> their side
Right. Just like the furore in SL is largely created by bitter
England fans who are extremely sore over the lousy performance of their
side, I suppose. Or like the furore over Dean Jones in the West Indies was
largely created by bitter Australian fans who were extremely sore over the
lousy performance of their side.
P.G.Gopal
best in my subjective judgement are Bucknor, Venkat, Shepherd and Orchard.
Gopal
V.
>Talking about the worst umpires in the world, Hair, Harper and Taufel take the cake. The
>best in my subjective judgement are Bucknor, Venkat, Shepherd and Orchard.
>Gopal
see and Bucknor for me is definitely a case of 'used to be...'. He's made some
horrendous decisions in the last few Tests I've seen him in. Well, not horrendous as
in SL v E., but pretty bad.
V.
NP: League Against Tedium
Chris Weston
>
> "Chris Weston" <Chris....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7Xbm6.6244$1e3.2...@news3.cableinet.net...
> >
> > Larry de Silva <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:WP8m6.5928$v4.2...@ozemail.com.au...
commentary
> on
> > > Cricinfo.
> >
> > Whoa there! You haven't *seen* any of the cricket? How can you
possibly
> > defend the umpiring? You have taken one account of the game - the
> cricinfo
> > one which is *rarely* unbiased - and used it as a stick to beat
*several*
> > other opinions, most of which come from people who have seen these
> incidents
> > with their own eyes on television. How the hell do you justify that?
>
> I wont justify bad umpiring if it warrants it, but to call them cheats is
> out of order IMO. Whinge away & knock the umpires all you want (plenty of
> other violins around I hear!) but to call them cheats is to cloud the
issue
> with other stuff.
Larry, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
--
Chris Weston
Kam
Marco wrote:
> >
>
>
> He doesn't have to be an "umpire competency expert" as you put it. He
> doesn't even have to be a cricket expert (nor is he, as far as I
> know!). He is trained in rooting out crooks in any line of business.
> It will be up to the ICC to decide if this Sri Lankan "umpire" is just
> a complete nincompoop, or has more serious charges to answer.
>
> What you mean the way he sucessfully rooted out the crooks who murdered stephen
> lawrence.
Kam Bharath
samarth harish shah
>
>
> "V." wrote:
> >
> > Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
> > >If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
> > >Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
> >
> > probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
>
> Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
> Venkat is not the best umpire in the world, what a joke! Or even top 10.
It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it? IMHO, Venkat over his career has
been far better than any Australian umpire I've seen since the 1985-6
season! If Hair is marginally better than him *at this point in time*,
it's because Venkat is going through a "slump in form". Over their entire
careers, which incidentally started around the same time, I'd choose
Venkat over Hair any day. And over the Isherwoods, Kings, McConnells,
Randells...
There are only three umpires or so since the inception of the National
Grid international that I wouldn't hesitate to pick over Venkat -
Shepherd, Bird and Bucknor. I don't think any of the others had the 5 or
so *consistently brilliant* years Venkat did between around 1992-3 to
around 1997-8. Based on overall performance throughout one's career,
I'd pick Venkat over any of the rest. Note that all this is only my
personal opinion.
The second Indian umpire on the international panel - AV Jayaprakash - is
*really* bad. Rather like Darryl Harper last I saw him, I believe. IMHO,
there are better umpires than him in India, but he's on the international
panel because he's "senior" i.e. more experienced. I'd say the same about
Taufel vis-a-vis Harper as well. Taufel certainly *seems* better than
Harper (from what I saw in the 1999-2000 season), but perhaps Harper is in
ahead of Taufel because he's more senior or more experienced or something.
The previous Indian umpire on the international panel, VK Ramaswamy, fell
about half-way between Venkat and Jayaprakash, IMHO. Which still puts him
head and shoulders above the likes of Harper. During the mid-90s, I
happened to rate the Venkat + Ramaswamy Indian duo on the international
panel head and shoulders over the Randell + Hair Aussie duo. Just based on
what I had seen of them, which at that point in my life, amounted to
almost every match that they umpired in.
Once again, I am compelled to ask you how many matches you have seen
played in India. You comment with impunity about all Indian umpires in
living memory - exactly how many have you seen umpire? Note that I have
seen all the umpires I have mentioned above umpire in more than one
international match.
-Samarth.
samarth harish shah
This must've been around 1995-6, BTW. Steve Randell wasn't a bad umpire,
but he had had a *terrible* 1995-6 season. By the time the B&H ODI finals
came around, he was just plain guessing on the LBW appeals. Even the
Aussies more or less knew that Randell had lost it. (There was one
occasion when Kaluwitharana was given out LBW standing a foot outside leg!
There was an audible groan from the crowd as the replay was shown.)
This was also when Hair could do absolutely nothing right. He was terrible
in his maiden test - Australia vs India at Adelaide in 1991-2. Against the
West Indians at Adelaide the next year, he gave the crucial match-turning
caught behind of McDermott - a wrong decision! The South Africans
complained bitterly about his umpiring in the 1993-4 series - and they
didn't even lose that one! (I'm sure Mike Procter is *still* cribbing
because he was last time I heard him speak. :-)) In 1995-6, the Murali
controversy flared up. Then in 1996 at Edgbaston against India, he once
against screwed up. For his first 4 or 5 years on the international panel,
Hair was probably the worst umpire in the world!
This period coincided with Venkat's best. In the mid-90s, Venkat, Bucknor
and Shepherd were simply terrific. Even in his last test in 1996, Dickie
Bird was magnificent. There was one occasion when a ball flicked Ganguly's
sleeve on its way to the keeper. Everyone went up in appeal, quite
understandably. I, too, thought it was out. The slow-mo replay showed what
a brilliant decision it was. And this was Bird in his *last* test - at
Lord's! Fantastic stuff.
-Samarth.
Phil Latio
if that's the case then test cricket is in trouble.
Larry de Silva
> > I wont justify bad umpiring if it warrants it, but to call them cheats
is
> > out of order IMO. Whinge away & knock the umpires all you want (plenty
of
> > other violins around I hear!) but to call them cheats is to cloud the
> issue
> > with other stuff.
>
>
> Larry, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Thanks for sharing that thought with me Chris. Sorry. Next time, I'll write
stuff that you want me to say. You'll be happy with that I guess. Sore
loser.
Larrikin
Phil Latio
"Mike Holmans" <pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a9a3e4a...@news.axion.bt.co.uk...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:28:02 -0000, "V."
> <v...@nospammingcynicalbastard.com> decided to opine:
>
> >Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
> >>If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
> >>Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
> >
> >probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
> >
> >but that's hardly relevant to Phil's comment matching Peter willey's
> >alleged home bias with 'any' (not 'all') sub-continental umpires.
>
> One notes that "Phil Latio" is obviously a cocksucker.
Obviously a Peter Willey joke.
kynoch
> > After the recent series in Pakistan where the umpiring was generally
> > OK I thought the Asian trend towards home bias had been
> > eradicated, but in just four days so far it seems that Indian /
> > Sri Lankan umpires are just as bad as ever.
>
> Oh no, of course the sub continent umpires will never be competent or good
> as a non sub continent umpire I suppose. You goose, what did you expect
with
> a biased attitude like that already in your head? You saw/heard/read what
> you wanted to. Easy enough for whingers like you I guess.
Maybe the umpires in question just had a sub concious bias against
Englishmen.
:-)))))))
<snip>
Colin Kynoch
V.
>> probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
>
>if that's the case then test cricket is in trouble.
>
>
Sorry Phil, but can you describe any mistakes Venkat's made? I can't think
of any, AWTBC, but...
V.
NP: R4
AndrewF
Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ab5e6ce...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:23:01 GMT, parive3 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> :Not against the Windies Vs Aus. 80% of the bad decisions were in favour
of
> :Australia. Not that it would have had such a big impact on the results
but it
> :would have made the series a lot more enjoyable to watch.
>
> How did you arrive at 80%?
>
The BBC World Service report after the first or second day of SL/Eng
actually gave a figure for bad decisions in the Aus/WI series. Sadly I've
forgotten it, but I think it was something like 13 against WI, 2 against
Aus, which is near enough 80%. My memory could be faulty, but that's the
ball park. They suggested that it was a good idea to keep a tally of this.
I think it's a fair bet that as this Eng-SL series progresses this will be
done. It's also a fair bet that not everyone will agree on the numbers!
As an England supporter I'm just consoling myself with memories of the
umpiring at Headingley vs RSA.
I really hope that there is less controversy at Kandy. I also hope that
flashing English blades will dispatch Murali to all quarters of the ground,
that Gough will knock Sangakkara's head clean off his shoulders on a
lightening fast pitch, and that I will win the lottery. I fear I may be
disappointed on all counts.
-- Andrew --
Larry de Silva
"AndrewF" <arf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t9pgsaf...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
I sincerely hope that you are disappointed on the first two counts but good
luck on the third :-)
Larrikin
Mike Holmans
<larryd...@ozemail.com.au> decided to opine:
>
>"AndrewF" <arf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t9pgsaf...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>>
>> I really hope that there is less controversy at Kandy. I also hope that
>> flashing English blades will dispatch Murali to all quarters of the
>ground,
>> that Gough will knock Sangakkara's head clean off his shoulders on a
>> lightening fast pitch, and that I will win the lottery. I fear I may be
>> disappointed on all counts.
>
>I sincerely hope that you are disappointed on the first two counts but good
>luck on the third :-)
So you sincerely hope that there won't be any less controversy at
Kandy? Why?
And you're wishing Gough good luck on knocking Sangakkara's head off?
Why?
Larry de Silva
> >> I really hope that there is less controversy at Kandy. I also hope
that
> >> flashing English blades will dispatch Murali to all quarters of the
> >ground,
> >> that Gough will knock Sangakkara's head clean off his shoulders on a
> >> lightening fast pitch, and that I will win the lottery. I fear I may
be
> >> disappointed on all counts.
> >
> >I sincerely hope that you are disappointed on the first two counts but
good
> >luck on the third :-)
>
> So you sincerely hope that there won't be any less controversy at
> Kandy? Why?
I want to hear those English violins again.....................hear Marco
cracking the shits again.................!!
> And you're wishing Gough good luck on knocking Sangakkara's head off?
> Why?
Because he doesnt "appeal" to me
:-)....................................Nah............................only
joking Mike.
OOPS! I meant originally that I sincerely hoped that he was disappointed on
the first two counts (Murali & Sangakkara) but wished him good luck on the
third (winning the lottery :-))
Larrikin
Yuk Tang
Mike Holmans wrote in message <3a9cefd1...@news.axion.bt.co.uk>...
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:21:44 +1100, "Larry de Silva"
><larryd...@ozemail.com.au> decided to opine:
>
>>
>>"AndrewF" <arf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:t9pgsaf...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>
>>>
>>> I really hope that there is less controversy at Kandy. I also hope that
>>> flashing English blades will dispatch Murali to all quarters of the
>>ground,
>>> that Gough will knock Sangakkara's head clean off his shoulders on a
>>> lightening fast pitch, and that I will win the lottery. I fear I may
be
>>> disappointed on all counts.
>>
>>I sincerely hope that you are disappointed on the first two counts but
good
>>luck on the third :-)
>
>So you sincerely hope that there won't be any less controversy at
>Kandy? Why?
>
>And you're wishing Gough good luck on knocking Sangakkara's head off?
>Why?
Larry can't count.
Cheers, ymt.
Larry de Silva
"Yuk Tang" <yo...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:97iuu0$2q1$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Yep, you are right Yuk. I cant *count* on you to come up with anything
better than that :-)
Count Larrikin
Kurt
Larry de Silva wrote:
>
> > was hit outside the line. However, the replay showed that it was a good
> > decision. Let's see what the play was like before making any firm
> comments.
>
> I think this a good idea. It always tends to even out as the series goes on
> IMO, in just about every test series these days, including here in
> Australia.
>
This is the biggest myth going around. In my experience,
bad umpiring frequently fails to even itself out, instead
compounding any past injustices.
Kurt
Kurt
samarth harish shah wrote:
>
>
> There are only three umpires or so since the inception of the National
> Grid international that I wouldn't hesitate to pick over Venkat -
> Shepherd, Bird and Bucknor.
Everyone has different opinions about umpiring and that's
not surprising given that no objective system exists to
measure their performance. Batsmen and bowlers have their
averages, stike-rate etc., so even if they have poor
games when we happen to watch them, we temper that viewing
experience with their career stats to form a more complete
opinion. With umps, however, we judge them based only on
the handful of games we see them adjudicate.
IMO, umpires Bucknor and Shep are the two most over-rated
umpires in cricket today. Shep makes clanger after clanger
in every match I watch, with the latest India-AUS clash
bringing a couple of more. Bucknor is not even the best
ump in the WI, lagging far behind Eddie Nichols. Of course,
the above is subjective, I can't prove it, so don't ask me
to!
>
>
> The previous Indian umpire on the international panel, VK Ramaswamy, fell
> about half-way between Venkat and Jayaprakash, IMHO. Which still puts him
> head and shoulders above the likes of Harper. During the mid-90s, I
> happened to rate the Venkat + Ramaswamy Indian duo on the international
> panel head and shoulders over the Randell + Hair Aussie duo. Just based on
> what I had seen of them, which at that point in my life, amounted to
> almost every match that they umpired in.
>
I was convinced that Randell was hopelessly biased towards
the Australian team. Venkat, for all the mistakes he may
have made recently, remains totally free from that stigma,
in my mind at least.
> > As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
> > including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
> > their side
> >
I'd disagree. This is just an excuse that some Australian fans, use
to dismiss the matter, for reasons I can only conjecture.
Kurt
> > Regards,
> > Michael Creevey
> >
> >
Larry de Silva
"Kurt" <ktoo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A9D09A3...@mindspring.com...
Actually, I stand corrected on this issue. Come to think of it, the umpiring
decisions during the recent WI - Aus series did not even itself out. Good
point.
Larrikin
Phil Latio
"V." <v...@nospammingcynicalbastard.com> wrote in message
news:n84g79...@gate.armouries.org.uk...
Sorry crosswires. I was refering again to Peter Willey.
Ian Galbraith
:Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
:news:3ab5e6ce...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
[snip]
:> How did you arrive at 80%?
:The BBC World Service report after the first or second day of SL/Eng
:actually gave a figure for bad decisions in the Aus/WI series. Sadly I've
:forgotten it, but I think it was something like 13 against WI, 2 against
:Aus, which is near enough 80%. My memory could be faulty, but that's the
:ball park. They suggested that it was a good idea to keep a tally of this.
:I think it's a fair bet that as this Eng-SL series progresses this will be
:done. It's also a fair bet that not everyone will agree on the numbers!
If thats the case those figures are probably worse than Holdings tally
which was bad enough. For once thing it ignores not out decisions. I
counted at least 6 bad decisions against Australia over the series. Given
the differences in the bowlers I would expect the percentage to be at least
50%, if not more, because of the sheer difference in number of chances
created.
[snip]
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"It's precisely when humour is offensive that we need it the most. Comedy
should provoke, blast through prejudices, challenge preconceptions.
Comedy should always leave you different than when it found you."
-Duckman
Ian Galbraith
:"Kurt" <ktoo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
:news:3A9D09A3...@mindspring.com...
[snip]
:> This is the biggest myth going around. In my experience,
:> bad umpiring frequently fails to even itself out, instead
:> compounding any past injustices.
:Actually, I stand corrected on this issue. Come to think of it, the umpiring
:decisions during the recent WI - Aus series did not even itself out. Good
:point.
When one sides bowlers are at least twice as good as the other sides and
create at least twice as many chances it will never even out and logically
it shouldn't.
MCC
No I'm pretty sure it was Holding's tally. He uttered this ratio by abou
Adelaide. Nothing to do with the BBC world service. As if they watch
entire test matches in Australia
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
"P.G.Gopal" wrote:
>
> Talking about the worst umpires in the world, Hair, Harper and Taufel take the cake.
No your complete and utter ignorance on this subject takes the cake
The
> best in my subjective judgement are Bucknor, Venkat, Shepherd and Orchard.
> Gopal
Very subjective judgement
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
"V." wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:45:33 +1100, Michael Creevey <eusebiu...@fan.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"V." wrote:
> >>
> >> Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
> >> >If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
> >> >Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
> >>
> >> probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
> >
> >Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
>
> I think it would be hard to prove either way. I don;t remember any glaring errors by
> him in any Tests I've seen where he's officiated.
I do. Including this one. Several in fact. In fact every test I've ever
seen him officiate. Not that he's utter crap IMO, but I'll politely
describe him as improving
I do by almost any other Umpire on
> the list. Therefore, he ranks as one of the best, albeit in my subjective judgment.
>
> >got a long way to go before he is respected outside of India. People go
> >ape over him because he is the 1st Indian umpire in living memory who is
> >not laughably incompetent. Just on the lowish side of acceptable
> >competence.
>
> or possibly, he's not given the same status as a western umpire would be, because the
> colour of his skin is wrong. Or because he comes from the wrong country...
Could very well be...
But it isn't
>
> >As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
> >including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
> >their side
>
> can't comment on that, having only seen a handful of the dodgy decisions...
>
> V.
>
> NP: havok mix
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> Michael Creevey wrote:
>
> > Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
> > Venkat is not the best umpire in the world, what a joke! Or even top 10.
> > If he is in the top 20 of international umpires, this bespeaks more of
> > the mediocrity of umpiring standards.
>
> It's been a while since I've seen a match umpired by Venkat, so no
> comments on this one.
>
> > Not that he is hopeless, but he's
> > got a long way to go before he is respected outside of India. People go
> > ape over him because he is the 1st Indian umpire in living memory who is
> > not laughably incompetent.
>
> At a time when the cricket world is mourning the loss of the Don, it
> is clear that living memory dates back to the days before India had ever
> played a Test.
Admittedly 'my' living memory doesn't extend that far :-)
If you really believe that every other Indian who has ever
> umpired a Test was laughably incompetent, there's nothing further to say on
> this thread.
>
> > Just on the lowish side of acceptable
> > competence.
> > As for the 'furore in Oz' largely created by bitter West Indian fans
> > including Holding who were extremely sore over the crap perfomance of
> > their side
>
> Right. Just like the furore in SL is largely created by bitter
> England fans who are extremely sore over the lousy performance of their
> side, I suppose.
Not necessarily
Or like the furore over Dean Jones in the West Indies was
> largely created by bitter Australian fans who were extremely sore over the
> lousy performance of their side.
Well yes that is true, mind you it was a glaring mistake, but on the
whole I thought the actual decision-making by the umps was definitely of
above average quality, with at least 2 umps in that series being of
quality IMO. That is in terms of their actual decisions, they failed to
prevent the game from being played in bad spirit and with excessive
short pitched bowling. Did this help WI? Yes, but the last thing I'd
blame for the Aussie defeat on that tour was umpiring. There was
absolutely no intention, as far as I was aware, to advantage one side or
another
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
samarth harish shah wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Michael Creevey wrote:
[snip]
> > Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
> > Venkat is not the best umpire in the world, what a joke! Or even top 10.
>
> It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Yes it is, and I admit I was a bit heavy handed and impulsive in the
post I made initially on this thread
> IMHO, Venkat over his career has
> been far better than any Australian umpire I've seen since the 1985-6
> season! If Hair is marginally better than him *at this point in time*,
> it's because Venkat is going through a "slump in form". Over their entire
> careers, which incidentally started around the same time, I'd choose
> Venkat over Hair any day.
Well, on the basis of what I've seen, I disagree
And over the Isherwoods, Kings, McConnells,
> Randells...
I'd be surprised if Randell's error/decision ratio was worse than
Venkat, again based on what *I* have seen, but granted there have been
many poor umpires over the years, and you don't even mention Whitehead,
Prue, Parker, Emerson, Lake and Palmer...
>
> There are only three umpires or so since the inception of the National
> Grid international that I wouldn't hesitate to pick over Venkat -
> Shepherd, Bird and Bucknor. I don't think any of the others had the 5 or
> so *consistently brilliant* years Venkat did between around 1992-3 to
> around 1997-8. Based on overall performance throughout one's career,
> I'd pick Venkat over any of the rest. Note that all this is only my
> personal opinion.
Again I find the laudatory tributes for Bucknor by so many Indians
surprising. IMO he is far from the best West Indian umpires I have seen,
just as IMO Riazuddin at this point in time is a significantly better
umpire than Venkat and I would nominate him as the best umpire in South
Asia
>
> The second Indian umpire on the international panel - AV Jayaprakash - is
> *really* bad. Rather like Darryl Harper last I saw him, I believe. IMHO,
> there are better umpires than him in India, but he's on the international
> panel because he's "senior" i.e. more experienced. I'd say the same about
> Taufel vis-a-vis Harper as well. Taufel certainly *seems* better than
> Harper (from what I saw in the 1999-2000 season), but perhaps Harper is in
> ahead of Taufel because he's more senior or more experienced or something.
Yep this appears to be the case. Harper is an average umpire, no doubt,
he apparently gets on well with the players, is approachable etc but
does make some interesting decisions. Mind you Mike Holmans rates him
highly IIRC. Taufel IMO is a fine umpire, and IMO if Harper is not as
good an umpire as Venkat (IF) there's only a coat of shellac in it.
>
> The previous Indian umpire on the international panel, VK Ramaswamy, fell
> about half-way between Venkat and Jayaprakash, IMHO. Which still puts him
> head and shoulders above the likes of Harper. During the mid-90s, I
> happened to rate the Venkat + Ramaswamy Indian duo on the international
> panel head and shoulders over the Randell + Hair Aussie duo. Just based on
> what I had seen of them, which at that point in my life, amounted to
> almost every match that they umpired in.
Ramaswamy wasn't too bad, I suppose, from what I saw of him, but frankly
I doubt whether too many outside of India would have had great
confidence in him. However I retract the suggestion of 'laughably
incompetent', it was out of line, even regarding Ramaswamy, who in all
honesty I didn't see in action that much. And even in those games I
wouldn't describe him as incompetent, perhaps ordinary, slightly below
average, but not incompetent
>
> Once again, I am compelled to ask you how many matches you have seen
> played in India. You comment with impunity about all Indian umpires in
> living memory - exactly how many have you seen umpire? Note that I have
> seen all the umpires I have mentioned above umpire in more than one
> international match.
>
> -Samarth.
So have I; I'll also add that IIRC PD Reporter and his Pakistani
sidekick did a good job in the 87 World Cup (of course they did,
Australia won didn't they?)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
Randell may have lost it towards the end of his career because he had
other things on his mind :-)
Still I regarded Hair from the beginning virtually as a better umpire
than Randell. People seem to favour negative umpires. Hair made some
wrong decisions (although the McDermott one is hard to categorically put
in that category, at all IMO) but what impressed me was his general
consistency. I watched virtually the whole of the Adelaide test in 94 v
SA. He made one or two mistakes, however as I keep telling people his
performance in that game, while one of his worst, was not particularly
culpable. The dismissal of Kirsten, which was being replayed ad nauseam
at the time, after a slow replay was shown to be out ie the ball hit the
bat after the pad and was on line with the stumps. A lot of people
seemed to blame Hair when the really atrocious decisions in that game
were made by Prue, an unmistakably incompetent umpire. But of course all
Australians look the same
:-)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Uday Rajan
> Did this help WI? Yes, but the last thing I'd
> blame for the Aussie defeat on that tour was umpiring. There was
> absolutely no intention, as far as I was aware, to advantage one side or
> another
These umpiring threads on rsc (I mean the ones about umpires' mistakes in
actual games, as opposed to the hypothetical scenarios that people like Ron and
John post about, which make for fabulous threads) too often degenerate into
name-calling. However, I think there are very few fans who actually blame umpires
for their side's loss in a Test or a series. Most reactions are along the lines of
"That was awful umpiring, but we were outplayed and would have lost anyway". And
then someone on rsc snips out the part that goes "...but" and responds with "Your
umpires are awful too" and here we go from there.
However, those are two separate sentiments there. I've never umpired
myself, and could be grossly oversestimating human capability here. However, as a
casual observer, it does seem that there are too many poor decisions given at the
international level. Now, I realize "too many" is completely subjective, and I
don't really have a benchmark to go by (obviously, zero is not a reasonable
benchmark, everyone makes some mistakes). And the question then is, can the ICC or
any other cricket body do something about it? Is there some sort of training
program that even Test umpires can benefit from? Is there a way to "coach"
umpires? Players are shown videos of their play to point out the mistakes they
make. Does something like that make sense for umpires at the international level?
Or is it too costly and not worth the bother? I would like to see some sense of
perspective on these issues from the ICC.
It is also important to realize that just because someone says "Venkat is
an awful umpire" or "Hair is an awful umpire", it does not mean that they are
blaming the umpire for their team's loss. Even the best umpires make mistakes, as
the best batsmen and bowlers do. Players work on their weak points and try to make
fewer mistakes. Pointing out mistakes inevitably has an element of confrontation
in it, but can be important in improving on-field performance.
A lot of non-Australian posters here feel that Australian umpiring in
international matches is at best of average quality. That's entirely a judgment
call, and no Australian need agree with it. Just as no Indian need agree with the
sentiment that Indian umpiring is at best of average quality. However, just
because someone criticizes a decision made by an umpire from a particular region,
it does not mean that they are saying that their team would have won the match if
the umpiring had been better. I'd like to meet any Indian or West Indies fan who
thinks that their team had any chance of winning any of the Tests they played in
Australia, even with no umpiring mistakes. Yet, to my mind, umpiring mistakes were
made in both series. And if there are threads on umpiring mistakes on rsc, those
mistakes will be pointed out, as will mistakes by Indian umpires, or any other
kind of umpires.
Ian Galbraith
:"P.G.Gopal" wrote:
[snip]
: The
:> best in my subjective judgement are Bucknor, Venkat, Shepherd and Orchard.
:> Gopal
:Very subjective judgement
Especially considering the mistakes bad mistakes Venkat and Shepherd made
in this test and that Bucknor has made over the last couple of years.
Ian Galbraith
:"V." wrote:
:> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:45:33 +1100, Michael Creevey <eusebiu...@fan.net.au>
:> wrote:
:> >"V." wrote:
:> >> Harish Pahuja wrote in message <3A99D790...@lucent.com>...
:> >> >If that would have been the case, can u tell me one thing why
:> >> >Venkat Raghavan was chosen to umpire in World cup semifinals(1999).
:> >> probably because he's one of, if not the, best umpire in the world...
:> >Look this line is peddled here so often but frankly its utter rubbish.
:> I think it would be hard to prove either way. I don;t remember any glaring errors by
:> him in any Tests I've seen where he's officiated.
:I do. Including this one. Several in fact. In fact every test I've ever
:seen him officiate. Not that he's utter crap IMO, but I'll politely
:describe him as improving
I can remember glaring errors in almost every test I've seen him officiate
in going back to Australia's last tour of SA
[snip]
Straight_bat
>
> Especially considering the mistakes bad mistakes Venkat and Shepherd made
> in this test and that Bucknor has made over the last couple of years.
>
What mistakes did Venkat make in this test? This is a genuine question.
Regards,
Straight_bat
Ian Galbraith
3 LBW decisions.
Straight_bat
> :What mistakes did Venkat make in this test? This is a genuine question.
>
> 3 LBW decisions.
Could you elaborate please? I didn't watch more than a few sessions here
and there (damn work and sleep, why does it get in the way?). I don't
recall any reports highlighting any of Venkat's mistakes in the media
(both Indian and Australian) although it may well have slipped by
unnoticed.
Thanks
Straight_bat
Ragupati - Chandrasekaran
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:04:44 -0500, Straight_bat wrote:
>
> :Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
> :> Especially considering the mistakes bad mistakes Venkat and Shepherd made
> :> in this test and that Bucknor has made over the last couple of years.
>
> :What mistakes did Venkat make in this test? This is a genuine question.
>
> 3 LBW decisions.
I wouldnt know about these but the obvious ones were Ramesh given out
caught off the arm-guard in the first innings and Mongia not given
yesterday gloving Mark Waugh to leg slip.
-Ragu
1 is equal to 2 for sufficiently large values of 1
--Anonymous
AndrewF
MCC <eusebiu...@fan.net.au> wrote in message
news:3A9E71F2...@fan.net.au...
> [snip]
> No I'm pretty sure it was Holding's tally. He uttered this ratio by abou
> Adelaide. Nothing to do with the BBC world service. As if they watch
> entire test matches in Australia
>
The figure I gave [1] was definitely from the World Service, unless (a) I
hallucinated it or (b) there was a pirate radio broadcasting in Sri Lanka
claiming to be the World Service. I don't know where they got it from.
[1] And have no idea whether it's accurate, nor do I care much. As someone
else pointed out it seems a silly statistic as bad "out" decisions will tend
to be given more weight than bad "not out" decisions due to their finality.
No one will ever arrive at universally agreed figures.
-- Andrew --
MCC
I wasn't disputing, at all, whether you got it from the BBC or not, but
*they* obviously 'borrowed' that figure from Holding's commentary, which
they probably were listening to after taking their hands off the ff
button. One can make an accurate determination of the amount of certain
mistakes the umpires have made in a series, only that Holding didn't do
this
Regards,
Michael Creevey
MCC
Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> MCC wrote (re: Dean Jones in the WI):
>
> > Did this help WI? Yes, but the last thing I'd
> > blame for the Aussie defeat on that tour was umpiring. There was
> > absolutely no intention, as far as I was aware, to advantage one side or
> > another
>
> These umpiring threads on rsc (I mean the ones about umpires' mistakes in
> actual games, as opposed to the hypothetical scenarios that people like Ron and
> John post about, which make for fabulous threads) too often degenerate into
> name-calling. However, I think there are very few fans who actually blame umpires
> for their side's loss in a Test or a series. Most reactions are along the lines of
> "That was awful umpiring, but we were outplayed and would have lost anyway". And
> then someone on rsc snips out the part that goes "...but" and responds with "Your
> umpires are awful too" and here we go from there.
And that becomes indisputably pointless. It is obviously true however
that umpires decisions in a series are absolutely crucial. Frankly in
that 90-1 series if a few marginal decisions had've gone the other way
the result may have been different. This woul have required that most,
if not perhaps nearly all the marginal decisions including the Jones
dismissal to go A's way. And this would not have been a fair result. I
truly feel that with umpiring that is endeavouring to be fair and
impartial and with a decent standard of competence like the last x
number of series I've seen in WI, Eng, Pak, even RSA (and yes India too
in the last 5 tests) that the umpiring has been quite acceptable, and I
have not ever blamed umpiring for any one of A's defeats in that time (I
didn't see AvPak in 88-9, or 94-5 either but in the latter case there
was no A criticism of the umpiring that I heard).
This general pattern came into my head when I read this, ie great sides
present themselves with results and potential results consistently, so
when an umpire is initially recalcitrant the persistence of the great
side wears him down and keeps putting potential positive results into
the equation. The bad side has a plumb lbw appeal turned down e.g. and
then throws in the towel. The good side, even if their prime batsman is
dismissed in dodgy circs (eg SWaugh in the 1st inns) but fights to a
decent score
> However, those are two separate sentiments there. I've never umpired
> myself, and could be grossly oversestimating human capability here. However, as a
> casual observer, it does seem that there are too many poor decisions given at the
> international level. Now, I realize "too many" is completely subjective, and I
> don't really have a benchmark to go by (obviously, zero is not a reasonable
> benchmark, everyone makes some mistakes). And the question then is, can the ICC or
> any other cricket body do something about it? Is there some sort of training
> program that even Test umpires can benefit from? Is there a way to "coach"
> umpires? Players are shown videos of their play to point out the mistakes they
> make. Does something like that make sense for umpires at the international level?
> Or is it too costly and not worth the bother? I would like to see some sense of
> perspective on these issues from the ICC.
I genuinely believe that the standard of world umpiring is improving,
however there is undoubtedly room for continued improvement. On the
whole though, I think the standard worldwide is quite good, Manuel or no
Manuel
> It is also important to realize that just because someone says "Venkat is
> an awful umpire" or "Hair is an awful umpire", it does not mean that they are
> blaming the umpire for their team's loss. Even the best umpires make mistakes, as
> the best batsmen and bowlers do. Players work on their weak points and try to make
> fewer mistakes. Pointing out mistakes inevitably has an element of confrontation
> in it, but can be important in improving on-field performance.
Nevertheless, such posters should get their facts straight. I'm quite
sick of such one-dimensional exegeses myself. Generally speaking from my
POV, pointing out mistakes has an element of sour grapes in it, and
those sides which focus on those are only fooling themselves and only
deepening the torpor of their own inadequacies
[snip stuff with which I pretty well agree]
Regards,
Michael Creevey
[who agrees with most of what you actually say in this post, I mean its
quite refreshing to have a sane discussion with an Indian regarding the
merits of Indian v Australian umpiring, and even Samarth was quite
controlled as well considering, however I do feel there is unnecessry
negativity regarding umpires who have an odious and extremely difficult
job, and yes I have done a bit of umpiring, and know what its like to be
abused by players!]
MCC
I know that post was long enough as it was, however I'd like to correct
the impression that all series I've seen over say the last decade home
and away I've seen were umpired at an acceptable standard. The exception
would have to be RSA v A 93-4 (in RSA). Also individual test matches in
A, including A v RSA Adelaide 93-4
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>, but granted there have been
>many poor umpires over the years, and you don't even mention Whitehead,
>Prue, Parker, Emerson, Lake and Palmer...
>
but their second album was really good...
AndrewF
>
>
> AndrewF wrote:
> >
> > MCC <eusebiu...@fan.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3A9E71F2...@fan.net.au...
> > > [snip]
> > > No I'm pretty sure it was Holding's tally. He uttered this ratio by
abou
> > > Adelaide. Nothing to do with the BBC world service.
[...]
> > The figure I gave [1] was definitely from the World Service
[...]
> wasn't disputing, at all, whether you got it from the BBC or not, but
Sorry, I was being a bit touchy there.
> *they* obviously 'borrowed' that figure from Holding's commentary, which
> they probably were listening to after taking their hands off the ff
> button. One can make an accurate determination of the amount of certain
> mistakes the umpires have made in a series, only that Holding didn't do
> this
I suppose you can, but there are so many shades of wrongness, from the
absolute unbelievable howler (eg giving Stewart when ball pitches 8" outside
leg) to the "possibly wrong (eg the subtle deflection off a glove that is
only detectable in a slow motion seam wobble but not given by ump).
As an aside:
I'm not a regular on rsc, I just drop in when England are playing a test
series, but it does bother me that "cheat" and "biased" are words that are
tossed around too lightly. Perhaps I'm naive or idealistic but in today's
(post Shakoor Rana) cricket I don't like to think that there are any biased
umps, but there are some bad ones.
Also I don't like the word "cheat" used when players are doing no more than
indulging in gamesmanship within the laws. Such a strong word should be
used for extreme cases. For instance if a player drops the ball, falls on
it, and then claims the catch - *that* is cheating. But if a player claims
a catch and cannot tell whether or not he took it on the half volley, or a
bowler appeals for a silly lbw, that's ok - make the ump do his job.
Disputing it (eg Slater) doesn't make him a cheat. Wanker, yes. Cheat, no.
Cheating is serious business - imho of the same order as biting in Rugby, of
Cronje's crimes or of doping. If the camera were to show a test player to
have really cheated I'd hope to see an immediate dishonourable end to his
career.
As an English fan I'm happy to give Peter Manuel the benefit of the doubt,
and just say he had a very, very bad match. It would take a lot more than a
string of bad decisions from an inexperienced umpire to make me call him a
"cheat" or "biased". I hope he learns, improves and becomes a good test
umpire.
--- Andrew ---
phil wise
"AndrewF" <arf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t9vupk5...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
I'm with Andrew on this. "Bad" play, umpiring, behaviour is one thing. To
call someone a cheat means you have a much tougher burden of proof to
overcome.
Phil
Larry de Silva
I could not have put this better myself, MC. Totally agree with you.
> and
> those sides which focus on those are only fooling themselves and only
> deepening the torpor of their own inadequacies
Exactly right. To thine own self be true.
Larrikin
Larry de Silva
phil wise
"Larry de Silva" <larryd...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:oLVn6.1212$o4.6...@ozemail.com.au...
...compared to a kick in the head...
>
> :-)))))
>
>
>
Paul Robson
<larryd...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>> Nevertheless, such posters should get their facts straight. I'm quite
>> sick of such one-dimensional exegeses myself. Generally speaking from my
>> POV, pointing out mistakes has an element of sour grapes in it,
>
>
>I could not have put this better myself, MC. Totally agree with you.
I've not seen these decisions, being on holiday during test 1. One
thing I have noticed is that England seem to be saying that
the decisions were awful, but SL played by far the better cricket
and would have won anyway.
Depressing news. Jason Brown is taking advice from Robert Croft.
"No, boyo, you don't hold the ball that way. First of all dip your
fingers in a bucket of oil for five minutes, then grasp it so the ball
is held by all your fingers in a fist like grip, then lob it gently at
the wicketkeeper's head".
MCC
Larry de Silva wrote:
[snip]
> > I genuinely believe that the standard of world umpiring is improving,
> > however there is undoubtedly room for continued improvement. On the
> > whole though, I think the standard worldwide is quite good, Manuel or no
> > Manuel
> >
> > > It is also important to realize that just because someone says
> "Venkat is
> > > an awful umpire" or "Hair is an awful umpire", it does not mean that
> they are
> > > blaming the umpire for their team's loss.
>
> > Even the best umpires make mistakes, as
> > > the best batsmen and bowlers do. Players work on their weak points and
> try to make
> > > fewer mistakes. Pointing out mistakes inevitably has an element of
> confrontation
> > > in it, but can be important in improving on-field performance.
> >
> > Nevertheless, such posters should get their facts straight. I'm quite
> > sick of such one-dimensional exegeses myself. Generally speaking from my
> > POV, pointing out mistakes has an element of sour grapes in it,
>
> I could not have put this better myself, MC. Totally agree with you.
I'm glad you agree with me, Larry. Just this one sentence, or everything
else as well? I'd say from what else you've written on this subject you
pretty well agree with my points here. What gets up my nose is that
umpiring is mentioned as a sort of knee jerk reaction, first off in a
press conference, or in an ng when someone's team loses. This is
tantamount to making excuses for pathetic cricket failings
>
> > and
> > those sides which focus on those are only fooling themselves and only
> > deepening the torpor of their own inadequacies
>
> Exactly right. To thine own self be true.
>
> Larrikin
Far be it from me, though, to suggest that you can't criticize if
mistakes have been made. In all fairness, Larry, you've been an
outspoken critic at times of certain umpires. If one can substantiate
claims of bias, ineptitude, etc one should be free to do so.
I don't see where this burden of proof has been met with the better
Australian umpires over the last 5-8 years (excluding one or two games)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Larry de Silva
Exactly MC. Same wavelength!
> > > and
> > > those sides which focus on those are only fooling themselves and only
> > > deepening the torpor of their own inadequacies
> >
> > Exactly right. To thine own self be true.
> >
> > Larrikin
>
> Far be it from me, though, to suggest that you can't criticize if
> mistakes have been made. In all fairness, Larry, you've been an
> outspoken critic at times of certain umpires.
Certainly have MC & shall continue to do so if it is deserved but NEVER as
an excuse for losing a game. There is a huge difference there. I mean it is
OK to constructively criticise umpires (of ANY nationality btw) but to do
this & call them cheats with violins wailing in the background reeks of sour
grapes. Surely, I cant be any clearer than that.
> If one can substantiate
> claims of bias, ineptitude, etc one should be free to do so.
Correct. It is obvious that Manuel & Jeya were incompetent umpires in the
Eng - SL test. But to call them cheats & corrupt gets up my nose & gives me
the shits.
> I don't see where this burden of proof has been met with the better
> Australian umpires over the last 5-8 years (excluding one or two games)
Fair enough. (Hair & his apparent sub conscious bias against Murali's action
aside) I agree with you again MC.
Larrikin
The Wog
> thing I have noticed is that England seem to be saying that
> the decisions were awful, but SL played by far the better cricket
> and would have won anyway.
>
Mike Holmans
<val...@dingoblue.net.au> decided to opine:
I think I'd agree there. SL would have had a very tough time trying to
force a win if England hadn't had to follow on, and there were enough
dreadful decisions in the first innings to be able to argue that
England would probably have reached the follow-on target if they
hadn't suffered at the hands of Manuel (Jayaprakash didn't really get
in on the bad decisions until the second innings).
The importance of that is not that we should be crying foul and saying
it's a stitch-up, but that there are a couple of positive factors to
tease out: that we bowled tightly enough to restrict SL to 2.5/over
when they normally go at 3.5/over - so the follow-on target wasn't as
large as it could have been - and that Murali had to bowl 97 overs for
his seven wickets for an SR of 80-odd compared to a career SR of 63.
This sort of defensive ability isn't going to win (m)any matches, but
being able to defend soundly is a lot better than just being able to
collapse and give away lots of runs.
Cheers,
Mike
--
1982 - last series England didn't lose to Pakistan
1962 - last series England won in Pakistan
2000 - England become first visiting team to win a Test in Karachi
MCC
Larry de Silva wrote:
[snip]
> > Far be it from me, though, to suggest that you can't criticize if
> > mistakes have been made. In all fairness, Larry, you've been an
> > outspoken critic at times of certain umpires.
>
> Certainly have MC & shall continue to do so if it is deserved but NEVER as
> an excuse for losing a game. There is a huge difference there. I mean it is
> OK to constructively criticise umpires (of ANY nationality btw) but to do
> this & call them cheats with violins wailing in the background reeks of sour
> grapes. Surely, I cant be any clearer than that.
Pretty clear, and I can't recall you doing that.
>
> > If one can substantiate
> > claims of bias, ineptitude, etc one should be free to do so.
>
> Correct. It is obvious that Manuel & Jeya were incompetent umpires in the
> Eng - SL test. But to call them cheats & corrupt gets up my nose & gives me
> the shits.
Fair enough. I know exactly what you mean!
>
> > I don't see where this burden of proof has been met with the better
> > Australian umpires over the last 5-8 years (excluding one or two games)
>
> Fair enough. (Hair & his apparent sub conscious bias against Murali's action
> aside) I agree with you again MC.
>
> Larrikin
I think its pretty obvious that SL is the better side in
this series. Its unfortunate when umpires are hopeless, but
you can't really complain overall if the result accurately
reflects the difference between the sides. In any case, in
the EvSL series, it has already cut both ways apparently.
Its a shame though when poor umpires have to be appointed. I
really hope that the ACB never appoints Parker in another
test
Regards,
Michael Creevey