Events in the current Test Series in Australia make it clear that the umpires in televised matches must be given more support wherever possible. Where technology is available, they must be permitted to use it. In international matches today there are four umpires, the third of whom is constantly monitoring play on a television screen. There is no need to change any of the Laws of Cricket for the umpires standing in the middle to consult the third umpire before making a decision.
Last November on this website I made a plea for the match referee to have the power to "cite" players who do not play the game within the Spirit of Cricket and within the Laws (See "Technology in Cricket - Should players be cited?", posted in November 2007). I believe that citing players after scrutinising the replays and also the introduction of "referrals", not by the players, but by the third umpire may well be the only way forward for the international game. Citing by a match referee and the use of referrals by the third umpire would maintain the authority of the umpires and keep the decision-making process where it should be - in the hands of the match officials.
There was a trial in County Cricket in England and Wales in 2007, whereby a batsman or the captain of the fielding team had the right to "make a referral" to the third umpire against a decision made by an umpire on the field. Although there were restrictions put in place to prevent this right being abused, it was not seen as successful or helpful and the trial has been abandoned. I am delighted that this idea has been cast aside, though I am concerned that the ICC Cricket Committee and the MCC World Cricket Committee are considering this again. It goes against the Spirit of Cricket. The Preamble to the Laws states "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture". The players have to appeal in the first place in the case of some dismissals to ask the umpire to make a decision. To have another appeal was always ridiculous. However, there has never been any reason why the umpire at the bowler's end, to whom most appeals are addressed, should not refer to either his partner on the field or the third umpire, if he believes that they can help his decision. Indeed in certain kinds of dismissal it is now strongly encouraged or even mandatory for the umpire to ask for a decision from his colleague watching the replays.
Although it would contradict Law 27.5, regarding the jurisdiction of the umpires, if the third umpire intervened without being asked, it should also be made possible for this official to ask the umpire at the bowler's end to wait before making a decision or on occasions even ask for a "referral" after the decision has been made. Although it would be wrong to change the Laws, which are applicable to all cricket matches at every level of the game, it could be done by means of an ICC Playing Regulation, which would only apply to international matches where television replays are available. It would be infinitely preferable for the third umpire rather than the players to have the chance to question the standing umpire's decision.
Apart from a reluctance to go down the route of technology because it is not always foolproof, there is also a fear that the game would be interrupted too often if every decision were referred to the third umpire. Perhaps the umpires in the middle should be encouraged to consult the third umpire whenever they intend to give a batsman out, rather than after every appeal.
If the game's administrators wish to reduce the amount of dissent on the field of play, they should consider a combination of citing and referrals, which might encourage all international cricketers to play within the Spirit of Cricket.
Roger Knight
Sunday 13 January 2008
Wednesday 9 January 2008
Umpires and Match Referees need the support of the Administrators
Not all that long ago the International Cricket Council introduced independent umpires to Test Matches on the grounds that any umpire from a country taking part in the match might be accused of bias. That brought cricket into line with rugby and football and was welcomed by the players and the administrators. Today India has stated that Steve Bucknor was biased against its team, that his decisions in this and previous matches clearly favoured the Australians. When the Pakistan players refused to continue the match against England at the Oval they accused Darrell Hair of being biased against them, as had the Sri Lankans when Hair no-balled Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing. So much for players accepting the decisions and the independence or neutrality of the umpires!
All umpires would agree, I am sure, that they are fallible and make mistakes. However, for them to be accused of being biased is tantamount to slander. What is their employer doing to support them against these charges? Sadly not enough!
1. Darrell Hair has been told that he must undergo remedial training before he can be considered again as an umpire at the top level. This concession was only made after Hair took the ICC to court. He may have acted insensitively and prematurely at the end of the match at the Oval, but he did apply the Laws of Cricket. He may have made some poor decisions during the match and in other matches involving Pakistan, but where is the evidence that he was biased against them?
2. Darrell Hair has not umpired in a game involving Sri Lanka for eight years.
3. Steve Bucknor has been removed from standing in the third Test Match between Australia and India in Perth. Malcolm Speed, the ICC Chief Executive Officer has insisted that the decision was made for the good of the game, not to appease India. “We could have taken a confrontational tone but we took a diplomatic approach," he said. "We have got an international sporting incident where countries are polarised. What we are seeking to do is avoid having that turn into an international crisis.”
Several senior umpires are privately very upset that the game’s administrators at international or county level do not support them sufficiently. Umpiring is becoming a thankless task and the attitude of players and Boards towards them is increasingly hostile. Television replays show their mistakes to the world, players pressurize them more and more, there are derogatory comments made about them in the media and, in the case of these two umpires, they cannot rely on their employer, Cricket’s governing body, to back them when they are slandered.
Match referees also need support from the ICC. They too are honest men doing their best in a match, albeit from a distance and usually behind a plate glass window until they have to come face to face with the players and officials. They are expected, as are umpires, to be strong but understanding in their dealings with players. They are given authority to conduct investigations, hold enquiries and impose sanctions on players who step outside the required standards. In Sydney, Mike Procter was asked to investigate an alleged case of racism, which was only heard, apparently, by three or four players. Whether he has taken the right decision is not for me to say, but presumably he was convinced enough by the evidence produced to accept the word of two Australians against two Indians. The real problem with “sledging”, whether of a racist nature or not, is that it goads the opposition, as it is intended to do. The macho approach always escalates and leads to confrontation.
It does appear that ICC cannot win in this situation. If the Council supports the Match Referee, India has threatened to return home. If it overturns the decision, it is undermining Mike Procter, its own employee, who has undoubtedly been told to take strong action in cases of alleged racism. Nevertheless the ICC cannot duck the issue and its decision will not be easy.
Cricket has always been based on a number of unwritten tenets, which were written for the first time into the Preface of the Laws of Cricket in 2000:
a. Cricket should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.
b. The umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play
c. The Spirit of the Game involves Respect for:
i. your opponents
ii your own captain and team
iii the role of the umpires
iv the game’s traditional values
d. It is against the Spirit of the Game to direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire (It is not only racist comments that need to be stamped out of the game!)
Unless the governing bodies of the game throughout the world embrace these points and accept the authority of the match referee and the umpires, the game of cricket will deteriorate. Test Matches must be staged in a spirit in which both teams show respect to their opponents and to the umpires. All governing bodies should not only sign up to that but also understand that, on occasions, their team will need to be reprimanded, if they overstep the mark. The captains should show the way and understand their responsibility in defusing potentially inflammatory situations. Another major part of the Preface to the Laws is that “The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws”. It is important that ICC stands firm and stresses these points. It cannot afford to let the Spirit of Cricket wither.
This unseemly and petulant situation taking place in Australia is not doing any good for Cricket. A greater use of technology might assist umpires in making some of their decisions and this should be explored further. It is of the utmost importance that the senior administrators are strong and supportive of the men in the middle, the umpires, and the man overseeing their control of the game, the match referee. Ultimately the way in which the game is conducted is in the hands of the captains and the players. They have a responsibility to play fair but hard. They do not, and did not throughout the history of the game, always get things right and now is the time for the leading players in the world to set the tone for the rest of the cricketers who follow their example.
Roger Knight
All umpires would agree, I am sure, that they are fallible and make mistakes. However, for them to be accused of being biased is tantamount to slander. What is their employer doing to support them against these charges? Sadly not enough!
1. Darrell Hair has been told that he must undergo remedial training before he can be considered again as an umpire at the top level. This concession was only made after Hair took the ICC to court. He may have acted insensitively and prematurely at the end of the match at the Oval, but he did apply the Laws of Cricket. He may have made some poor decisions during the match and in other matches involving Pakistan, but where is the evidence that he was biased against them?
2. Darrell Hair has not umpired in a game involving Sri Lanka for eight years.
3. Steve Bucknor has been removed from standing in the third Test Match between Australia and India in Perth. Malcolm Speed, the ICC Chief Executive Officer has insisted that the decision was made for the good of the game, not to appease India. “We could have taken a confrontational tone but we took a diplomatic approach," he said. "We have got an international sporting incident where countries are polarised. What we are seeking to do is avoid having that turn into an international crisis.”
Several senior umpires are privately very upset that the game’s administrators at international or county level do not support them sufficiently. Umpiring is becoming a thankless task and the attitude of players and Boards towards them is increasingly hostile. Television replays show their mistakes to the world, players pressurize them more and more, there are derogatory comments made about them in the media and, in the case of these two umpires, they cannot rely on their employer, Cricket’s governing body, to back them when they are slandered.
Match referees also need support from the ICC. They too are honest men doing their best in a match, albeit from a distance and usually behind a plate glass window until they have to come face to face with the players and officials. They are expected, as are umpires, to be strong but understanding in their dealings with players. They are given authority to conduct investigations, hold enquiries and impose sanctions on players who step outside the required standards. In Sydney, Mike Procter was asked to investigate an alleged case of racism, which was only heard, apparently, by three or four players. Whether he has taken the right decision is not for me to say, but presumably he was convinced enough by the evidence produced to accept the word of two Australians against two Indians. The real problem with “sledging”, whether of a racist nature or not, is that it goads the opposition, as it is intended to do. The macho approach always escalates and leads to confrontation.
It does appear that ICC cannot win in this situation. If the Council supports the Match Referee, India has threatened to return home. If it overturns the decision, it is undermining Mike Procter, its own employee, who has undoubtedly been told to take strong action in cases of alleged racism. Nevertheless the ICC cannot duck the issue and its decision will not be easy.
Cricket has always been based on a number of unwritten tenets, which were written for the first time into the Preface of the Laws of Cricket in 2000:
a. Cricket should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.
b. The umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play
c. The Spirit of the Game involves Respect for:
i. your opponents
ii your own captain and team
iii the role of the umpires
iv the game’s traditional values
d. It is against the Spirit of the Game to direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire (It is not only racist comments that need to be stamped out of the game!)
Unless the governing bodies of the game throughout the world embrace these points and accept the authority of the match referee and the umpires, the game of cricket will deteriorate. Test Matches must be staged in a spirit in which both teams show respect to their opponents and to the umpires. All governing bodies should not only sign up to that but also understand that, on occasions, their team will need to be reprimanded, if they overstep the mark. The captains should show the way and understand their responsibility in defusing potentially inflammatory situations. Another major part of the Preface to the Laws is that “The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws”. It is important that ICC stands firm and stresses these points. It cannot afford to let the Spirit of Cricket wither.
This unseemly and petulant situation taking place in Australia is not doing any good for Cricket. A greater use of technology might assist umpires in making some of their decisions and this should be explored further. It is of the utmost importance that the senior administrators are strong and supportive of the men in the middle, the umpires, and the man overseeing their control of the game, the match referee. Ultimately the way in which the game is conducted is in the hands of the captains and the players. They have a responsibility to play fair but hard. They do not, and did not throughout the history of the game, always get things right and now is the time for the leading players in the world to set the tone for the rest of the cricketers who follow their example.
Roger Knight
Wednesday 2 January 2008
What do we want from cricketers?
What do we want from cricketers at the top level? Do we want them to play fairly or do we expect them to take every opportunity to deceive the umpires, the opposition and everyone watching?
Today there was the perfect example of why players, when they do not play within the Spirit of the game, should be cited by the Match Referee (See my article in November 2007). Andrew Symonds edged a ball to the India wicketkeeper and stood his ground, having turned and watched the ball disappear into the wicketkeeper's gloves - often a tell tale reaction when a batsman knows that he has hit the ball. Despite the loud appeal the umpire gave a not out decision. Television replays made it quite clear that Symonds had hit the ball and that there was no doubt that the ball had easily carried to the wicketkeeper. Indeed, in an interview later, Symonds acknowledged that he had hit the ball, but justified his decision to stand his ground by saying that he had been given out on occasions when he had not hit the ball. He saw his actions as merely evening things up.
Compare this incident with the occasion when Adam Gilchrist, one of Symonds' team-mates, 'walked' in the semi-final of an ICC World Cup in South Africa. He knew that he had gloved the ball and went without waiting for the umpire's decision.
Which of these two players do we believe was acting in the Spirit of Cricket? There will be some, undoubtedly, who will attempt to justify the actions of Symonds by saying that the umpire is there to make such decisions. They will say it is an individual's choice as to whether he should walk or not. They will agree that umpires make mistakes and that the players will get some good and some bad decisions, so it is only right to take the rough with the smooth and to capitalise when the wrong decision goes in your favour.
Conversely, others will say that 'not walking' is tantamount to cheating; that this aspect of cricket causes more frustration and antagonism amongst the players of the fielding team; that it increases the pressure on the umpires; that there is no difference in hitting the ball in the air to the fielders in front of the wicket, when generally batsmen 'walk', from hitting it in the air to the wicketkeeper.
This has always been an issue which has divided players. However, as players or spectators, we constantly say that it is important that the correct decision is taken. Players have the opportunity to help to achieve more correct decisions if they 'walk' when they edge the ball. It is disappointing when they decide that their own score or the team's position is of greater importance than the game itself. Although it is understandable that professional cricketers, who are employed and paid to achieve results, should strive for personal success, if the Spirit of Cricket is really to prevail it is vital that players are made to accept their responsibilities. This is where administrators should be stronger and say unequivocally how players should act.
Administrators should consider whether technology can help to keep players honest. Match Referees should be told to cite batsmen who have clearly hit the ball and have not 'walked' when the ball has been cleanly caught.
Roger Knight
Today there was the perfect example of why players, when they do not play within the Spirit of the game, should be cited by the Match Referee (See my article in November 2007). Andrew Symonds edged a ball to the India wicketkeeper and stood his ground, having turned and watched the ball disappear into the wicketkeeper's gloves - often a tell tale reaction when a batsman knows that he has hit the ball. Despite the loud appeal the umpire gave a not out decision. Television replays made it quite clear that Symonds had hit the ball and that there was no doubt that the ball had easily carried to the wicketkeeper. Indeed, in an interview later, Symonds acknowledged that he had hit the ball, but justified his decision to stand his ground by saying that he had been given out on occasions when he had not hit the ball. He saw his actions as merely evening things up.
Compare this incident with the occasion when Adam Gilchrist, one of Symonds' team-mates, 'walked' in the semi-final of an ICC World Cup in South Africa. He knew that he had gloved the ball and went without waiting for the umpire's decision.
Which of these two players do we believe was acting in the Spirit of Cricket? There will be some, undoubtedly, who will attempt to justify the actions of Symonds by saying that the umpire is there to make such decisions. They will say it is an individual's choice as to whether he should walk or not. They will agree that umpires make mistakes and that the players will get some good and some bad decisions, so it is only right to take the rough with the smooth and to capitalise when the wrong decision goes in your favour.
Conversely, others will say that 'not walking' is tantamount to cheating; that this aspect of cricket causes more frustration and antagonism amongst the players of the fielding team; that it increases the pressure on the umpires; that there is no difference in hitting the ball in the air to the fielders in front of the wicket, when generally batsmen 'walk', from hitting it in the air to the wicketkeeper.
This has always been an issue which has divided players. However, as players or spectators, we constantly say that it is important that the correct decision is taken. Players have the opportunity to help to achieve more correct decisions if they 'walk' when they edge the ball. It is disappointing when they decide that their own score or the team's position is of greater importance than the game itself. Although it is understandable that professional cricketers, who are employed and paid to achieve results, should strive for personal success, if the Spirit of Cricket is really to prevail it is vital that players are made to accept their responsibilities. This is where administrators should be stronger and say unequivocally how players should act.
Administrators should consider whether technology can help to keep players honest. Match Referees should be told to cite batsmen who have clearly hit the ball and have not 'walked' when the ball has been cleanly caught.
Roger Knight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
