Cricket : India Complains of bad umpiring

January 4, 2008 1:39 AM

Team India to lodge protest against umpiringGone are the days when the words(actions and decisions) of the umpire were taken as final. Even the RULE BOOK states that the word of the umpire is final. Would Team India still complain if the bad umpiring decision had gone in their favor ?
posted by chrisranjana.com (33 comments total)

The fact there is a mechanism for complaint suggests some expectation of the need for one. Given the behaviour of some international umpires in recent years the need is obvious. Your final question is irrelevant.
posted by biffa at 1:57 AM on January 4, 2008

Then why have umpires in the first place ?

Make everything electronic and based on cameras.
posted by chrisranjana.com at 2:03 AM on January 4, 2008

Much as I love to see genuinely popular international sports being discussed on the front page of MeFi rather than the Amerocentric stuff that normally makes it I have to say that this is a rubbish FPP chris.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 2:12 AM on January 4, 2008

Well, Murali Karthik didn't walk, despite knowing he nicked one to the keeper, in the last ODI against Australia played at home. That almost certainly enabled India to win the match. These things happen, although the frequency in this game is notable.

Umpires' word is final, but the whole reason for umpires in the first place is the need for neutrality. If umpires don't maintain the confidence of that neutrality among players, then they can't do their job well. I'm surprised Bucknor is still on the circuit. Wasn't the WC 2007 Final fiasco partly his fault? Time to be retired hurt, mate.
posted by Gyan at 2:13 AM on January 4, 2008

One of the many horrible things that makes American footbal unwatchable is the waiting for the decisions after a play, while film footage is reviewed. If baseball goes down this route, overruling the umpires, much will be lost. I can't speak to cricket. But nice job wreckng the front page, all the same.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:30 AM on January 4, 2008

"India complain to appropriate authority using correct mechanism about poor umpiring decisions that have gone against them". This is noteworthy?

The umpire's word is still final -- the match referee isn't going to / can't overrule the decisions made earlier in the match. India are complaining to the match referee that the standard of umpiring on the first day were poor. They're right.
posted by Reto at 2:33 AM on January 4, 2008

and conveniently the crux of the question seems to be forgotten. Namely "Would Team India still complain if the bad umpiring decision had gone in their favor ?
"

?
posted by chrisranjana.com at 2:42 AM on January 4, 2008

Rubbish or not, that gigantic URL definitely breaks the front page.
posted by effbot at 2:46 AM on January 4, 2008

Old Cricket story,

Before the war a gentleman player was horrified to be given out lbw in a county match against Yorkshire. As he walked off he turned to the grizzled umpire and said;

'I was not out.'

The umpire's reply,

'Thee look in t'newspaper in t'morning son.'
posted by surfdad at 2:46 AM on January 4, 2008

chrisranjana: Probably not. But the question is irrelevant. Why would they complain if they weren't disadvantaged?

A more reasonable question might be: 'Would Australia have complained if the same decisions were made against them?'. But the answer would still be 'Who cares'?

India were unhappy with the umpiring, so they complained to the referee. As is their right. If the referee thinks they've got no basis for a complaint he'll ignore it, otherwise he might look in to it further or report it up the chain to the governing body.

The scoreboard won't change, the umpires won't be switched out, and this post will still break the front page.
posted by Reto at 2:53 AM on January 4, 2008

'cough'... more interesting cricket story
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:46 AM on January 4, 2008

Umpires' word is final, but the whole reason for umpires in the first place is the need for neutrality.

Neutral does not mean error free. Most sports fans accept that umpires and referees make mistakes and that these mistakes are PART OF THE GAME. Who hasn't rejoiced at seeing their favorite team on the plus end of a bad call? That's the way the ball bounces innit? As long as bad calls are unbiased you win as many as you lose because of them and fair play is guaranteed.

The effort (using cameras and replay) to make decisions on the field error-free does not solve the umpire neutrality problem, but rather puts more people (technicians for example) in a position to introduce more bias. What it does do is lengthen the duration of the game and introduce "natural" spots for commercial breaks.
posted by three blind mice at 3:52 AM on January 4, 2008

I cannot remember an American Football game (the primary sport to use replay that I'm aware of) ever cutting to commercial while a call was being reviewed. I mean, I'm sure it's happened once or twice, but it's far from common.

Injury time outs? Those belong to Budweiser.
posted by Cyrano at 4:02 AM on January 4, 2008

three blind mice: I said neutral, not perfect. What's irked many Indian fans is the number of bad decisions against them within a day's play, not the mere fact of a bad decision.
posted by Gyan at 4:07 AM on January 4, 2008

Neutral does not mean error free. Most sports fans accept that umpires and referees make mistakes and that these mistakes are PART OF THE GAME. Who hasn't rejoiced at seeing their favorite team on the plus end of a bad call? That's the way the ball bounces innit? As long as bad calls are unbiased you win as many as you lose because of them and fair play is guaranteed.

But as umpiring standards decline so the outcome of any particular game becomes less affected by the skill of the participants and more random. There comes a point where it's no fun to watch (or support either team). As Gyan says, the problem in this particular game was that were quite a few, really bad decisions. The complaint though is a meaningless political gesture because, as I understand it, there is some sort of internal umpiring review body at the ICC already.
posted by patricio at 4:57 AM on January 4, 2008

Cutting to commercial while waiting for the results of a protested call is pretty common these days, Cyrano. Pretty unfortunate, too, although I am not as strongly against instant replay as I am the almost unendurable number of commercials during a game. This is one of the reasons I like soccer so much (and why it's so unpopular among broadcasters).
posted by feloniousmonk at 5:34 AM on January 4, 2008

Referee / Umpire judgements (and errors) are part of the game, replacing them with video replays ruins the pace of the game. This is one the reasons why football (soccer) is so popular, the game doesn't stop for outside game reasons like commercials and replays.
posted by Vindaloo at 6:12 AM on January 4, 2008

Make everything electronic and based on cameras

Obviously you are a foul enemy of all that the noble game of cricket stands for, you abominable Apollyon - you barbarous Bolshevik - you chthonic cultist - you demonic denouncer - you ersatz Erinye - you fustilarian felaheen - you gaunt giglet - you horrible harpy - you iconoclastic insurrectionary - you jeering jackanape - you kakistocratic kook - you lumpenprole lapidator - you malodorous mutineer - you nagging nincompoop - you obtuse obfuscator - you pusillanimous peon - you quidnunc quadruped - you radical ruffian - you soulless sadist - you turpitudinous tyrant - you unmuzzled ultracrepidarian - you vampiric villain - you wagtailed windbag - you xenophobic Xerxes - you yammering yahoo - you zoophilic zealot!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:31 AM on January 4, 2008 [4 favorites]

I just looked up Steve Bucknor. The man is 70 years old! I'd say he does a pretty good job when you consider that.
posted by Prince Nez at 6:36 AM on January 4, 2008

What's irked many Indian fans is the number of bad decisions against them within a day's play, not the mere fact of a bad decision.

Hey man, I'm from Philadelphia. I grew up seeing "bad decisions against my teams." Not within a day's play, mind you, but over decades! I came to the conclusion later in life however that my teams actually rather sucked and that bad decisions (in their favor) was just about the best hope a boy from Philadelphia has to see a championship.

I, for one, am sick to bloody death of the best teams always winning.
posted by three blind mice at 6:49 AM on January 4, 2008

I like the system that tennis uses. The robotic cameras are always running, but aren't generally used. If a player disagrees with a call, they can challenge and the computer instantly replays the shot and issues a final, unassailable decree.

That said, tennis is probably one of the easiest games in the world to referee with robots.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 6:56 AM on January 4, 2008

Make everything electronic and based on cameras.
...
That said, tennis is probably one of the easiest games in the world to referee with robots.

Yeah, in tennis it's pretty obvious, either the ball is in or out. I don't know too much about Cricket though, but it's pretty much a no-contact sport right? So it seems like it would be amenable to this kind of thing.

I don't know how you could do something like that with, say, basketball or soccer without putting motion sensors all over the bodies of the players. Which could be interesting in it's own right.

_{Some of my co-workers were watching clips from an American football game where one of the coaching staff appeared to reach down and touch the ball as it was on the sidelines. If you watched closely, it looked like he pulled his hands away like within an inch of the ball, but the team still lost the call.}
posted by delmoi at 7:15 AM on January 4, 2008

You know Australia would have complained had things gone the other way. There team is comprised of the biggest dicks to ever play the game. Sucks they are so damn good.
posted by chunking express at 7:25 AM on January 4, 2008

Yeah, Aussies sure do have big dicks.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 7:45 AM on January 4, 2008

I heard saying so on the Internet makes it true.
posted by chunking express at 8:54 AM on January 4, 2008

Why do some sports have umpires (baseball, cricket) and some have refs (football, futbol, basketball)?
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:54 PM on January 4, 2008

The linked story on expressindia.com only reports on some of the bad decisions that went in Australia's favour, not even mentioning that a few have benefited India. Hmm.

The umpires are getting screwed by the technology here. We have infrared imaging for determining exactly what made contact with the ball, projected trajectories for the ball indicating whether it would have hit the stumps, cameras and microphones all over the place, but only the broadcasters get to see it all. The umpires themselves are still using regular human eyesight and hearing, with replays for some types of decisions.

The ICC has to be very careful in introducing technological aids for umpires. They don't want to slow the game down any more (they're already going over time every day as it is), and if they advantage the batting or fielding team too much, we'll have a couple of years of boring no result matches, or matches that are over in 3 days. So the umpires suffer instead.
posted by plant at 4:00 AM on January 5, 2008

My commiserations to my Indian friends on the standard of the umpiring on this the fifth day. Just terrible.
posted by Wolof at 9:47 PM on January 5, 2008

plant: The linked story on expressindia.com only reports on some of the bad decisions that went in Australia's favour, not even mentioning that a few have benefited India

Like which?

Someone should compiled a video-linked list of all controversial decisions in this game.
posted by Gyan at 12:23 AM on January 6, 2008

I waded through the bile in rec.sport.cricket to find this list of (ahem) contentious decisions:

Ponting not given out ct Dhoni on a thin nick to the keeper.
Ponting given out lbw on a thick edge onto pad
Symonds not given out caught on thick edge
Symonds stumping not referred to 3rd umpire (forget the referral)
Yuvraj not given out caught off bat pad
Hussey not given out when hitting the ball to the keeper
Dravid given out caught behind off his pad when letting the ball through

and then there's Ganguly's dismissal today, which at the very least was handled bizarrely.

It's a shame to see what was otherwise a good close contest marred like this.
posted by plant at 5:52 AM on January 6, 2008

Harbhajan banned for three tests
posted by Wolof at 2:50 PM on January 6, 2008

and for the record India lost the match !
posted by chrisranjana.com at 8:47 AM on January 7, 2008

Arrogant Ponting must be fired
posted by Wolof at 4:12 PM on January 7, 2008