PDA

View Full Version : Dodgy decisions leave Tigers in a tailspin


1137moiz
March 22, 2010, 03:43 AM
Salam mates, I'm a Pakistan fan but I also support Bangladesh. The umpiring in this series has been terrible and I wrote this article about it, please comment

Dodgy decisions leaves Tigers in a tailspin
by Ibrahim Moiz on March 22, 2010 at 3:28 am
Say what you like about that favourite old foe of every formerly colonized country, but many of the British do retain an aspect of fair play. It’s not an exclusive or national trait, of course–but for a nation that is constantly demonized for pomposity and one-eyed arrogance, England do have a refreshing number of fair-minded, unbiased spokesmen.

Michael Atherton, the former opener, and Bob Willis, an old paceman, are two such Brits. Atherton is a widely respected, thoroughly decent analyst who remains as objective as he can in his commentary, while Willis’ dreary, funereal and unfortunately unpopular tones belie an earnest honesty and keen eye during his own stints on air. Commentating during Bangladesh’s second Test against England at Dhaka, neither held back from criticizing the poor umpiring that left Bangladesh sweating as England slowly but surely approached their first-innings 419 on the third afternoon.

Not, of course, that the umpiring gaffes were difficult to spot. Whippy left-arm seamer Rubel Hossain was particularly unfortunate in this regard. Having trapped Kevin Pietersen (45) yesterday only to have the appeal turned down, he then reverse-swung a plumb lbw into Matt Prior this morning. Everybody except the umpire realized it was out, and Prior went on to flash a fluent, momentum-seizing 62. Ian Bell, en route to an otherwise magnificent century, was caught in the crease by an otherwise wayward Abdur Razzak, but a half-hearted appeal went ignored, leaving coach Jamie Siddons fuming. Shakib al Hasan, too, should have had lower-order batsman Tim Bresnan early, but yet another lbw call went against the hosts. Nor was it a one-off incident–the entire tour has featured a disproportionate number of decisions against Bangladesh, including a crucial one against matchwinning centurion Eoin Morgan in the second one-day, and although Bangladesh didn’t help themselves today with flaccid fielding and curious decisions, the flagging is understandable.

Long gone are the days when home umpires–many of them, lest we forget, in the subcontinent–gleefully and with perceived unaccountability added themselves as unofficial members of the home side. The concept of neutral, and third umpires has meant that poor decisions are almost certainly diminished from the old days, and yet, unforgivingly for the unfortunates in the middle, that very rareness provokes even more outrage for the gaffes.

Why, Atherton wondered, did umpiring decisions tend to favour the stronger side? Admittedly, the umpire’s job is a difficult one, only to be exacerbated by the humid conditions of Bangladesh, but the ratio that has favoured not only England on this tour but weaker sides in general (read a myriad tours of Australia, among others) is too heavy to simply put down to bad conditions. The matter is only worsened considering that weak sides often have less close appealing opportunities as well, making gaffes far more damaging than they would be in the stronger team’s favour.

Is there an unconscious tendency to take the side of the apparently more “probable winner” in the round? After all, no matter how hard one tries to keep focus, natural human fallibility means that the senses occasionally lapse. Consider yourself an umpire in steaming Dhaka, surrounded by a roaring crowd (the Bangladesh Test crowds are refreshingly large and boisterous) and beset by a myriad of appeals, not all of them particularly close. The mind is likely to wander, the eyelids likely to droop. Suddenly another appeal comes your way; in a brief stupor, you’ve altogether missed it, and shake your head, unaware, at best only half-aware, that it was almost certainly out. Even the best umpires, like Simon Taufel, Ian Gould and Aleem Dar, occasionally make mistakes.

It’s certainly not intentional, and yet it begs the question why TV umpiring is not used more often. Of course, that’s no guarantee, as a chastened Mark Benson will testify. In the end, there will be mistakes, some more costly than others.

The concern is that so many of them favour a particular side.

blog.cricdb.com/archives/46

this is on blog.cricdb.com

RazabQ
March 22, 2010, 03:54 AM
good read!!!

WarWolf
March 22, 2010, 03:55 AM
Whippy left-arm seamer Rubel Hossain was particularly unfortunate in this regard.

He is right handed.

WarWolf
March 22, 2010, 03:56 AM
It’s certainly not intentional, and yet it begs the question why TV umpiring is not used more often.
I beg to differ. This is intentional. Why do all these decisions go against a single team?

Agreed about the necessity of using TV umpires more.

1137moiz
March 22, 2010, 03:56 AM
oops...I think I remember Rubel Hossain being referred to as Bangladesh's version of Muhammad Aamer...hence the misunderstanding...stupid of me, but he has a lovely action

Rabz
March 22, 2010, 04:32 AM
Nice article Moiz.

Welcome to BC.

Banglatiger84
March 22, 2010, 04:42 AM
Good article; if you are familiar with the Raj era, the umpires' actions wouldnt seem so surprising.

Basically the order is that the white man is superior, particularly if he is a WASP. Brown people are to keep a low profile, not speak loudly and not try to be too assertive in which case he will be termed "uppity".
Read about the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh and how Dyer justified mowing down hundreds of men, women and children. Read about the "crawling order" ,where all brown people had to crawl on their knees at one street.

Daryl Hair, Tucker etc represent people of Dyer's mentality , transported to the 21st century and their authority reduced to judging lbw's instead of commanding battalions.
Nevertheless, the idea is that a brown who acts above his station, demonstrated particularly when shouting for a lbw, he should be disciplined and reminded of his position

Sorry for the rant in pseudo Victorian English, but I needed an outlet :)

1137moiz
March 22, 2010, 05:26 AM
Good article; if you are familiar with the Raj era, the umpires' actions wouldnt seem so surprising.

Basically the order is that the white man is superior, particularly if he is a WASP. Brown people are to keep a low profile, not speak loudly and not try to be too assertive in which case he will be termed "uppity".
Read about the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh and how Dyer justified mowing down hundreds of men, women and children. Read about the "crawling order" ,where all brown people had to crawl on their knees at one street.

Daryl Hair, Tucker etc represent people of Dyer's mentality , transported to the 21st century and their authority reduced to judging lbw's instead of commanding battalions.
Nevertheless, the idea is that a brown who acts above his station, demonstrated particularly when shouting for a lbw, he should be disciplined and reminded of his position

Sorry for the rant in pseudo Victorian English, but I needed an outlet :)

Yep I've read about that. To be fair there are a lot of decent whites as well as Asians etc. who are rightly ashamed of that attitude. But I guess among many people the condescending mentality still sticks.

kalpurush
March 22, 2010, 05:47 AM
A good one, mate. :)

And, welcome to BC.

nura43
March 22, 2010, 05:57 AM
Excellent work mate. well done

dolcevita
March 22, 2010, 06:07 AM
these ****er kill us once more time

Sohel
March 22, 2010, 06:24 AM
Good read indeed.

Here's a question I've been struggling with:

Epic incompetence or thinly veiled conspiracy against mah peepz? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Asoka-Saheba-Moni-Tucker-Hill-Parker and just for the fun of it, Shamim must go. Bichar chai!

pervez mia
March 22, 2010, 07:24 AM
Great article mate.

Agree whole heartedly with everything you wrote about especially the bits about all the years the Aussies have been treated favourably by the umpires. I've been living in Australia for the last 23 years and have watched just about all the matches played here and it has infuriated me over the years how they used to get away firstly with cheating and when neutral umpires were bought in, they got their way by intimidating umpires into giving them favourable decisions. It has happened every year from as far back as I can remember. Whilst I can't say for sure how bad or biased the sub-continent umpires have been (we didn't get to watch many games from the sub continent in the past). we must remember that the cheating ways of the aussie umpires was one of the main reasons why neutral umpires were bought in. Even now when they show some of the games on tv from the late 80's and 90's you can see how blatantly they used to cheat.

Anyway, all I can say is that thank god for the Third umpire and hopefully the technology can be implemented in all games in BD, coz they'll never get the best umpires and thus they will need it here more than anywhere else in the world...

Roni_uk
March 22, 2010, 07:50 AM
Thanks mate. Great article.

These umpires are killing our progress and sad to see BCB & our media are sitting there doing nothing. If this was India, Rod Tucker would be on his way back home.

NitaiPal
March 22, 2010, 08:00 AM
Horrible article, IMHO. You prove one thing and then conclude another. There was basically no point in writing/reading this article.

shaheen
March 22, 2010, 08:08 AM
i guess this time JD will complain against umpiring strongly

Source: CI Bullettin
Across the two Tests and the earlier one-day series Bangladesh have endured the worst of the decisions. It's difficult for a side used to losing to see opportunities denied and it was no surprise when, seeing the chance of a rare win disappearing, Jamie Siddons, the Bangladesh coach, grow increasingly agitated. Firstly he charged into the umpires' room and later, when an lbw appeal against Bell was turned out, he was seen gesticulating at the boundary edge. It was the kind of passion that David Lloyd used to show in his time as England coach and Siddons' frustration was understandable.

meazz1
March 22, 2010, 08:50 AM
Great write up.
Everything is true and Some one needs to let ICC know how it diminish the value of cricket over all.

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2010, 08:56 AM
Thanks for speaking up for us. We will continue to have decisions go against us if the media doesn't make any noise.

Naimul_Hd
March 22, 2010, 09:11 AM
if anybody noticed, there was ONLY one 50-50 decision (even third umpire was also called) against Australia during Aus vs NZ match today and yet Mr. Ponting did not give mercy to any of these umpires ! so, here u can easily see, who has the bargaining power more !

Pakistan umpire Asad Rauf gave the batsman not out and Ricky Ponting called for a video referral under the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS).

However, the strong winds meant the Virtual-Eye cameras weren't able to provide an accurate projection of the path of the ball towards the stumps.

Third umpire Aleem Dar of Pakistan upheld Rauf's decision and skipper Ponting held up the game for several minutes as he argued with Rauf and fellow umpire Ian Gould of England.

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article/-/6961836/nz-6369-bad-light-stops-play-test

AK420
March 22, 2010, 09:48 AM
No more field umpires in the future

Bruno
March 22, 2010, 09:57 AM
get the umpiring system for every test match and ODI and refer to it at every chance. Deshi umpires wont let us win, foreign umpires even more so. Lets depend on technology for victory.

Kabir
March 22, 2010, 11:30 AM
if anybody noticed, there was ONLY one 50-50 decision (even third umpire was also called) against Australia during Aus vs NZ match today and yet Mr. Ponting did not give mercy to any of these umpires ! so, here u can easily see, who has the bargaining power more !
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article/-/6961836/nz-6369-bad-light-stops-play-test

Bro, that's illegal for a brown man. So please, no stupid ideas. We cannot afford to have Sakib banned for several matches over a fist fight with the ump.

Zeeshan
March 22, 2010, 11:39 AM
Great read! (& Welcome to BC!) :)

ahms
March 22, 2010, 02:30 PM
I beg to differ. This is intentional. Why do all these decisions go against a single team?

Agreed about the necessity of using TV umpires more.

<FIELDSET>

Umpires for the Empire?



</FIELDSET>
http://www.thedailystar.net/photo/2010/03/23/2010-03-23__sp12.jpg (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/photo_gallery.php?pid=131191)<SMALL class=fixedcap></SMALL>Shahed Sadullah
For any Bangladeshi supporter, watching the current Bangladesh-England Test series must be a frustrating experience. The Bangladeshis have played well better than most would have expected but the umpiring has gone so heavily against them that a contest in which one side was already struggling to acquire a semblance of balance has become completely lopsided. That they have competed in spite of the poor umpiring is a great credit to the home side.
Bangladesh actually should have won the second ODI had the umpiring been better. Mahmudullah was given out when he was not and Owen Morgan was given not out when he should have been given out and he went on to win the game. They then went to the first Test where also they got the wrong end of the umpiring stick with Aftab Ahmed in the first innings and Shakib Al Hasan in the second both being given out when they were not; England got one bad decision when Trott was given caught behind off his helmet but Alistair Cook was also given not out leg before when he should have been. It may be argued that these decisions alone did not account for the 181 runs which ultimately separated the two teams but that is no excuse for bad umpiring. But in the Dhaka Test the umpires really surpassed themselves. Tamim Iqbal, Bangladesh's most prolific batsman was adjudged out when the ball apparently went from his forearm when he was within sight of becoming only the fifth man in Test history to get a hundred in the first session of a Test match; Kevin Pietersen, England's top batsman was given not out when the ball would have hit top of middle and leg. Umpire Hill then repeated the dose with Matt Prior the next morning who should have been given out when he was 9 but went on to make 62. Then Tucker got into the act by denying a bat and pad catch of the Bangladesh captain and Hill once again denied an lbw appeal against Bresnan that would have hit leg stump flush on. In between Hill gave Collingwood leg before when both Pietersen and Prior were much more palpably leg before than Collingwood making one wonder just on what basis decisions were being made.
Given the state of the wicket which makes it difficult for an average Bangladeshi attack to get 20 wickets, such errors have made it almost impossible for the home team to compete on equal terms. Generally, apologists for umpires which all TV commentators have to be as a job requirement, lament being as far as they are allowed to go say that such errors break even for both sides but that has not happened in this series. They also say that the umpire has a difficult job to do but then so does the prime minister although that does not preclude all and sundry from cricticising any holder of that position. It is the screwed up values of a bygone age that demand that the umpire must not be criticized which is why someone like Darrell Hair got the opportunity to cause one of the biggest crises in the cricketing world.
Cricket is the most race riven sport in the world. Go to any press box in any cricketing venue in England and the atmosphere is so thick with racial feeling you could cut it with a knife. Cricket was the sport which was supposed to teach the values of empire and the first of these was that the umpire's decision, as his motives, were unquestionable. If 300,000 people were to successfully govern 300 million, that sort of value system was very important to inculcate. Cricket's governing body was known as the Imperial Cricket Conference and although its name has changed, its attitudes have not. Thus we have a situation in which a Test match in Bangladesh has to be umpired by a person from New Zealand and a person from Australia whereas there are three Test playing countries next door to Bangladesh India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka from where it would have been cheaper and quicker to get the umpires for this series. I am not trying even vaguely to suggest that racial bias has been behind the very uneven umpiring decisions in this series but the indisputable fact is that both umpires are culturally, ethnically and linguistically much closer to the England side, clearly the stronger of the two contesting sides, in whose favour the overwhelming majority of the decisions have gone. If you happen to be a Bangladeshi and there are some 150 million who may be so described that does not sound too good and it is not difficult to see why people may come to a conclusion that may not be right. That cannot do cricket any favours.
In appointing these umpires, who have had a very poor series, the ICC was clearly oblivious of the racial tensions that so heavily permeate this sport. If they were aware of it they would have realized that justice on the field of play should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. When umpiring decisions go so heavily in favour of one team and the stronger one at that and the similarities behind the umpires and the heavily favoured team are so obvious, most people with latch on to that as the reason for the imbalance although that may not be the case.
Of course it would have been diplomatically and political more astute if the ICC had appointed at least one umpire from one of the south Asian Test countries. But diplomatic and political savvy has never been one of the ICC's strong points; it has not woken up to the heavy racial undertones that underline the sport even after the Darrell Hair affair, which means that it will probably never wake up to it. The make-up of the elite panel of umpires, ICC's so called list of the world's best umpires from which appointments are made for all international matches, shows how strongly the ICC believes that westerners are born with the attributes that somehow automatically make them better umpires compared to South Asians. The latter account for four of the nine Test playing nations and over 90 per cent of the cricket following population of the world. Yet, out of eleven members of the current elite panel of umpires, only three are south Asians, the rest, including one West Indian, all belonging to the western world. India, the number one Test nation in the world does not have a single representative on the panel. How it is that India has produced some of the finest batsmen the world has seen and today has, by some distance, the best batting side in the world but cannot come up with an umpire worthy of being in the panel is a question that defies a cricketing explanation. Not that India is unduly bothered about that. They know that as the financial superpowers of the cricketing world they can bring their financial muscle to bear upon any umpire who has the audacity to give wrong decisions against them and Steve Bucknor, once regarded as the best umpire in the world, will vouch to that. The Indians turfed him out after he gave a series of wrong decisions against India in a Test in Sydney in 2007-08, Bucknor having to leave half way through the series. But everybody does not have India's financial muscle and Bangladesh certainly does not.
In a busy cricketing season the ICC appoints umpires from its international panel to help umpires from the elite panel. Every Test playing nation and Zimbabwe has two umpires on the international panel and Tucker is from the international panel. If therefore it was necessary to resort to the international panel, any of the umpires from Pakistan or Sri Lanka (presuming that the Indians are busy with the IPL) on the panel could have been called on to have at least one South Asian umpire in a Test being played in the region. This again, is not to suggest that any of either Hill or Tucker's many mistakes in the series have been racially motivated; it is only to say that the ICC should be aware of the racial context in which many umpiring decisions are seen and should as such be trying, as far as possible, to counter such feelings and presumptions. They owe that to the image of the game, which they are guardians of.
Of course, the best way of ensuring fairness is the referral system and it is not known why the current Bangladesh-England series has been excluded from its ambit. But whatever the reason, the exclusion has only been possible because the ICC allows it. To make this optional is nonsensical and there is absolutely no reason why it should be so. Television companies which do not have the software for hawkeye, hotspot and the snickometer should be asked to develop these and told that if they do not do so, they need not bother bidding for a contract in the future. They make enough money from the game and if they are asked to put a little bit back into it, it would not be entirely amiss. In any case, I can hardly think of any Test series these days which does not have hawkeye and even if the other facilities are not available, there is no reason why the facilities that are should not be used. And when using them, the prime consideration should be to get the right decision, not to uphold the umpire's honour and authority. When I go to watch a cricket match, I go to see the players in action, not the umpire's authority being upheld, irrespective of whether the umpire is right or wrong. This all consuming concern for the umpire's authority can only be explained in terms of cricket's status as a vehicle for the values of empire for in no sport is an assault on the umpire less likely. The current rules that guide referrals are ridiculous because the aim is not to come to the right decision but to uphold the authority of the umpire which is nonsense. Thus even if Jahurul Islam's lbw decision was only marginal, it would have stood a referral while if Pietersen was given not out on exactly the same ball, (as is very likely) the not out decision would have stood. That is rubbish.
After the Pietersen and Prior decisions, if I was a Bangladeshi player on the field, I would have felt that the only way I could get a wicket was clean bowled or caught beyond even a blind man's doubt and Pietersen was ultimately dismissed by the latter method, while Prior was dismissed by the former. For the umpires to be allowed put that amount of pressure on one side is certainly no way to be conducting an international sporting contest.

1137moiz
March 22, 2010, 04:04 PM
Horrible article, IMHO. You prove one thing and then conclude another. There was basically no point in writing/reading this article.

Tried to keep a "debate" open. Actually imho the umpires have a tendency to support the stronger side--I remember once when Pakistan toured Australia in 2004-05 in the one-days the decisions went 29-5 against us and when Woolmer pointed it out he had to apologize for his comments. I don't think it's generally intentional but it's mind-boggling why they do't refer close decisions to the TV umpire who can watch replays

unda_bhai
March 22, 2010, 08:43 PM
<FIELDSET>

Umpires for the Empire?



</FIELDSET>
http://www.thedailystar.net/photo/2010/03/23/2010-03-23__sp12.jpg (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/photo_gallery.php?pid=131191)<SMALL class=fixedcap></SMALL>Shahed Sadullah
For any Bangladeshi supporter, watching the current Bangladesh-England Test series must be a frustrating experience. The Bangladeshis have played well better than most would have expected but the umpiring has gone so heavily against them that a contest in which one side was already struggling to acquire a semblance of balance has become completely lopsided. That they have competed in spite of the poor umpiring is a great credit to the home side.
Bangladesh actually should have won the second ODI had the umpiring been better. Mahmudullah was given out when he was not and Owen Morgan was given not out when he should have been given out and he went on to win the game. They then went to the first Test where also they got the wrong end of the umpiring stick with Aftab Ahmed in the first innings and Shakib Al Hasan in the second both being given out when they were not; England got one bad decision when Trott was given caught behind off his helmet but Alistair Cook was also given not out leg before when he should have been. It may be argued that these decisions alone did not account for the 181 runs which ultimately separated the two teams but that is no excuse for bad umpiring. But in the Dhaka Test the umpires really surpassed themselves. Tamim Iqbal, Bangladesh's most prolific batsman was adjudged out when the ball apparently went from his forearm when he was within sight of becoming only the fifth man in Test history to get a hundred in the first session of a Test match; Kevin Pietersen, England's top batsman was given not out when the ball would have hit top of middle and leg. Umpire Hill then repeated the dose with Matt Prior the next morning who should have been given out when he was 9 but went on to make 62. Then Tucker got into the act by denying a bat and pad catch of the Bangladesh captain and Hill once again denied an lbw appeal against Bresnan that would have hit leg stump flush on. In between Hill gave Collingwood leg before when both Pietersen and Prior were much more palpably leg before than Collingwood making one wonder just on what basis decisions were being made.
Given the state of the wicket which makes it difficult for an average Bangladeshi attack to get 20 wickets, such errors have made it almost impossible for the home team to compete on equal terms. Generally, apologists for umpires which all TV commentators have to be as a job requirement, lament being as far as they are allowed to go say that such errors break even for both sides but that has not happened in this series. They also say that the umpire has a difficult job to do but then so does the prime minister although that does not preclude all and sundry from cricticising any holder of that position. It is the screwed up values of a bygone age that demand that the umpire must not be criticized which is why someone like Darrell Hair got the opportunity to cause one of the biggest crises in the cricketing world.
Cricket is the most race riven sport in the world. Go to any press box in any cricketing venue in England and the atmosphere is so thick with racial feeling you could cut it with a knife. Cricket was the sport which was supposed to teach the values of empire and the first of these was that the umpire's decision, as his motives, were unquestionable. If 300,000 people were to successfully govern 300 million, that sort of value system was very important to inculcate. Cricket's governing body was known as the Imperial Cricket Conference and although its name has changed, its attitudes have not. Thus we have a situation in which a Test match in Bangladesh has to be umpired by a person from New Zealand and a person from Australia whereas there are three Test playing countries next door to Bangladesh India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka from where it would have been cheaper and quicker to get the umpires for this series. I am not trying even vaguely to suggest that racial bias has been behind the very uneven umpiring decisions in this series but the indisputable fact is that both umpires are culturally, ethnically and linguistically much closer to the England side, clearly the stronger of the two contesting sides, in whose favour the overwhelming majority of the decisions have gone. If you happen to be a Bangladeshi and there are some 150 million who may be so described that does not sound too good and it is not difficult to see why people may come to a conclusion that may not be right. That cannot do cricket any favours.
In appointing these umpires, who have had a very poor series, the ICC was clearly oblivious of the racial tensions that so heavily permeate this sport. If they were aware of it they would have realized that justice on the field of play should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. When umpiring decisions go so heavily in favour of one team and the stronger one at that and the similarities behind the umpires and the heavily favoured team are so obvious, most people with latch on to that as the reason for the imbalance although that may not be the case.
Of course it would have been diplomatically and political more astute if the ICC had appointed at least one umpire from one of the south Asian Test countries. But diplomatic and political savvy has never been one of the ICC's strong points; it has not woken up to the heavy racial undertones that underline the sport even after the Darrell Hair affair, which means that it will probably never wake up to it. The make-up of the elite panel of umpires, ICC's so called list of the world's best umpires from which appointments are made for all international matches, shows how strongly the ICC believes that westerners are born with the attributes that somehow automatically make them better umpires compared to South Asians. The latter account for four of the nine Test playing nations and over 90 per cent of the cricket following population of the world. Yet, out of eleven members of the current elite panel of umpires, only three are south Asians, the rest, including one West Indian, all belonging to the western world. India, the number one Test nation in the world does not have a single representative on the panel. How it is that India has produced some of the finest batsmen the world has seen and today has, by some distance, the best batting side in the world but cannot come up with an umpire worthy of being in the panel is a question that defies a cricketing explanation. Not that India is unduly bothered about that. They know that as the financial superpowers of the cricketing world they can bring their financial muscle to bear upon any umpire who has the audacity to give wrong decisions against them and Steve Bucknor, once regarded as the best umpire in the world, will vouch to that. The Indians turfed him out after he gave a series of wrong decisions against India in a Test in Sydney in 2007-08, Bucknor having to leave half way through the series. But everybody does not have India's financial muscle and Bangladesh certainly does not.
In a busy cricketing season the ICC appoints umpires from its international panel to help umpires from the elite panel. Every Test playing nation and Zimbabwe has two umpires on the international panel and Tucker is from the international panel. If therefore it was necessary to resort to the international panel, any of the umpires from Pakistan or Sri Lanka (presuming that the Indians are busy with the IPL) on the panel could have been called on to have at least one South Asian umpire in a Test being played in the region. This again, is not to suggest that any of either Hill or Tucker's many mistakes in the series have been racially motivated; it is only to say that the ICC should be aware of the racial context in which many umpiring decisions are seen and should as such be trying, as far as possible, to counter such feelings and presumptions. They owe that to the image of the game, which they are guardians of.
Of course, the best way of ensuring fairness is the referral system and it is not known why the current Bangladesh-England series has been excluded from its ambit. But whatever the reason, the exclusion has only been possible because the ICC allows it. To make this optional is nonsensical and there is absolutely no reason why it should be so. Television companies which do not have the software for hawkeye, hotspot and the snickometer should be asked to develop these and told that if they do not do so, they need not bother bidding for a contract in the future. They make enough money from the game and if they are asked to put a little bit back into it, it would not be entirely amiss. In any case, I can hardly think of any Test series these days which does not have hawkeye and even if the other facilities are not available, there is no reason why the facilities that are should not be used. And when using them, the prime consideration should be to get the right decision, not to uphold the umpire's honour and authority. When I go to watch a cricket match, I go to see the players in action, not the umpire's authority being upheld, irrespective of whether the umpire is right or wrong. This all consuming concern for the umpire's authority can only be explained in terms of cricket's status as a vehicle for the values of empire for in no sport is an assault on the umpire less likely. The current rules that guide referrals are ridiculous because the aim is not to come to the right decision but to uphold the authority of the umpire which is nonsense. Thus even if Jahurul Islam's lbw decision was only marginal, it would have stood a referral while if Pietersen was given not out on exactly the same ball, (as is very likely) the not out decision would have stood. That is rubbish.
After the Pietersen and Prior decisions, if I was a Bangladeshi player on the field, I would have felt that the only way I could get a wicket was clean bowled or caught beyond even a blind man's doubt and Pietersen was ultimately dismissed by the latter method, while Prior was dismissed by the former. For the umpires to be allowed put that amount of pressure on one side is certainly no way to be conducting an international sporting contest.

amen

kalpurush
March 22, 2010, 09:15 PM
Horrible article, IMHO. You prove one thing and then conclude another. There was basically no point in writing/reading this article.
Did you read it? If you did, then you are a xxx...!? If not, then you shpuldn't comment!!;)

godzilla
March 23, 2010, 01:04 AM
Horrible article, IMHO. You prove one thing and then conclude another. There was basically no point in writing/reading this article.

It was a good article (maybe not the best but still give credit where it is due). He proved 2-3 things in his article not just one ... you sure you read the article and not just the 1st line and the last line? -_-'