On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 11:29:05 -0800 (PST), driz <drizaii@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
After seeing Doctrove and Taufel making some excellent decisions
( except some notouts which the hawkeye suggested to be hitting the
edge of legstump anyways.. ) I wonder how the bad decisions ended up
happening in Australia and South Africa but for umpiring incompetence.
Compared to the noise in Delhi, brisbane or hobbart should have been
less distracting to work in for the umpires.
What measures does ICC have to ensure the umpires are competent and
performing well?
Captains report on umpires. Umpires' decisions are reviewed, the umpires are given CDs with videos of their decisions to study, and the results are taken into account when they appoint each new elite panel; some umpires have been dropped from the panel for poor performance, and the new ones have had probationary periods where they have umpired Tests before being formally appointed to the elite panel.
Do they have an evaluation system that has its
results publicly available for us?
What form would those results take? And what benefit is there in making the review system public? Making it public effectively means that umpires will not only endure the flak in the papers the day after they have made a bad decision but have it all raked over again when it comes to review time. What incentive is there to become an elite umpire when all you let yourself in for is abuse about every mistake without any praise or credit when you do your job well?
The demands made on the elite panel are such that many well-qualified candidates won't accept appointment. None of the most highly-regarded umpires on the English f-c circuit, long regarded as the gold standard of high-class umpiring week in, week out, are on the ICC panel despite having been offered it. They don't want the incessant travelling, and the treatment of Darrell Hair has made it apparent that the last thing that the powers that be want are umpires who uphold the Laws of Cricket when they get in the way of commercial and political interests. And you want to add another layer of public review which will inevitably be focussed on identifying the umpires who make the most mistakes and giving them public hell for it.
When you go on to insinuate that umpires make bad decisions for corrupt reasons, you strike at the very heart of what they try to do. Umpires are now much readier to speak directly to camera about some of the decisions they make, notably with regard to weather and light, and whenever they do, you can hear them agonising about what is fair to both sides. It seems unlikely that they confine such consideration for fairness to the fitness of the conditions, and indeed most of them would regard being fair to both sides as their Prime Directive, so to imply that they would behave otherwise is something to which they would react with disgust.
If you want people to do a good job, you have to give them conditions to work in which will help them do a good job. Expecting an impossible perfection and then pillorying anyone who doesn't meet the ludicrous standard is not a good way of creating the right climate.
A vocal section of the cricket public, and some of the media, seem to obsess about umpires and make more and more demands. However justified their complaints, it is not necessarily at all helpful for them to be made so often and so loudly. There is already evidence that the pressure thereby created is making the job unattractive to qualified candidates, and increasing that pressure with detailed public reviews is not likely to persuade more to come forward and is quite likely to lead some to conclude that even the highish salaries available on the international circuit are not sufficient recompense for the destruction of their souls.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
