Woolmer on the Umpiring Issue

Umpiring



Before the whole issue of decision making by Umpires blows out of proportion allow me to elaborate and give you all some facts as regards the recent cricinfo debate and those that have defended their point of view.


The figures quoted are slightly out of proportion, during the whole series in Australia Test and V B they are 29 incidents where decisions were debatable of those 5 went for us and 24 against. We are still investigating more and have asked our analyst to go through all the balls bowled during the series.

Why have I asked the analyst? Before the Chairman of Pakistan’s letter to the ICC I wanted to have a sense of why we seemed to be getting out so much apart from poor decision making on our batsman’s behalf and why we were not being successful in our appeals. If we are to improve as a team I as coach have to spend as much time on the petty problems as I do on the wider issues of how to get better. Umpiring errors allow me to make a percentage evaluation on how we are getting out.

. The Chairman’s letter to the ICC prompted Rob Craddock a respected Australian journalist to ask my thoughts on the issue. I mentioned that we had actually started these evaluations already and I suspect the figures quoted were misunderstood.

In respect of neutral umpires for one-day Internationals I do not have a problem for or against. I fully believe that all umpires are neutral and that no umpire today cheats or is biased. I do believe however that a winning team gets more of the benefit that the teams on the losing end. It is not a new phenomenon. My own experience in playing for Kent during the halcyon winning days of the 70’s, coaching Warwickshire in 1994 when we won three trophies and bring involved with South Africa for a very good period of victories led me to understand that we also received the benefit of the doubt more often than our opposition.

My point that I tried to get across was that when a team has massive crowd support and that appeal convincingly does have a sub – conscious affect on an Umpire. (In fact no research has been undertaken to see what subconscious reactions a human being makes in any given cricketing circumstance), which leads me to believe that sports officials who have a tough job are affected by the moment. Witness the last World Cup Rugby final as the game came to its exciting climax. I also put it to any person officiating on big occasions that the “moment” does affect how the do their job, the brain works in many different ways and no two people will be able to do the job exactly the same.

I believe that players are affected by the moment and make errors which in turn get them out!

Players and officials make mistakes they are after all human. So my point again is that if we have the technology why do we not use it? Simply it is felt that it would take away the standing of the umpires. In my view this is complete rubbish. Cricket technology the “snicko” and the “Hawkeye” system are without doubt completely unaffected by a crowd or any subconscious factors! The technology merely records exactly what happens, the information is constant. The current Umpires are remarkably accurate of that I have no doubt, but if they make an error during “The Moment” it can seriously affect the result of the game, of that I have no doubt! (Take a last ball, 9 wickets down) lbw decision out or not out!

Billy Bowden has often argued that if we used Hawkeye then the game would be over in three days, but against the Australians it often is anyway. The problem about playing the Aussies is that if they get the rub of the green, benefit of the doubt and other teams don’t it makes the game so much harder. Playing against the current Australian side is tough enough as it is. They play the game hard and we admire them for it. But they are the side that has always said (The Umpire has a job to do so let them do it”). They do not moan about decisions as they have this uncompromising attitude (Gilchrist accepted).

There is no doubt too that appealing is an art, big names often get decisions where newcomers don’t, that is also an experience that I have had from my own playing career. I remember being absolutely dead to a part time (joke bowler) when Kent were winning I almost walked I knew I was dead, I was given not out and the umpire came up to me and said, “You were out you know but that guy didn’t deserve a wicket and it wouldn’t have made a difference to the game!” All I could say was thanks! Again the point is that it does happen. With Hawkeye I would have been out and no recriminations.

I have always been a believer that if you walk when you are caught at mid on it makes no difference if you are ct behind, the players however have a degree of hit, I only got a feather of a touch do I stood. Of course careers, finance, status are on the line, but there are still plenty of players who believe that the Umpires have a job to do! I am sure too that there will always be plenty of players in the future. Rules have always been there to be challenged.

John Buchanan says that my statement is offensive and for that I apologize as perhaps the statement I made and the one printed are not exactly the same. However I would not expect John to have played in the time of home umpires for all Test matches and seen some of the home town decisions. The players of those eras had to put up with some shockers. Fortunately in those days winning and losing were treated as they should be as impostors and everyone got on with enjoying the game! Today of course that is not going to be the case. Everyone becomes accountable! Some umpires were so biased that the home record of the countries was almost impregnable. Players like Graeme Pollock, Hanif Mohammed and many others were not given out lbw as many times as those that were less well known.

John also is not the opposition coach and has an all powerful. All conquering outfit. You need to be on the other side of the fence to understand the differences.

I would also like those who read this to know that in no way am I complaining that poor decisions cost us (Pakistan) matches in Australia, they might of affected them but we were fairly and squarely beaten by a better side.

I have always coached and played the game as fairly as possible and that includes only appealing when you really believe it to be out. Pressurizing umpires by appealing for every noise or lbw is just as bad as not walking! How do you pressurize technology? Essentially you cannot. Gamesmanship has always been part of every sport from a footballer tripping himself up in the penalty area to loud chorus like appeals. “Well we burgled that one didn’t we?” Some players have always been more sportsmanlike than others!

It is no secret that I am a fan of technology Indeed if we embraced technology we could easily return to two local standing Umpires with the 3rd Umpire being the ICC’s best umpire using technology to make the final decision. This would stop the Umpires having to travel all over the world they could spend more time at home. The local umpires would get a chance to grow into the International arena. The 3rd Umpire would have the match referee for referral and be trained to use technology along with the Television technicians so that the decision making was as close to perfect as it ever would be.

The players would know that the decisions would be unbiased, constant and the same for both sides we could return to the “Benefit of the doubt” to the batsman. Technology would not bow to pressure and would be totally unflappable.

There are of course two problems electricity failure and the 3rd Umpire pressing the wrong button! Consider this experience. The current ICC cricket manager Dave Richardson was adjudged run out in Pakistan 1994 Rawalpindi, when well past the creases. So much so that John Reid brought the 3rd Umpire to the dressing room and asked him to explain the decision to the players, “The Umpire said I am so terribly sorry I pressed the right button but the wrong light came on!

Last but not least I am sorry if I offended any one it is so difficult nowadays to give an opinion without causing an international scene! I will however be asking my players to study the appeals that they make and to assist the Umpires wherever possible to get to the correct decision.





Bob Woolmer

:oD :oD

Professor Noakes says that the hawkeye is 60% correct.

But at least it is consistent

maybe now my nick will get some more respect!