Ok, Uncle Southie you want me to open my eyes…how about you also open yours a bit dear uncle jee. I am a busy person (ahem) but for your sake i thought about this topic of “ICC Umpires panel and review decisions process”
diversity is fine. no issues there and I am with you Uncle jee but i just dont like this white favoring white viewpoint. defeatist attitude if you ask me
now if you really want to add some meaningful flavor to this discussion, you shd make the point that there is no point of valuing field umpire decision so much once a decision is referred to the 3rd umpire. it is complete nonsense. I know that ICC is trying to keep some respect for field umpires otherwise once a batsman or a bowler wants a review, the field umpire decision shd be out of the picture.
the reason someone is going to the 3rd umpire is because he disagrees with the field umpire and therefore the 3rd umpire needs to make the decision on technological merit regardless of what the field umpire’s original decision was. had we followed this process, both babar and azhar may be declared not out as the ball was just clipping the stumps.
The counter argument would be that the field umpire is the closest to the action and has seen the ball first hand and therefore, his input is important and we need a conclusive evidence to turn around his decision. This is a strong argument but we either need to trust the field umpires fully or put our trust on technology 100%. this hybrid approach is not very fruitful.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
Now you are talking, young phoenixdesi. Your wisdom belies your youth.
This is exactly what I am talking about. There were two 50/50 decisions that went against Pakistan. Both by the very talented Gould.
The Aussies do have good “shouts”. There was an article in espncricinfo that stated just that. They rank among the top bowlers whose appeals are upheld mote than other nations’ The next is “mera England mahan” (why is this phrase familiar?)
This may not even be a deliberate action by Gould. A study in baseball has shown that white umpires do have a bias towards white players and black umpires towards blacks. Since there are more white umpires, guess who benefits more.
You are too young to remember Greg Maddox as a pitcher always “painted the corner”. And Wade Boggs always “knew his strike zone”.
Once it is referred to DRS, let technology take over. No BS about umpires call on field stands. Have a quantitative metric. Such as greater or equal to 50 pct of ball hitting stumps means you are out. OR if ANY part of ball grazes stumps or bails, you are out.
Why the heck shoukd a team LOSE its appeal just because the umpire on field called one way. And the losing team also gets deducted one appeal for losing the appeal.
Ever hear of salt being poured on a wound, young phoenix? That’s how it feels like for a team to lose two close appeals on umpires on field call. AND lose its right to appeal in future.
Thank you for finally getting my point. Always listen to your elders.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
PD Southie’s point is valid
Gould’s 50/50 decisions resulted in two Pak dismissals despite use of technology even though ‘ball was only clipping the stumps’
If they were both Aussie batsmen and Gould was the on-field umpire, he would have probably given both NO and his decision would have still stood even after referral to the third umpire as ‘ball only clipping the stumps’ (i.e. hitting less than half of the stump)
So same scenario (‘ball only clipping the stumps’) results in two completely different results for the two teams. 2 dismissals for Pak and 2 NOs for Australia!
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
see that is where i have problem. we are presuming and that too convincingly that Gould would have said NO to such appeals if pakistanis were appealing against aussies. i do remember some close calls when pak was batting and Goluld said No to aussies appeal. similarly there are many other white umpires who are just fine.
Please remember whenever a white umire deliberately gives a close call OUT against a brown team, he is also taking a huge risk as he is not 100% sure if this ball will indeed clip the wicket for his decision to remain true because if the ball does not clip the stumps, his decision will be reversed and once he has certain numbers of decisions reversed, his position in the Panel will be in jeopardy as ICC evaluates umpires performance regularly and this is one criteria
in any case, we cannot win this debate white vs brown and that is why I am proposing to ICC that simply take out field umpire decision from the chain once a 3rd umpire is referred either by the bowler or fielder. That will solve the problem. we as a cricketing fraternity have come a long way in terms of taking the bias out from the game and lets keep pushing the envelop
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
The decisions were close. Gould knew that they were 50 50. He went one way. In other words, when faced with a choice, he took the decision to give batsmen out. In spite of the fact benefit of doubt goes to batsman.
The “close” decision he gave not out - it was MISSING stumps. Gould is an EXCELLENT umpire. He judged that correctly. Comparing a NOT OUT CORRECT call to a 50 50 call that went one way both times is doing and phoenixdesi to oranges comparison.
Gould is just one example. As I stated, an article in espncricinfo mentioned Aussie bowlers have the best shouts. Their shouts result in outs more than other nations bowlers shouts. Next is England.
All I am asking is for someone here to help our desi connect the dots.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
Also this debate is NOT White vs brown. It is about inherent biases humans have. Whether the decisions are subconscious or not is not relevant. Stats paint a sorry picture re how most decisions go when there is a 50 50 choice. India’s last tour to Australia test was a joke. Except for a Vijay lbw that went india way, all 50 50 and some not even 50 50 went Aussie way.
Of course Aussies will play like a lion when they know the doubtful decisions tend to go their way more often than not.
Especially when they play thise from south Asia or windies.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
Phoenix that’s my point. Once the decision goes to the third umpire he should have the final authority and give it as OUT even if the ball is only just clipping the stumps regardless of the on-field umpire’s call. It would help remove some of the biases inherent in the referral system.
This (ball hitting less than half of the stump and on-field umpire’s call NO, therefore NO final verdict by the third umpire) is what confounds the whole thing.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
OK uncle..fine if you want to convince me of white vs brown or whatever you want to call it, we need a full comprehensive analyses in that case. you are just presenting a very high level picture Uncle.
1)ratio of white vs non-white in ICC panel? it used to be around 60/40 (not bad) but now i think it is around 70/30. we then need to see if we indeed have enough qualified umpires from Pak, SL, India, WI and Zimb. why are brown boards not making noises especially india who is so loud and practically controls ICC
2)ok fine, aussies and UK have more successful decisions…but for decisions which went aussies and UK way, how many of those appeals were made to white umpire and how many to brown umpires? as far as I remember aleem dar, dharmasanha, billy doctrove, bucknor, asad rauf, ashoka de silva, venkat officiating in many many aussies and Uk series. so i am asking a afair question
3)ok fine, aussies and UK have more successful decisions…but is it based on % basis or is it numerical basis? remember aussies, UK and India play most no of test matches vs Pak, BD, SL, NZ.
4)India was not even part of DRS till few months ago…so who knows. what if india was part of DRS all these years, they may have higher no of successful appeals. i mean i dont know, we need to wait since now powerful india is part of DRS. one DRS series is not enough to draw any conclusions in India’s case
now dont get upset. this is precisely any strategic consulting project of this nature would go.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
yes Asif, and what you are saying in this post is precisely what I actually proposed in my OP. so we are on same page
where i conflicted with you was your statement that
*If they were both Aussie batsmen and Gould was the on-field umpire, he would have probably given both NO *
and I am simply saying that we dont know for sure that Gould would have said NO but we cannot settle this debate so lets just take human factor out of referral process and hence my OP*
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
The only good point OP makes is - 3rd umpire decision final. And 3rd umpire decision shoukd be based on objective standards, metrics. No room for interpretation. If ball grazes ANY part of stump, you are out. OR some other objective criterion. For EVERY call, there has to be an objective criterion.
This way, if one reviews and loses, one deserves to have one less review.
Losing two CLOSE decisions and two reviews is actually losing FOUR close decisions. They are multiplicative - is that a word?
I have no doubt the game wouod have been a draw if even one of those decisions went the other way.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
dear uncle, i am just trying to point out that this is a complicated topic and you cannot make a big blanket statement such as a*ussies and UK have more successful decisions in their favor and then try to deduce conclusions that you want.
there are *many many different angles that we need to consider as pointed out by humble, esteemed and highly respected OP above in post no 10. few more for your kind consideration:
ok fine, aussies and UK have more successful decisions but how many of those are related to ashes series when Aus and Eng play against each other…since in ashes, “evil” is playing against “evil”, we need to take all those decisions out of the sample …and by the way they play very often and oh boy, they play big series ( 5 test min). i mean Aus has played hardly 7 tests against Pak since 2010, maybe 7 against SL, 5 against BD maybe but Aus has played probably 25 against Eng alone since 2009-10 if not more. you see my point.
and fine, aussies and UK have more successful decisions but how many of those are related to when they are playing against NZ and South Africa? you need to take them out as well.
so lets do a comprehensive analysis and then lets see how many of those winning decisions for aussies and brits were against brown teams and were awarded by white field umpires.
I am as such not denying your viewpoint but i need to see all of this data properly segmented for me to decide in your favor conclusively. and i dont think i am being unreasonable.
now I had all of these issues in front of me and that is why i suggested a solution in OP but no sir, I am not going to accuse anyone or any group blatantly for racism, favoritism, bias unless i have seen all the data and analyzed it both qualitatively and quantitatively. thx uncle.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
all the umpires mentioned by me are real and did not come from mars uncle jee. you have not seen them but is this my mistake uncle jee? Billy doctrove was a black WI umpire and was officiating till 2012 and did 38 test matches. asad rauf did 47 test matches till 2013, ashoka de silva from sri lanka did 49 test matches and the list goes on.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
thx Uncle Jee. look we are going in circles. The core issue of debate was that you felt that white field umpires show a certain level of bias and favoritism towards white nations and their appeals. this is where this whole discussion started. You then cited that majority of “good shouts” belong to bowlers from Aus and UK.
I am then respectfully saying that we need to request ICC or cricinfo to give us access to full data since DRS has started to make a menaingful conclusion. it is important to look at this data so that we can at least see how many of those “good shouts” by Aus and UK bowlers were made to non-white umpires and how many were made to white umpires. what if the split is 50/50? suddenly your point is not that much more stronger.
you seem to be under impression that white umpires are 80% or more of the elite panel. maybe they were for a certain period but we need to look over a longer period of time. I then categorically showed to you that there have been a lot more non-white umpires in elite panel in last 17 years than what you thought. i gave you names and records of many of those which you never heard of.
I then (very humbly and respectfully) raised the second point that we need to see that how many of those good shouts were made when a white nation is playing against a white nation. in that case, there is no question of favoritism even if all the decisions were made by white umpires.
at minimum, i would like to see these 2 data points before declaring that white umpires are showing favoritism towards white bowlers.
once we settle this debate, we will then move to second half as to why non-white bowlers have such low record in good shouts.
Re: let me put some sense into ICC … (Post For Uncle Southie)
in any case uncle southie, the good news are that we do agree that the solution proposed by me in the opening post is the best way to move forward. so why cant we agree on that and move on?