JOHANNESBURG: Umpires Simon Taufel (Australia) and Ian Gould (England) said ‘sorry to Umar Akmal’ after their sub-standard and biased umpiring in the Champions Trophy semifinal lead to Pakistan’s unexpected defeat against New Zealand on Saturday.
A source in the International Cricket Council (ICC) confirmed to ‘The News’ that heated arguments were exchanged between Pakistan coach Inrtikhab Alam and the umpires during a hearing conducted after the semifinal at Wanderers. Match referee Javagal Srinath called up Umar and Intikhab for a hearing after the match, over what umpires blamed the batsman for showing dissent over the lbw decision. Taufel ruled Umar lbw at a time when he had played the ball on to his pads. Umar’s fall at a crucial stage robbed Pakistan of a chance to post a big total.
The Pakistan camp defended Umar and was very critical of the umpiring standard during the match. Srinath repeated the slides in front of field umpires and later conducted a separate hearing with the umpires.
According to the sources, the match referee later cleared Umar of showing any dissent and conveyed that the umpire who had made the decision said ‘sorry’ to Umar for the wrong judgment.
That was not the only biased decision by the umpires who faltered on no less than four occasions to help New Zealand make it to the final. Grant Elliott, who went on to play a match-winning knock was let off twice during his stay at the wicket. Shahid Afridi almost got him when he was new at the crease. Rana Naveed had him plumb on a full toss when again he was ruled not out. Even Daniel Vettori got a lucky break off Saeed Ajmal.
The worst of all that the two field umpires were so strict on Pakistan bowlers that they ruled most of short pitched deliveries as wide ball and at the same time extended full luxury to New Zealand bowlers to hurl such deliveries.
The general impression here is that since the ICC is being fully controlled by the Indian lobby, they were not happy with the Pakistan approach during their match against Australia.
Some of the Indians believe that Pakistan had deliberately kept India out of the semis race as they did not go all out to achieve win against Australia that could have enabled them make it to the semis. The Indians didn’t want Pakistan to win the Trophy and that whole biased umpiring decision were very much part of that campaign.
For the ICC, the Indian market is a money-making machine and they believe that cricket has got much attraction and following because of the sponsors they get from that country.
Re: Umpiring was a major factor in Pakistan's defeat in Champions Trophy 2009 semi-fi
Umpiring was ONE of the factor and not the ONLY factor. Taufel who is usually a very good umpire was having a bad day although I agree most of the bad decisions actually went against Pakistan including harsh wide calls but it was just a bad day for umpires.
Taufel has to do this repeatedly for over some time to make me believe that he is doing it on purpose. One or two bad matches does not make him biased or bad umpire.
Stop whining guys, umpiring was the major factor in pakistan qualifying in semis in first place... remember Raina's bat befotre wicket dismissal..
Another five overs of Raina blitz and it was all over for pakistani despite everything
Please get your eye sight checked before you talk about Raina's dismissal. Next time you watch the replay of it, watch it as a neutral person otherwise your mind would show you what you want to see.
Please get your eye sight checked before you talk about Raina's dismissal. Next time you watch the replay of it, watch it as a neutral person otherwise your mind would show you what you want to see.
And you have proven your own words by seeing nothign fishy in raina's dismissal..
Bottomline when it goes in your favour your eye gets blind but god forbid if it's against you then you keep whining for months
Anyone everyone who saw the match can tel u first it hit bat then pad… of course cricinfo will write what was official decision and given no stink was raised by india unlike whining by pakistan
Forgot about biased indian umpiring in the 80s and 90s, esp. Saroop Kishan and Shri Ramaswami. We used to call him Ramabara...you know what
English umpires David Constant (the worst cheater), the Palmer brothers - Roy & Ken and Kitchen were worse than Shakoor Rana...Dickie Bird was an exception. Some of the Australian umpires were no less biased either
Anyone everyone who saw the match can tel u first it hit bat then pad..... of course cricinfo will write what was official decision and given no stink was raised by india unlike whining by pakistan
well I saw the match live and can tell that it looked very close in real time. However the replays clearly showed that the ball hit the boot and then the bat. Now if you wanted the umpire to give benefit of the doubt to Raina then thats a different thing.
Anyone everyone who saw the match can tel u first it hit bat then pad..... of course cricinfo will write what was official decision and given no stink was raised by india unlike whining by pakistan
NO its not off course, cricinfo always mention (specially in case of Indian batsman) on how he was unlucky to be given out.
and btw, Raina's case was not that clear. I am sure vast majority still think it came of the boot first and then bat. He might have got the benefit of doubt but he did not get it. end of discussion.
As far as umer Akmal's decision is concerned, personally I think it was just a off day for otherwise very fine Taufel
