Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

http://www.tssonnet.com/tss2903/stories/20060121000701800.htm

CRICKET CORNER

COLUMN BY BOB SIMPSON

Targeting the umpires



IS over-appealing leading to the spate of very poor umpiring decisions in international matches over the last 12 months? An appeal should be a request to the umpires to consider whether a batsman is out or not out. Unfortunately, the aggression and velocity of most appealing these days is more a demand than a request and the frequency of these appeals appears in many cases to be orchestrated and designed to win a favourable decision for the bowling side.

To my view it is out of hand and the ICC must take stronger action to stem the rot. The punishment slapped on Brett Lee, for demanding a reason from an umpire as to why he hadn't given a favourable decision to one of his numerous appeals, is justified, but stronger action is necessary. The prevalence of bowlers asking or in some cases even demanding a reason why the umpire hasn't given a batsman out can only lead to confusion, anger and discontent.

I believe it is wise for umpires to be very careful in conveying their reasons for knocking back an appeal. It can be fraught with danger and embarrassment as David Shepherd, the world class umpire, found out in the first round of the 1999 World Cup match between India and Sri Lanka at Taunton, England.

India had scored well over 300 when they batted first and had taken three or four wickets cheaply when Aravinda de Silva flayed at a wide, overpitched ball outside the stumps. It seemed an obvious caught behind, but "Shep" thought otherwise. He rejected the appeal and signalled the ball had clipped Aravinda's pad.

It was an obvious mistake and Shep had made it worse for himself by signalling as he did. The replays showed that De Silva's legs were 12 inches away from the ball. In my view, appeals should only be answered with a Yes or No.

If the bowler continues to request more information and if the umpire is inclined to answer, he should only say, "In my view the batsmen wasn't out." End of argument, for the power lies with the umpire. Continual demands for more information can only lead to problems if they are answered, particularly if replays show, as with the Shep situation, his judgement was incorrect. Funny, isn't it, when a bowler gets an obviously wrong decision to go his way he never asks the umpire why the batsman was given out and is very happy to accept the bonus wicket.

When I was coaching Australia the players often asked me in the dressing room as to what I thought about umpiring decisions. I always tried to answer honestly, and interestingly enough when I was asked for further information I often replied, "Would you have been happy to be given out in that situation?"

Most times I got a very non-committal reply. It was hoped that the so called neutral umpires would improve the standard of umpiring in international cricket. Personally, I have always felt, that with a few exceptions, all umpires did their best and as such were neutral.

Umpires today have it tougher than ever before with the commentators very happy to express their views after a seemingly never-ending submission of replays from every conceivable angle. Quite often, I am still in doubt after viewing these replays, but not some of the commentators. Interestingly, we seldom hear or see some of the embarrassingly wrong or silly gaffes made by the commentators on instant replays.

There is no doubt that the players are less respectful to umpires than they once were. Perhaps this is because the changing world we live in is less respectful to authority in general. I wonder if bowlers who are verbally happy to chirp at umpires with such cracks as `Are you blind?', `How could you make that decision?', would enjoy it if umpires, after a bad ball, said things such as `Call yourself a Test bowler'? `Hell, my grandson is more accurate than you' or `What a lot of rubbish, how on earth did you get into the Test side?'

Players would quickly say that the umpire has no right to say these things, or that is not professional behaviour either. Perhaps, in over-appealing, the players are being less professional than they should be.

There is no doubt that Channel 9's television coverage of cricket is the best in the world. The new slow motion cameras are unique and enable viewers a new close-up perspective of the game.

I wonder, however, whether sometimes they concentrate on being too close to the action and lose the overall perception of the game.

For instance, these days it is almost impossible to identify which end the bowlers are opening from and where the field is placed. Often, even when a ball is nicked to second slip it is not captured by the major cameras and we have to wait for replays to pick up the real action. The same applies to spinners with fieldsmen clustered tightly around the bat. If the action is all defence it is okay, but when the ball goes outside the cluster you cannot get an instant total perspective of the action. The cameramen are brilliant in picking up the ball, but you still have to wait to pick up the overall situation.

Even with opportunities to the close fieldsmen, we have to wait for another camera at a different angle to produce the right picture. While there is a wide coverage as the bowler runs up, in the delivery stride the cameras move in so close that you can see the bowling arm from below the elbow to the fingers. Obviously, they are trying to get in as close as possible to the batsmen.

I find this most frustrating, for I like to see the bowler's action in full so that I can determine what he is trying to do. To me this is part of the joy of watching cricket, for you can get a better idea of the bowler's strategy.

Seeing the bowling arm from below the elbow doesn't give the full picture of the ball about to be delivered. For instance, you cannot see whether the bowler is falling away and opening his action, or indeed with no elbow in view whether he is bending it within the legal limit.

While we see hundreds of slow motion replays, we see very little of the final moments of a bowler's wind up or release. Interesting.

[kban1]

And while on the same topic .....

********************************************************************************************
http://www.tssonnet.com/tss2903/stories/20060121001001600.htm

An appeal for cricketing decorum

ROHIT BRIJNATH



AP: Brett Lee... appealing himself hoarse and questioning the umpires too.

ALL summer in Australia, cricket umpires have been interrogated rudely and pressured with incessant appeals and not enough eyebrows have been raised. Evidently this is part of modern sports' `whatever it takes to win' attitude, where mental disintegration as a tactic is not restricted to the rival team. Whatever, it is an unedifying sight.

Bowlers producing desperate petitions and players pleading in tandem is part of the drama of cricket. But a line exists in the sand, and it has been breached too often as Australia played South Africa. Too often it seems players are intentionally intimidating umpires. Some would call it bullying.

Already umpires are being shown up by technology and further pressure makes their job untenable. Respect for authority figures in sport is anyway in decline, now 12-year-olds in schoolyards have a new act to follow.

It has also become painfully fashionable for players these days to cross-examine umpires after an appeal has been turned down, and every potential dismissal has become a disagreeable drama. This is not so much theatre as cheap theatrics, a shameless flexing of power by players.

Shane Warne has been quizzing umpires all summer and Brett Lee, normally an amiable figure, has been reprimanded for demanding of Aleem Dar: "I want to know why it wasn't out. Why?" Forget an answer, he is not entitled to ask the question. Anyway, no explanation given by an umpire will suffice for the player has already decided he has been victim of an injustice.

Match referees have shown weakness in this regard and umpires must be instructed not to engage and players to bite their tongues. Captains must do their bit but Ricky Ponting, a fine leader otherwise, has suggested through his constant arguing that he has an alternative career as a lawyer.

Not that he is the only captain whose behaviour is occasionally tiresome. From before a ball was bowled this series, Graeme Smith has been jawing away at the opposition. Much like Hansie Cronje once informed this writer, he appears to believe that taking the initiative and verbally attacking the Australians is a sound tactic. Perhaps it emboldens his players; certainly it is distasteful, worse it is predictable and boring.

Players will fence and search hard to identify weaknesses in technique but also in mind. Sport is skill but also psychology. But when Smith mocks Ponting's captaincy and Warne reportedly refers to Smith as a fool it is a descent into boorishness.

Challenging the opposition is one thing, contempt is another, and to believe a beer later douses all animosity is disingenuous. Astoundingly it seems that a show of respect to opponents before a ball is bowled is somehow interpreted as a sign of frailty.

Some believe this verbal sparring is good business and that it fills stadiums but that is absurd. If players are unable to show restraint, then how can we expect it of fans? Anyway, surely the game's finest advertisement is skill and with Ponting batting with breathtaking confidence and Lee bowling with masterful menace, there is enough attraction as it is.

After initial chatter, Australia stayed quiet during the Ashes, a series celebrated for its spirit, but some contend that was the problem. Australia's team is apparently at its best when it is uninhibited, when its aggression slips all shackles, and perhaps they see their subdued stance as an error.

Certainly a team must express itself, but neither must it believe that winning makes any behaviour acceptable. For a decade, Australia's team has personified cricketing excellence, their play a triumph of discipline, desire, talent and courage. But leadership in sport is more than swinging a bat and hurling a ball.
********************************************************************************************