Steve Bucknor to retire from international umpiring

Steve Bucknor, who has umpired the most internationals (305) and as on date, the only one to have umpired 100+ tests, will be retiring from international umpiring in March.

In an interview to the Jamaica Gleaner, he said that his last test would be the 3rd test between Australia & South Africa while his last ODI would involve England & West Indies.

Now it's a lot more easier to make sense of Ricky Ponting excusing himself from the IPL. Notice that he wrote in his column "I have made the decision I will not play in the Indian Premier League Twenty20 competition this year." He didn't write "I will not feature in the Indian Premier League". Hence, it is perhaps not too outlandish to believe that as part of his training to move into a parallel career in umpiring, as we exclusively revealed here last month, Ricky will be doing umpiring duties during this season's IPL.

Steve Bucknor had been a reasonably ok umpire for a few years (ignoring his reluctance to seek the help of the TV umpire on India's tour of South Africa in 1992/3), despite his tendency to play havoc with TV broadcasters & producers by ensuring there was a minute's delay between the appeal and his decision. Nowadays though, so much money has been invested that we don't even get to hear the appeal, because we've got switched to an ad break!

But in the last 4-5 years, Bucknor's umpiring had deteriorated significantly. I never thought he was biased. But I was convinced he was incompetent. Instances posted on this blog - 2004 Aus v Ind, 2005 Eng v RSA, 2005 Pak v Ind, 2007 World Cup final & (very obviously!) 2008 Ind v Aus at Sydney.

The ICC has a real problem on its hands - a paucity of good umpires, cramped scheduling and a reluctance to use technology appropriately. Oddly enough, Bucknor hasn't ever umpired a T20 international!

Labels: bucknor, retire, umpires, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:46 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A scared draw

Australia have just played a Test match which has ended in a draw without any interference from the weather. It is so hard even to imagine this, but it has happened, more so when the team which wanted the draw badly and played to it was Australia and not the opponent!

This was clearly evident on day three when Australia batted 90 overs, scored 260 runs and lost 3 wickets. I certainly don't remember the last time when the Aussies batted an entire day and scored at less than 3 runs per over. Irrespective of the state of the match, no Aussie batsman would even dream of scoring at such a pace. The display of 'batting' on day three almost ensured that a draw was the most probable result unless the Indians decided to gift the match.

India have pushed Australia so much that they even won at Perth and hence 'The Great B*st@#ds' decided to opt for a draw to save some face and ensure that they would win the series 2-1, thanks to Steve & Mark, not the Waughs, but Bucknor & Benson respectively.

If a lot of things had happened efficiently & honestly in the first 2 Tests, the series could have been 1-1 or even 2-1 in favour of India, coming into Adelaide. With such a scoreline, the Australians would have definitely batted differently and would have tried to score at a much better pace and may or may not have lost more wickets in the bargain and most probably would have won this Test match.

It would have still been the Aussie-brand of cricket we all know. Any other team batting out in such a manner isn't any news, but even Australia was pushed to bat for the draw. I am tempted to say that the Indians have pushed them so, but deep inside I know its Bucknor & Benson who gave them the liberty to do the unthinkable to win the series. It does seem to me that Virender Sehwag wasn't wrong at all when he said that Australia were scared of losing.

It seems like the curator had prepared a pitch that'd yield a result on day six. Someone needed to have told him that the rules on test cricket were the same for Australia and other teams. Just because Australia lost the Perth test in four days, it doesn't translate into an extra day in the Adelaide test. Then again, perhaps the curator was just doing what he was told to!

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, ind v aus 2008, india, perth, perth 2008, pitch, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:12 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The outcome of Sydney 2008

The outcome of the events at Sydney last week, where pathetic umpiring and a charge of racial abuse marred a superb game, will hopefully make international cricket better, for administrators, players, match officials and fans/spectators.

After the game, a chat with Ganesh, went like this:

14:24 me: i see a few benefits coming out of this entire test:
14:25 1. icc could do something about umpiring standards

2. icc could clearly define what constitutes a racial abuse and what doesn't - is bastard racial, for e.g?

3. teams will swear to not agree to ponting's gentleman agreement on catches

14:26 4. players will stop walking [esp. if #1 isn't handled]

Among these, if the ICC can ensure #1 and #2, then a lot of the problems could be solved. Good umpires will refer to the third umpire at the right time and take decisions on the field at the right time. They will get a higher %age of decisions right. Continuing with my tirade against the ICC's repeated claims to umpires getting 94% of their decisions right, the Sydney game was a classic example of what happens when umpires get 100% of all irrelevant decisions right and 0% of all critical decisions wrong.

It is fairly obvious that Symonds and Hussey benefitted significantly from umpiring errors [Symonds went from 30 to 162 while Hussey went from 45 to 145], Ponting had the best worst of both worlds while Dravid and Ganguly suffered significantly.

To my mind Hussey not being given out in the second innings when he edged RP Singh down legside having scored 45 perhaps had as significant an impact on the outcome as the other umpiring cock-ups. It is strange that his let-off is not discussed as widely as Symonds' or Ponting's.

53.4 Singh to Hussey, no run, a big noise, huge appeals for a strangle down the legs, India think they have their man and replays suggest that he did press the face of the bat on to it

It is high time the ICC clamped down on:

1. Umpiring standards: The ridiculously poor umpiring can & should be fixed by expanding the panel and ensuring that the workload is distributed evenly across four qualified umpires rather than the situation currently where two umpires slog it out in the sun and are under tremendous pressure, with the other two enjoying the comforts of an air-conditioned box and called upon only every now and then [especially the fourth umpire!] to do some work. In addition, there must be something done to increase the accountability of umpires. They can't just say sorry to players for bad decisions and get away with it. Players are dropped for poor performance. Why should umpires be handled with kid gloves?
   
   
2. Walking: The act of a batsman walking insults the collective intelligence of umpires, teammates and spectators. It is a great tool to be (ab)used [and there are several instances where it has been] either by players walking selectively (after they have scored a lot of runs, but not if they're on a pair, for e.g.) or by players appealing to the umpire's conscience for the umpire could assume that the 'walker' player's appeal for a catch/lbw was valid since he was inherently honest.
   
   
3. Pre-series agreements on taking the fielder's word for catches: This sort of agreement is total rubbish and I have no idea why Kumble agreed to it when several other captains (Vaughan & Fleming, to name two) have disagreed with Ponting's suggestion. Ricky Ponting got enraged at the post-match press conference when it was suggested that he had actually grounded the ball after 'catching' Dhoni in India's second innings at Sydney. He was affronted enough to take the query as an question about his integrity and advised that the journalist should not even be in the room [I take it that no-one who has any questions about Ponting's conduct should be in the press conference henceforth]. In fact, he held up his conduct in the first innings [where he didn't claim a catch that Dravid had edged since it had bounced] as an example of how he plays the game. It sort of reminds me of the 'walking' business where a player's conduct could be used by umpires to influence their decisions in his favour. That is exactly what seemed to happen with Ganguly dismissal. Clarke caught the ball and rolled over. Ponting asked Clarke (he who edged to first slip and didn't walk) if he caught it. The umpire asked Ponting if Clarke caught it. The umpire took Ponting's word for it. Mr. Ponting is an honourable man. Didn't you see the way he did not appeal after Dravid's edge fell short in the first innings? Thank us for small mercies. Ponting's argument perhaps goes like this: "I didn't appeal for that catch. This shows how I play the game. Hence if I appeal for a catch, it is always a valid appeal and the umpires are duty-bound to adjudicate in my favour."
   
   
4. Sledging/Abuse: There should be a total ban on any sort of sledging, including banter. There's no saying when a comment becomes offensive, and there is a huge difference in the way people see barbs aimed at them. Sad as it might seem, it means that witty & creative comments obviously also become a victim of the tough measures to prevent situations from boiling over.

PS: Steve Waugh, in his column, wrote about the things that Australian cricketers hate.

On the other hand, Australian teams can't stomach time-wasting and perceived manipulation of the rules, including calling for runners, over-appealing and the alleged altering of the condition of the ball.

So let's see how Australia's players fared at Sydney.

• Time wasting: Wasn't Clarke wasting everyone's time by staying at the crease after edging to slip?
  
• Manipulation of the rules through using runners: Let's see what Hayden did. After he'd reached 71 [off 132 balls], Hayden got himself a runner (Ponting), since he had started limping a couple of overs later. When he got out on 123, he had faced 192 balls. In the 60 balls that he played after apparently getting injured, going by Cricinfo's commentary and based on what I saw on TV, he played at least 10 booming drives and 10 sweep shots. Add in a couple of pulls and a couple of reverse sweeps. I don't know too much about sportsmen's bodies, but it seems highly unlikely that a batsman with a serious-enough injury to warrant a runner, would be able to play such shots by placing so much stress on his leg.
  
• Over-appealing: When Ricky Ponting 'catches' the ball, falls down and his appeal is turned down, he mentions at a press conference that he caught the ball. Isn't that carrying on with the appeal a little too long?

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, icc, ind v aus 2008, india, ponting, racism, sydney, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

"I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

There's this apocryphal story of BS Chandrasekhar getting frustrated with the umpiring on a tour (there're many accounts of this tale, with the umpire nationality varying from Australian to English to Kiwi). He had 4-5 plumb lbws turned down. Then he clean bowled the batsman and appealed "Howzzaaaat?" The umpire was surprised and told him the batsman was bowled. Chandra apparently replied "I know he's bowled, but is he out?"

Seeing the umpiring standards at the Sydney test, I'm fairly sure bowlers will start asking similar questions. Ricky Ponting was first wrongly given not out (caught down the legside). Then he was wrongly given out lbw (inside edge). Andrew Symonds was wrongly given not out (caught behind off a thick outside edge). Some time later, he again benefitted by the third umpire getting a stumping decision wrong. After he was well past 100, Steve Bucknor didn't even refer a stumping appeal to the third umpire, despite there being considerable doubt on if he did have his foot grounded behind the line.

I don't recall any shocker during India's first innings, but today, Hussey was not given out caught when he'd obviously edged the ball down legside. But what took the biscuit was Michael Clarke's reaction after he'd so obviously edged Kumble to Dravid at slip. Clarke was, in Hayden's words, waiting for the umpire's finger to go up.

To me, this is as damning an indictment of the quality of umpiring in this test as it can get. A batsman lingers around at the crease after edging to first slip, because he hopes that the umpire will get another decision wrong. Chances are he'd hope for a favourable decision even if he'd hit one to mid-wicket or got bowled.

I won't blame Clarke for it at all. He is well within his rights to stand his ground since it is the bowling team's right/duty to appeal and the umpire's duty to give the decision.

More technology is possibly one solution. Better umpires is usually a better solution. The third umpire, with the TV replays at his disposal, got Symonds' stumping wrong. So technology clearly wouldn't have helped.

Umpiring standards has been a pet theme in this blog. As pointed out earlier here, Steve Bucknor has been poor for a while now and Mark Benson didn't even know that a ball which hit the fielding team helmet placed on the ground was not a dead ball!

Bucknor isn't quite done with this series though! He's scheduled to follow both teams to Perth.

I can think of two extreme ways to register a protest against poor umpiring:

• Don't even appeal: For anything. Not for bloody obvious bowleds, catches, stumpings, run outs etc.
  
• Appeal for everything: For bowleds, skied catches, stumpings/run outs with the batsman half-way down the pitch, etc.

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, chandra, clarke, ind v aus 2008, india, sydney 2008, umpires, walking

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:56 am | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

One nice big laugh at Rudi Koertzen please!

Neither his country, nor he will be out on the field during the final tomorrow.

Steve Bucknor's presence in his fifth consecutive final is the clearest indicator of how crappy West Indies have been, especially in one-day cricket, over the past 15 years. David Shepherd umpired three consecutive finals (1996, 1999 and 2003). That shows how poor England were at one-day cricket! Zimbabwe have never had an umpire in a World Cup final, which is an obvious indicator of how good they have been!

Labels: 2007 world cup, australia, bucknor, koertzen, sri lanka, umpires, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:49 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bucknor all set to have his wish granted, Rudi moves one step closer

Over two years ago, Bucknor made it amply clear that he didn't want West Indies in the World Cup final, and that is exactly what happened.

A year ago, Rudi Koertzen had a similar wish, and South Africa are one step away from increasing the chances of his dream becoming a reality.

Try my warped logic. Now we know why the BCCI has ensured that there is no umpire on the ICC's Elite panel. Given the high profile nature of Indian cricket, it is fairly obvious that other cricket boards would be waiting in a huge queue to get India to play against them (No tests please, we're the BCCI!). This therefore means that Indian umpires will not umpire lots of games. The solution is obviously to ensure that there're no Indian umpires around, because the other one (sending the Indian team to lesser number of tournaments) is clearly unacceptable.

Labels: 2007 world cup, bucknor, koertzen, umpires, world cup, world cup final

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:02 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]