
I have to hand it over to our friend Jonathan for this excellent post on the much debated issues related to umpires in cricket.
You can read about it here. Don’t forget to also see part 1 too.
Jonathan’s take on the increasing emphasis of specific umpires on some incidents taking the brunt of all the scrutiny by the fans and the media is well put out and the case of the extent of the workload, umpires like Asad Rauf and Simon Taufel have to endure, is an eye opener, as hardly any have looked into their direction and understand what goes behind their work. There are more dimensions to the topic in his article, which is a very nice read.
To continue my perspective on that topic, it is unfortunately not the fault of the fan for this plight but rather the umpires and their governing system themselves that choose to hide that face.
How much information is actually being given out to the fans, the biggest stakeholder of the game on what goes behind this system.
Unfortunately very little.
We do know that supposedly every April, a review happens. In 2009, after a gap of many years, two new umpires were inducted into the elite panel. But what actually goes on still remains one of the many eternal boardroom mysteries that none wants to disclose much about. There is indeed a distinct real possibility that there has not been much inroads in the quality of umpires being churned out by the respective member boards but considering at the same time, there is not much information being shared on the systems in place and their actual workings and findings, you just have to take everything as a pinch of salt.
Either this is a rather old fashioned veil of secrecy, which reminds me of the days 10 years back in my career, watching annoying mac operators on the job in the advertising industry, desperately using only keyboard commands with their hands blocking the view of what keys are actually being pressed, in their ridiculous quest for safeguarding their trade and keep their value in the market going or indeed there is a genuine apathy by the administrators on matters relating to umpiring.
Interestingly, the only time the progress and effort put into the system comes when an umpiring controversy breaks out, with some remarkable “process oriented” and “statistical” tit-bits thrown out to the world leaving everyone wondering whether this is real or a mere protectionist gimmick.
When complaints were flooded on the complete lack in quality of the umpires officiating in some of the matches played between associate members, out came rather prompt tit-bits on the system being worked on with complete video coverage, where decisions of these umpires are later reviewed by expert panels and subsequent improvement advisories and training imparted.
The exact details surrounding this system and the people in charge remain a mysterious clouded veil.
When controversies first exploded in the case of Steve Bucknor, out came his boss, Dave Richardson stating that his umpiring accuracy was 96% back then for the season, which was above the average of 94.8% for the Elite Panel as a whole. What was interesting here is despite all the probing, no details were released on the methodology behind defining this accuracy and system in place to review it.
Contrast that to the well documented and easily available guidelines and systems for team rankings, player performances, player rankings, code of ethics and disciplinary codes. Why, even if someone needs to be inspired to become depressed and suicidal, there is always the well-documented and insane Duckworth-Lewis to be read, for one to reach instant-coffee nirvana with his maker. All of these information about the system surrounding these areas contribute actively in giving a real face to the players and that’s often why no matter how dreadful an action done by a player, even turning up for example, drunk for a match and without your pants, despite the criticism for the action, the player is still loved because they see the system, the effort and the follies of the same, giving it a much more humane touch.
On the other hand, there are no doubts that umpires these days work very hard and constantly strive to be perfect. Anyone digging into the video archives of old matches played decades ago will be shocked to see the quality of umpiring back then. Umpires these days deliver far more brilliant decisions consistently than during those times, but this veil of secrecy/apathy behind their work sometimes make them a lot less enduring to be more accepted for the odd glaring mistakes.
It is a fair argument that in those days, irrespective of how terrible a decision was, players did not make a hue and cry about it like how they do now. But to the defense of the modern day players, it is also to be understood that in those days, players were not remotely scrutinized to the extent subjected by the current media set-up, TV broadcasting, improved camera technologies, ever hyped importance of statisticians and the ICC by itself. You find more documents and rules on anti-corruption for players and interestingly the rest of the stakeholders on a field supposedly has a system but is not disclosed or thought about.
Right now the whole umpiring system is shown like a hard, shiny, beautifully coloured hard shell of a special easter egg. With no details being shared on the systems, processes which they are going through to improve the standards, any sign of inconsistency will get all to take a crack at the egg to see what’s really inside… hollowness or not. Of course, during these times, the general manager shakes the egg to bring out the sound of the toffees inside, in terms of the occasional tit-bits being thrown in but what is equally heard is the hollowness inside which seeds all the doubts of this being a total farce.
The farce of the face can only be dramatically reduced if the transparency of the process is out, so that the human factors and struggles and efforts of these people are seen widespread.
Unfortunately this squarely lies within the realms of the umpires themselves and their bosses. They do need to open up and be a good old egg with all the york flowing. Otherwise, fans outside won’t be in any position to understand whether or not they really work hard to improve the standards set by their predecessors.
Chances are they indeed are but how would anyone actually know?
Hope Dave Richardson is listening.

…and its more so ever important coz we see umps being stripped naked repeatedly by tv producers…on big screens in stadiums and on tv screens in our rooms… turning it out to be one side justice…
I believe cricket has outgrown umpires. Let us go the whole hog and depend on technology.
its a tough life for an umpire sure, and i think providing more visibility into the whole process of picking a good umpire and their rankings and their so called accuracy rating would definitely go a long way to pacifying some of the fans who baying for blood these days.
would it be too cruel to have an umpiring ranking system? it might possibly be monopolised by an aussie but who cares, lets get some review and pts system up for them, get that system publizised so ppl understand what is going on.
ottayan, taking out the umpires would mean one of the basic ingredients of cricket is taken out. i pray that day never comes.
I am preety unsure that the umpiring system wud be too monopolised by an oz as damiths suggests.. If i remember correctly, Darryl Harper gave some brilliant (?) decisions as a 3rd ump with all that help of the technology.. it’s not a q o0f the nationality of the ump.. they are just too incompetenant?
Damiths, the annual awards and the percentages they are based surely count as a ranking system, don’t they? The problem, as Scorpi says, is that we aren’t told what it actually means. It would be better not to give out any numbers at all than to publish them without any explanation.
Scorpi, thanks for the comments and for sharing your reaction. I think you are right to draw out the comparison between the needs in umpiring and the training and srutiny undertaken by players. The comparison is complicated by the different relationship with the ICC. Can you imagine coaches publishing training routines and rankings of their players or the ICC running a ranking system and then going down and directing training for the national teams? Or selectors telling us what went on in a selection meeting? But the same thing that hides the umpire’s face to some extent – the fact that they don’t win or lose – means that it may well be helpful to have more of the details in the open. Not because we want to spend our time thinking about these things, but we don’t often need to think about things once we understand them!
SP you are right, but it is indeed up to them to come out with a human face.
LOL Otts… unfortunately, some of the biggest shockers in recent times were all from “interpreting rightly” through the assistance of technology, which led to the debate of whether some of them were really competent and on the other side of the coin where ones which shrugged and said “See technology is not fool proof”.
Umpires should remain in my opinion but they do need to improve and learn to interpret the assistance they get through technology rightly.
Damith… strangely, the ICC does have a ranking system but have repeatedly failed to give details of the same. While it may or may not make sense into providing too many statistical power surges to everyone which usually ends up in over-analyzing umpires like how players endure, the fact that they have a system, needs to be properly disclosed, so that fans understand that there is some real work happening.
Otherwise, they will tend to look at it at times, that this is all a big bluff and there is nothing there except total incompetency at any level. The current fear in many parts is that there is no system and they are calling a bluff.
The nationality of the umpires need not matter as long as they are good. That ideally should not see any complaints.
Jonathan… thanks…”Not because we want to spend our time thinking about these things, but we don’t often need to think about things once we understand them!”
This is perhaps ideally the scenario which should be created to reduce the ruckus surrounding umpires.
On the other aspects you mentioned with regard to the different relationships within the ICC, you are right and therefore for the moment, it may not make sense for a totally transparent system to the tee flowing down to the most minute of details. That will only slowdown proceedings considerably and perhaps at times, make the job less desirable because you most certainly cannot please all at times.
But there is an extend to which transparency can be brought out at least in terms of the systems involved that seriously helps even in the example of selection meetings.
What exactly happens in a selection meeting known to all may be total transparency but need not necessarily be required to such an extent. To make my case in the context of India, decades back, the selection system, player information were all hidden quite considerably to the public and that resulted in a lot of foul play, where deserving candidates went totally un-noticed to even the ones in India, nepotism ran high, selectors were at best ’shady’.
Cut back to modern times, because of information regarding the functioning of the systems, detailed player information etc., even though still not perfect, selections are less scandalous and more deserving candidates make the cut, with considerable amount of foul play being eliminated. With just these sets of outside information about the system, fans, media etc. all can see to a considerable extent when a selection process has been good, decent or extremely mediocre. When it becomes mediocre, questions are publicly asked and expressed through the media etc. rather uncomfortably and therefore there is lesser chances of foul play running totally amok.
In the context of umpires, I am still a cat on the wall on issues relating to processes and other ways to improve standards but I certainly seek accountability of some extent to at least rule out foul play. The current stream of thought of many are that it is ridiculous to suggest foulplay among officials. They might look like purists but they are fooling only themselves. The game has changed.
The world’s most loved sport is football and was it not a shock when the news broke out on a few referees admitting to fixing matches big time!! God did commit foul! In cricket, players throwing away wickets were all a shocking revelation. The ICC has swung into action and scrutinize players every time they step into a tournament… Stringent systems and practices are out which are welcomed but I am irked that they do not want to replicate the same for match officials, which is strange because they are also the other stakeholders of the game.
Like in the case of the selectors example, some extent of transparency will help big time in reducing foul play if it does exist. Now umpires do make mistakes, most are forgiven, the odd glaring ones are debated but also forgotten after all lapses do happen and assuming, in the ideal scenario, the struggles of the umpires, their systems are also known to everyone. But when you do get a set of totally mediocre shockers that suggest a pattern or smell of possible foul play, it is best that those are pulled up strongly within the context of the system, processes that govern the improvement process of the umpire while silently investigate the corruption aspects. After all, that is how it works for the players and it works quite well.
Maybe it is necessary to have these systems to rule out foul play as much as possible. On the positive side for the umpires, many good/great decisions are seldom appreciated and splashed about. Maybe, these will help highlight some of the brilliant hard work they put in, eliminating the smaller odd mistakes which invariably these days are the only things publicly talked about with respect to umpires.
Sad but true.
We can either be like the people who run football…they don’t want to use technology so that there can endless debates on the decisions handed out by the refs…makes for interesting post-game talk…or we can be like tennis or the NBA…they have totally adopted technology and are are willing to make the game better
Cricket, seems to be trying to be both at the same time
Scorpicity,
the system is flawed for sure, but the blatant need for transparency i think will reduce the magic of umpires being selected out by the ICC in the elite list
Sorry Ankit for the late reply… the site got hijacked and had no access… cheers
Umpiring has always been the toughest of jobs in cricket and for that matter any sport. Added to that it is the most under-appreciated profession as well.
The pressure is immense with so much commercialization and money involved. Technology has stepped in to help out the two men in the middle but I think they use it much less than they should. I think they should be allowed to call the 3rd umpire whenever they want with no questions asked. It will only help get more correct decisions keeping everybody happy.
AV… From what I see there is often the struggle between the regular on-field umps and third umpires, much like some new employee that has come in to take part of your job.