Square Leg Umpire

Seriously, in this day and age, what's the point?

Runouts and stumpings are virtually all decided by the TV umpire anyway, the umpires aren't allowed to call 'bowlers' for chucking, and even the low disputed catch nearly always goes to a TV replay.

Double the salaries and have just one decent on-field umpire per Test, backed up by a team of two in the sheds (as now).

But who'd check on the number of fielders behind square leg?

MI6, and the sniper in the commentary box.

or the total number of leg side fielders? - does that still apply in Aus?

I reckon the bowler's end umpire might be able to sort that one out.

lardbucket wrote:MI6, and the sniper in the commentary box.

Stylish

Maybe it's so the umpire has a slight mental break between overs.

Rotate every few overs and have longer mental health breaks, then.

lardbucket wrote:MI6, and the sniper in the commentary box.

Ahhh, the buckeroo plan...

lardbucket wrote:MI6, and the sniper in the commentary box.

I knew your new year's resolution wouldn't last!

Seemingly absolutely no point when they don't even bother to refer border-line decisions. I reckon Symonds was out for a third time in his innings when Bucknor decided he had telescopic eyesight and didn't need to refer, though I would have expected him to get the benefit of the doubt.

What's the point of umpires full stop?

I am prepared to let Hawkeye adjudicate in any test officiated by Aleem Duh, Steve [F]ucknor or Billy Clownden. It will take the element of randomness about the decisions away. They just need a mobile hat stand to trundle between square leg and the stumps and we will save the wages and travel costs of 3 fools.

... an old thread, but I really can't see the point of square leg umpires now. Perhaps it really is just a place to rest between overs.

Surely not all of the game's umpires today (standing umpire, square leg umpire, third umpire) could have been in agreement that Jimmy Anderson was run out in yesterday's game. I can't understand why they don't consult each other via radio before making a decision. 

Did all three of them not know the rules? Or did the umpire/umpires that DID know the rules simply not bother to let Aleem Dar know? Either way it's ridiculous, and justifies the immediate sacking of at least one, if not all of them.

It is pretty damning that Beefy and ltj know the laws better than the umpires. Fark knowing the laws, it just needed the application of common sense.

Agreed. I'm amazed that the umps didn't automatically think is was dead ball (like we all did). And then for the whole team of officials (assuming Dar and Dharmasena checked upstairs) to get it wrong - well that's just embarrassingly lamentable.

Awful luck to ljt.

I was with a bunch of park cricketers, all half-cut, and we all knew it was not out! There was no argument about it, just universal hilarity that the umpires had stuffed up.

These guys (Dar, Dharmesena, etc) are being paid to be 'elite umpires'. This mistake took the best part of 5 minutes to make; the time taken on the lbw 'not out' call could have been used to remind all that there was no run attempt possible after an 'out' decision, and thus no run out opportunity.

There is another whole can of worms possible, though, with this review decision. Imagine a batsman who comes down the wicket, swipes at the ball, possibly gets some sort of edge on it, after which time the ball goes through to the keeper, who takes it, and takes the stumps for good measure (the old 'caught and stumped' routine). The bowler appeals for a catch and the batsman is given out. The batsman calls for a review ... and the  ball is deemed to have been squeezed into the turf and then to the keeper, so the catch is not out. Now ... was it 'dead ball' before the stumping was made, and thus not stumped either? If it's short mid-wicket 'catching' the ball and then throwing the striker's stumps down to run him out, or twisting to throw out the non-striker, who has ventured halfway down the wicket?

He would have been stumped before the umpire "gave" him out caught so the stumping would stand. Unless the keeper was Wade, in which case there would have been time for the umpire to give the batsman out before the stumping was made.

Good point, Woody, but I think there is still some clarity to be brought to some of these decisions.

Although last night's decision was wrong, I don't think the outcome was bad ... a) because the batsmen undoubtedly tried for a run, before the finger went up, and Anderson was undoubtedly thrown out; and b) because some clarity needs to be brought to the game's progress in the review situation.

Let's face it, if the standing umpire had got the original lbw decision right, then Anderson would simply have been given run out and there would have been no argument. The review system is supposed to get more decisions right, not exchange one wrong decision for another. The laws need to be written with clarity so that this can occur.

lardbucket wrote:Let's face it, if the standing umpire had got the original lbw decision right, then Anderson would simply have been given run out and there would have been no argument. The review system is supposed to get more decisions right, not exchange one wrong decision for another. The laws need to be written with clarity so that this can occur.

as written the law is perfectly clear on this point. as soon as an umpire says someones out the ball is dead. full stop end of.
if the umps cant remember that they dont deserve to be out there

It was a lamentable piece of cricket - just what the game needs in it's showcase tournament!

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Let's face it, if the standing umpire had got the original lbw decision right, then Anderson would simply have been given run out and there would have been no argument. The review system is supposed to get more decisions right, not exchange one wrong decision for another. The laws need to be written with clarity so that this can occur.

as written the law is perfectly clear on this point.  as soon as an umpire says someones out the ball is dead.  full stop end of.

if the umps cant remember that they dont deserve to be out there

Of course I know that, and even the drunks at my local club were in full agreement that the umpires got the decision wrong yesterday in regard to the law ... I was simply pointing out that with the law as written, there are other potential disasters lying in wait, ready to occur. And the fact remains that if the blind umpire yesterday hadn't erred in the first place by giving Taylor out lbw, Anderson could quite correctly have been given out. Interestingly, at no stage while the lbw appeal review was in process did I see the English batsmen walking back to their original ends, which might have been a sensible and forceful way to make their point that the ball was dead as soon as the lbw appeal was turned down; I think they were pretty keen to try to have the single if they could!

G.Wood wrote:It is pretty damning that Beefy and ltj know the laws better than the umpires.  Fark knowing the laws, it just needed the application of common sense.

Exactly. The most basic of logic need only to have been applied

The Laws as written

and the Playing conditions for the World Cup

are quite clear on the correct procedure for the incident as happened

The failure was for the on field umpires , the third umpire and the match referee to apply the laws correctly

[I'd loved to have been a fly on the wall at the after match review ]

yes, we've all got all that