Time to scrap the Elite Umpires' Panel?

In two Ashes Tests we've had plenty of controversy, particularly around DRS reviews but also on the field decisions, and it has focused attention on the fact that there are only four umpires eligible to officiate the 10 consecutive Tests between the sides.

Now while the concept of an elite group makes sense, there were always going to be issues with workload, travel etc. for the umpires which have resulted in high turnover and a number retiring early or declining to join, and now a massive geographical imbalance with two thirds of the panel being from England and Australia, who play more Tests than anyone else anyway, so the remaining four have a really disproportionate schedule. As a result, are standards really any higher than before? Or were we better off with a larger international panel like we had before? And although nobody wants a return to the days of Shakoor Rana etc., is it time to reintroduce at least one home umpire to Test cricket? As things stand I don't think it's really working as it should.

BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules!

Wait, what?

beamer wrote:In two Ashes Tests we've had plenty of controversy, particularly around DRS reviews but also on the field decisions, and it has focused attention on the fact that there are only four umpires eligible to officiate the 10 consecutive Tests between the sides.

Now while the concept of an elite group makes sense, there were always going to be issues with workload, travel etc. for the umpires which have resulted in high turnover and a number retiring early or declining to join, and now a massive geographical imbalance with two thirds of the panel being from England and Australia, who play more Tests than anyone else anyway, so the remaining four have a really disproportionate schedule. As a result, are standards really any higher than before? Or were we better off with a larger international panel like we had before? And although nobody wants a return to the days of Shakoor Rana etc., is it time to reintroduce at least one home umpire to Test cricket? As things stand I don't think it's really working as it should.

With all the technological advances since the introduction of the elite pane, the opportunities for biased umpiring have been reduced to the point of insignificance. I think you could comfortably have an umpire from each country standing in a particular test with neutral Umpires acting as third and fourth officials.

No, stick with neutral umpires but they need to find a few new umpires to bolster the elite panel. They should try and train some well respected international players near the end of their career and identify talent - like Peter Willey, Paul Reiffel, Kumar Dharmasena - it is easier to command authority if you have experience of playing in Tests (but obviously they need to have demonstrated good standards during their career - i'm not advocating Shahid Afridi, Suliemann Benn and Andre Nel to suddenly be fitted for white coats and panama hats).

Well, Chris Broad as a match referee would have seemed pretty implausible during his career...

Gary 111 wrote:No, stick with neutral umpires but they need to find a few new umpires to bolster the elite panel. They should try and train some well respected international players near the end of their career and identify talent - like Peter Willey, Paul Reiffel, Kumar Dharmasena - it is easier to command authority if you have experience of playing in Tests (but obviously they need to have demonstrated good standards during their career - i'm not advocating Shahid Afridi, Suliemann Benn and Andre Nel to suddenly be fitted for white coats and panama hats).

Don't let twattery be an obstruction - otherwise Allan Jones would never have been an umpire!

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:In two Ashes Tests we've had plenty of controversy, particularly around DRS reviews but also on the field decisions, and it has focused attention on the fact that there are only four umpires eligible to officiate the 10 consecutive Tests between the sides.

Now while the concept of an elite group makes sense, there were always going to be issues with workload, travel etc. for the umpires which have resulted in high turnover and a number retiring early or declining to join, and now a massive geographical imbalance with two thirds of the panel being from England and Australia, who play more Tests than anyone else anyway, so the remaining four have a really disproportionate schedule. As a result, are standards really any higher than before? Or were we better off with a larger international panel like we had before? And although nobody wants a return to the days of Shakoor Rana etc., is it time to reintroduce at least one home umpire to Test cricket? As things stand I don't think it's really working as it should.

With all the technological advances since the introduction of the elite pane, the opportunities for biased umpiring have been reduced to the point of insignificance. I think you could comfortably have an umpire from each country standing in a particular test with neutral Umpires acting as third and fourth officials.

Good point, but what about Test matches involving India?

beamer wrote:Well, Chris Broad as a match referee would have seemed pretty implausible during his career...

It would be entertaining if Stuart Broad took the same route, although I fear if uncertain he would try and refer everything. Might end up with a lot of bowlers having to remodel their actions.

lardbucket wrote:

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:In two Ashes Tests we've had plenty of controversy, particularly around DRS reviews but also on the field decisions, and it has focused attention on the fact that there are only four umpires eligible to officiate the 10 consecutive Tests between the sides.

Now while the concept of an elite group makes sense, there were always going to be issues with workload, travel etc. for the umpires which have resulted in high turnover and a number retiring early or declining to join, and now a massive geographical imbalance with two thirds of the panel being from England and Australia, who play more Tests than anyone else anyway, so the remaining four have a really disproportionate schedule. As a result, are standards really any higher than before? Or were we better off with a larger international panel like we had before? And although nobody wants a return to the days of Shakoor Rana etc., is it time to reintroduce at least one home umpire to Test cricket? As things stand I don't think it's really working as it should.

With all the technological advances since the introduction of the elite pane, the opportunities for biased umpiring have been reduced to the point of insignificance. I think you could comfortably have an umpire from each country standing in a particular test with neutral Umpires acting as third and fourth officials.

Good point, but what about Test matches involving India?

Time for the non-Indian majority on the ICC to collectively grow a pair and tell the BBCI to shape up or fark off.

lardbucket wrote:

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:In two Ashes Tests we've had plenty of controversy, particularly around DRS reviews but also on the field decisions, and it has focused attention on the fact that there are only four umpires eligible to officiate the 10 consecutive Tests between the sides.

Now while the concept of an elite group makes sense, there were always going to be issues with workload, travel etc. for the umpires which have resulted in high turnover and a number retiring early or declining to join, and now a massive geographical imbalance with two thirds of the panel being from England and Australia, who play more Tests than anyone else anyway, so the remaining four have a really disproportionate schedule. As a result, are standards really any higher than before? Or were we better off with a larger international panel like we had before? And although nobody wants a return to the days of Shakoor Rana etc., is it time to reintroduce at least one home umpire to Test cricket? As things stand I don't think it's really working as it should.

With all the technological advances since the introduction of the elite pane, the opportunities for biased umpiring have been reduced to the point of insignificance. I think you could comfortably have an umpire from each country standing in a particular test with neutral Umpires acting as third and fourth officials.

Good point, but what about Test matches involving India?

India should get their own uber elite panel selected by me. Early contenders are Javed Miandad, Andrew Symonds, Michael Slater and JK Lever.

furriner wrote:BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules! BCCI Rules!

Wait, what?

What he says, and we'll buy out anyone who contemplates going rogue.

No, I don't think the elite panel should be scrapped, maybe extended or restructured to have a more even spread. A couple of dodgy decisions in a tight match and bias will invariably bare its teeth Given their performances, some rabble like Tucker or Davis could easily be hacked, and then there's the English flooding in. Otherwise, just have the add some shite non Australian or English to have more eligible for the Ashes. Didn't think any Indian was fit to be in the elite panel, but doubt anyone could do worse than the current lot have so far or what Tucker did in England last year.

How can India not have an umpire worthy of Test cricket? Or do they just not want one on the panel so they always have a full squad of 12 to select from when they play?

india has not had one on the panel since venkat. that's almost a decade now i think

seeing the ranji matches there does not seem to be much quality either. they really need to get some better training for the umps

The One wrote:india has not had one on the panel since venkat. that's almost a decade now i think

seeing the ranji matches there does not seem to be much quality either. they really need to get some better training for the umps

Anal Krumble and Javegal Srinath both look like umpires to me. Maybe its the moustaches that commanded respect. And whatever did happen to Robin Singh? Or maybe Sehwag can be moulded into an attacking umpire - doesn't move his feet but throws his arms into signalling fours and no balls with gusto.

Gary 111 wrote:

The One wrote:india has not had one on the panel since venkat. that's almost a decade now i think

seeing the ranji matches there does not seem to be much quality either. they really need to get some better training for the umps

Anal Krumble and Javegal Srinath both look like umpires to me. Maybe its the moustaches that commanded respect. And whatever did happen to Robin Singh? Or maybe Sehwag can be moulded into an attacking umpire - doesn't move his feet but throws his arms into signalling fours and no balls with gusto.

So the Indian Bowden, but without a hint of Shepherd?

Sensible spiel from taufel...from ABC online

"Former Test umpire Simon Taufel has backed the use of the decision review system (DRS) at the centre of several Ashes controversies, saying technology will never be 100 per cent perfect.

Delivering the 13th MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture at Lord's, the Australian, who retired last year, was coy over what changes, if any, could be made to improve the actual system, suggesting instead that the focus should be on players' use of it.

England leads the Ashes 2-0 but the first two Tests have featured controversial incidents regarding the use of the DRS.

On day two of the first Test, England was left incensed when Jonathan Trott was wrongly given out lbw before his team-mate Stuart Broad refused to walk after edging the ball to slip on day three - an incident Australia was unable to review having already used all referrals.

No matter what system of technology review/referral we implement in our game, it will not be perfect or 100 per cent. There are trade-offs and compromises with every system adopted.
Simon Taufel
The visitors' inept use of the system continued in the second Test with Shane Watson wasting a review on a plumb lbw decision and Chris Rogers failing to review a Graeme Swann lbw call off a full-toss that replays showed would have missed leg stump.

While the likes of former Australia captain Ian Chappell have said DRS should be solely in the hands of the umpires, Taufel lent his support to the under fire system.

"The technology genie has been let out of the bottle and it's not going to go back in," he said.

"I would simply advocate that we look at ways to be as pragmatic as possible so we can get more correct decisions and deliver more justice.

"I do have an important message on this topic though as it is often asked, 'what is your view on the DRS?' I'm not sure that this is the right question.

"Perhaps we should be asking 'are we using technology in the best way to serve the players, supporters, umpires and values of our game?'

"No matter what system of technology review/referral we implement in our game, it will not be perfect or 100 per cent.

"There are trade-offs and compromises with every system adopted.

"Today, everyone umpires the game by watching television. The invasive nature of this broadcasting has a double edge to it - it does put more pressure on players and umpires.

"Not too much now happens on a cricket field that is not captured by a camera, a microphone or piece of technology. This has the ability to bring out the best in the game and also the worst."

ICC needs to focus on umpire succession
Taufel also said that the ongoing Ashes series highlights another significant challenge for the International Cricket Council - that of succession planning.

England and Australia between them provide eight members of the ICCs 12-strong panel of elite umpires.

That means only four men - Pakistan's Aleem Dar, Sri Lanka's Kumar Dharmasena, South Africa's Marais Erasmus and New Zealand's Tony Hill - are currently eligible to officiate in the Ashes, with the current five-match series set to be followed by another five Tests in Australia starting later this year.

"The neutrality guidelines mean that eight of the 12 elite panel umpires are not eligible to officiate (in the Ashes)," Taufel said.

"We have a real need to encourage and support the other Test-playing countries to invest more resources in this area. This representation trend by two countries needs more competition from the others.

"Umpiring is everyone's business, everyone seems to have an opinion on it but we need to alter the mindset and have all the countries investing more in the future of match officiating"
______________________________________

Perhaps the ECB and CA should just say we dont mind having a pom and an ozzie form the elite panel umpiring us

given collectively we have 8 of the 12 that would make a lot of sense

Although it seems Oz umpires are as capable as farqing up reviewed decisions as anyone

Windies not happy

embee wrote:Perhaps the ECB and CA should just say we dont mind having a pom and an ozzie form the elite panel umpiring us

They did something similar, according to the telegraph anyway.

So who are the best umpires these days? I rate Richard Kettleborough and Nigel Llong. Gunner Gould isn't bad although he can miss the most obvious of LBWs. Aleem Dar is pretty good despite Trent Bridge. Paul Reiffel looks ok, as does Kumar Dharmasena......

But there's a lot of rubbish- Erasmus, Hill, Davis, Oxenford....completely incompetent, all of them.

that will enrage the meerkat pack

So yeah I guess the problem in this series is that the best umpires these days tend to be English, with the odd Aussie thrown in. For whatever reason, New Zealand umpires have been dodgy for a long time, South Africa has produced Koertzen, who retired about three years too late, the Windies had Bucknor (see Koertzen), and......

Has India EVER produced a decent umpire? I can't think of one.

Venkat.

Dar's been shite for at more than a year now, Trent Bridge wasn't an exception.

Venkat who gave Nasser out about 10 shockers in a row?