umpire |ˈəmˌpī(ə)r| noun(in some sports) an official who watches a game or match closely to enforce the rules and arbitrate on matters arising from it

The following is a post by Pro/Mark(Mr PCV Mallik)
Due to technical reasons he is unable to post it himself.
cheers Mark.


At last the games have begun. After all the hype, the drama, the injuries, the visa troubles, the unbuilt stadiums, the 16 teams, the arrivals, the Gavaskar-Ponting spat (I don't know what Ponting's going on about; he even admitted to being reprimanded more than anyone in history and yes, we still feel he's been let off easily!) and the 3-hr opening ceremony, finally the games have begun and West Indies have crushed Pakistan. A match between the two most mercurial teams could be anything, but this opening game was wonderful to set the tone for the cup. West Indies should now at least make it to the Super 8s and that guarantees local interest at least till the 4th week of April, so already we are better off than the last two cups, where the home-teams had failed to clear the preliminary stages. Commiserations to Pakistan but the tournament and cricket in general needed this sort of high-octane start from the home team.

Now for the real point I want to make. Over the past several weeks, analysts have written about every conceivable team, player, strategy, semi-final combination, injury (basically the drama I alluded to in the 2nd sentence of the previous paragraph), but they have forgotten what I think will (it always does) play a huge role in determining the outcome of matches and hence the tournament. And that, of course, is the umpiring. Granted they try their best and do deliver what they think is the correct decision on the field. However, that to me would suggest that all teams/players lose some and win some decisions in the end and it balances out. Even when I look at things in a completely unbiased fashion (believe me, I can!), I can't help but seeing the gross injustices that umpires carry out in the middle. Do they even realise they are playing with people's careers, dreams, aspirations and the most important thing, the correct decision. Here I'm not even referring to the Oval Test fiasco of last summer, but virtually every umpire on this planet is guilty of making some of the most shockingly blatant decisions. Sure they are human and can make mistakes, but this many, even humans can't be excused of so many errors. If the errors fell equally among all teams/players, then I wouldn't mind them, but their deterministically non-random nature is what bothers me.

Hence I think once more in the World Cup as well, it will be the X-factor, the factor (read umpire!) that determines who has the most luck and turns out to be successful in the tournament. How often have you seen Ponting edge the ball to 2nd slip off a no-ball (go on to make a 100), get caught the following game at square leg and another no-ball is called (this time the umpire apologises later for calling the no-ball wrongly; goes on to make a 100), is plumb lbw but not given (goes on to make a 100), asks Srinath to "go f****** bowl", is not reprimanded (goes on to score a 100), is dropped on 90-something in a test match they should have lost against Bangladesh (goes on to make a 100)........ the list goes on and on. Similar lists can easily be created for equally unlikable, not particularly talented, but hugely successful players: read Matt Hayden, Jacques Kallis, and even bowlers (Donald, McGrath) and they'll tend to come from predominantly two nations, the two most successful in recent years as well and the two that play the least attractive cricket: Australia and South Africa. Who are the top two favourites for this Cup??? Who are the top two ranked teams?

The other end of the spectrum talks of really great players who get the short end of the stick: how often have you seen Sachin given caught behind off the shoulder; dropped at point but given out; ball gone above his head given caught-behind; reached his crease, bat is kicked up, given out run-out; given out then called back by the umpire (gets out the next over, actually out surprisingly); heck, he's so used to being given out that he has even walked when he is not out!; given out lbw when the balls hits the middle of the bat and given out caught-behind when he's left the ball. The list is endless. Which is why I find it even funnier (or may be ominous) that Steve Bucknor took the umpires oath. Sachin has famously said that having Bucknor umpiring is like facing the best bowler in the world every ball! A similarly virtually identical list can be found for another man named Lara (he was actually out only for the 2nd time in the series against Australia when he scored 226 in Adelaide; his previous 5 out of 6 dismissals in Australia in 2005 were umpiring boo-boos). And he continues to walk; even in the opening WC game! Then you have the bowlers (of the past again!) like Waqar and Gough who would bowl their hearts out (and apart from fielders dropping catches produced by their bowling) umpires would play their familiar role of not giving a plumb lbw or caught-behind. I've seen it too often to enumerate!

Anyway, that's enough of my rant. The point is that umpires do a woeful job (however difficult it might be; yes, I would do better) and this WC will be no different (oh, how I would love it to be!) and many matches and moments will be decided by them, not the players or their quality. Hence I find it amusing that there is never any analysis on this aspect of cricket. If I can hear an inside edge onto pad (given out lbw) through my TV after the sound has travelled through various radio, sound and electrical signals over 10,000km, how the hell can the umpire miss it standing 22 yards away with a microphone shoved up his ear??!!