|
Post by petergillman on May 28, 2008 10:05:41 GMT
Three points arise for me from this very interesting debte.
The first, going back to the original post, relates to the umpire's action in signalling a dead ball while the batters were running. I understood that you must wait until the "run" is completed, as the fielder claimed. Is that correct? And if so, how should an umpire react when a fielder correctly points out that the umpire has made a mistake?
There is a second point in this connection. Sometimes when the batters start running for a leg bye after not playing a shot, the fielders complain to the umpire, asking if the batter played at the ball. Technically the umpire needs do nothing, other than signal dead ball at the end of the "run". What do other umpires do? Do they acknowledge the fielder's question/complaint? Or do they stay silent until they signal dead ball after the "run", and then explain their actions to the fielder?
A further point arose in this thread. An umpire referred to not calling no ball to a slow ball above waist height. It is worth bearing in mind that competition regulations may vary the law. Last year I was umpiring in a league where slow balls above waist height are deemed no balls. At a crucial stage in the match, the batter was caught off just such a ball. I had not briefed myself properly on the regulations and did not rule this not out. There was a big row both on the pitch and afterwards. When I checked the regulations I realised my mistake and apologised to the batter and his captain. Very embarrassing and I won't make that mistake again!
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on May 28, 2008 11:35:37 GMT
Three points arise for me from this very interesting debte. The first, going back to the original post, relates to the umpire's action in signalling a dead ball while the batters were running. I understood that you must wait until the "run" is completed, as the fielder claimed. Is that correct? And if so, how should an umpire react when a fielder correctly points out that the umpire has made a mistake? There is a second point in this connection. Sometimes when the batters start running for a leg bye after not playing a shot, the fielders complain to the umpire, asking if the batter played at the ball. Technically the umpire needs do nothing, other than signal dead ball at the end of the "run". What do other umpires do? Do they acknowledge the fielder's question/complaint? Or do they stay silent until they signal dead ball after the "run", and then explain their actions to the fielder? A further point arose in this thread. An umpire referred to not calling no ball to a slow ball above waist height. It is worth bearing in mind that competition regulations may vary the law. Last year I was umpiring in a league where slow balls above waist height are deemed no balls. At a crucial stage in the match, the batter was caught off just such a ball. I had not briefed myself properly on the regulations and did not rule this not out. There was a big row both on the pitch and afterwards. When I checked the regulations I realised my mistake and apologised to the batter and his captain. Very embarrassing and I won't make that mistake again! Correct you should wait until they have completed one run or the ball crosses the boundary or the ball hits a helmet on the floor? Second point if a bowler or fielder enquirers as to whether he played a shot, I personally give a shake or nod of the head to the inquiry. Technically you should say nothing until they complete the run etc. Third point I agree, it is essential that you read any regulations to a match and again on the morning and if necessary at lunch/tea.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on May 28, 2008 11:57:57 GMT
My original problem was that the fielders moaned because I called 'dead ball' after one run and didn't allow them to keep running first.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on May 28, 2008 13:45:42 GMT
Going back to the original post, relates to the umpire's action in signalling a dead ball while the batters were running. I understood that you must wait until the "run" is completed, as the fielder claimed. Is that correct? And if so, how should an umpire react when a fielder correctly points out that the umpire has made a mistake? There is a second point in this connection. Sometimes when the batters start running for a leg bye after not playing a shot, the fielders complain to the umpire, asking if the batter played at the ball. Technically the umpire needs do nothing, other than signal dead ball at the end of the "run". What do other umpires do? Do they acknowledge the fielder's question/complaint? Or do they stay silent until they signal dead ball after the "run", and then explain their actions to the fielder? Usually the fielding side start “pointing out” to the bowlers end umpire (they get that bit right) that the batsman has not played a shot and forget or do not know about running out the batsman. It is vital that you make the scorers aware that no run has been scored, after the run has completed and you call / signal dead ball or the ball becomes dead. This has happened several times to me. I can remember a particularly volatile side shouting at me “no shot played” with the batsman stranded. They were to busy complaining to think of the run out. When the captain spoke to me, I simply said “well you missed a good chance of a run out there then”.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on May 28, 2008 13:56:06 GMT
I absolutely hate it when players question decisions that you know are right. I accept it when I'm wrong but last weekend when I called 'no-ball' to a bouncer over head height a couple of players questioned it, saying it 'should have been a wide'. Rather than have my authority undermined by that I made sure the player was told the relevant law, and invited him to look at the MCC law book with me afterwards. In hindsight, I should have been calmer about it, but I was so annoyed that I was made to look foolish at the time for something I'm sure I got right!
|
|
|
Post by blackbeard on May 28, 2008 14:54:22 GMT
You know the laws of cricket.
What happens in the future when the ACO umpire becomes prominent, he doesn't have to know the laws of cricket according to ECB?
The players couldn't care less whether you are ACUS, ACO or ICUS. They may be in for a shock when umpires stand who do not know fully the laws of cricket.
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on May 28, 2008 16:40:01 GMT
I absolutely hate it when players question decisions that you know are right. I accept it when I'm wrong but last weekend when I called 'no-ball' to a bouncer over head height a couple of players questioned it, saying it 'should have been a wide'. Rather than have my authority undermined by that I made sure the player was told the relevant law, and invited him to look at the MCC law book with me afterwards. In hindsight, I should have been calmer about it, but I was so annoyed that I was made to look foolish at the time for something I'm sure I got right! This problem unfortunately arose for you as the players watch cricket on the television. In test matches the ball overhead height is a wide. As one of the contributors said make sure you know the regulations that apply before you start a match. Leg side wides are a typical example of this. In some leagues / competitions everything leg side not touching batsman or bat is a wide, some are only a wide if the ball pitches on leg side etc. This is tells you all from the ICUS web site www.umpires.tv/armchair/wides_or_no_balls_ARC.htmlAs long as you know the laws and regulations you will be OK. Always keep calm, no matter how difficult it is at times. You were not made to look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on May 29, 2008 2:59:47 GMT
Yes, don't lose your cool. Leg byes: I'll usually give some indication of what I think, sometimes verbally if the player is close by, but most of the time head movement (shake or nod) or a wry smile does the trick! I also, pretty much always, make a point of saying to whoever starts telling me, that I have to let the run be completed (or ball go to boundary) to give them the chance of the run-out. Now most seem a little surprised by this (or feign it at least ), but more to the point it usually shuts 'em up from doing it later on in the game, that and helps build a bit of rapport with the players as a whole. I'm still not entirely convinced about all this denigrating of ACO umpires, and the whole training system. I'm probably in a better position than most to judge as I have a copy of the Level 2 Accreditation Pack that Cricket Australia produce, and which ECB seem to be basing their system on. Based on actually seeing that I'm fairly confident that the system is just as rigorous, if not more so (in that it covers a wider set of topics than just the laws) than the old ACU&S exams. I qualified back with the old written Part II, and that to me seemed a bad system for testing umpires, granted it required you to know the laws very well, but I don't think it was a very good system for producing "good" umpires. The multiple-choice and whole change of examinations to computer based by ACU&S inevitably lead to dumbing down of the exams, in that most questions were so narrow in the questions they asked (limited by the amount of text you could fit on one slide) that it to me seemed to be a bad move. The new Level 2 by ECB, which looks as though it should be in the same mould as Cricket Australia's similar accreditation level, will hopefully be just as good. To give people an idea of what you get with Cricket Australia, it is 2 videos, where staged matches and also clips for International matches have been used to demonstrate the laws in action and also to illustrate practical umpiring tips. There is also 2 textbooks (not very much in them, but they relate to the videos, and cover the key essentials in law), and a very large workbook. This is the thing that you fill in as you go along and is part of the assessment. Cricket Australia have also produced a very good CD on umpiring, which covers all the laws, and a lot more, so their umpires have access to a wide range of resources to use. Bear in mind also that Tom Smith's is a back-bone to training out in Australia as it is in the UK. We'll see how ECB do, but what I think is totally unforgivable is the mess there are in at the moment. Quite how they have been so poor in actually planning for training, and the attempts to simply buck-pass to County Associations has been awful for engendering support for ECBOA. We'll see, I think once everything is sorted (!), it should be a smooth system, and if the training materials are as good as those in Australia I certainly won't be worried about the standard of any colleagues in the future.
|
|