Post by mrsinghIndia on Oct 25, 2012 8:52:53 GMT
Never a question of pride or 'principle', Reggie Duff. Principles (without quotes) of umpiring, I might plead guilty to.
I concern myself with the Law, protocol and good umpiring technique.
Certainly, every umpire would like to be right each time. I'm no different. But I can live with a wrong one once in a while. I accept that I will never be right all the time. Being human, I would also like to go through the day with everyone happy with me. Rarely happens, though. :o)
Firstly, does the Law admit of the bowler's end umpire consulting in case of 'Did the ball hit the bat?' How the striker's end umpire is in a better position to see that 'point of fact' is a bit beyond me. I think he is not. Of course, he will have an opinion, as I would if I were at square-leg. But could I be sure? We all know how ambiguous and misleading sound can be. We are more than likely to enter the realm of guesswork here.
Even if the law does allow it, I would advise umpires to use the facility(?) with extreme caution.
We live today in the time of the Third Umpire with the field umpire consulting for everything. Perhaps that influences our thinking and makes for a greater acceptance of consultation of the sort under discussion. When this thing started, the relevant rule stated that the field umpire will decide whether or not the ball has been played. The third umpire would concern himself only with whether or not the catch is taken cleanly. (A mere extension of the field situation to the third umpire scenario). Now, of course, he looks at the entire incident - fairness of delivery - bat or not - fair catch. Which is not wrong.
But 99 pc of Cricket doesn't have the use of the third umpire. My view is that, this is where good technique and consistency in the use of proper technique, would come in useful for the field umpire and serve him better in the long run.
The point I wished to make was, as I said, we may make the right decision for once but will end up looking indecisive and also give more wrong decisions in the long run with liberal use of 'consultation'.
Also, there is no dearth of umpires ready to run to square-leg for consultation.
Just a point of view...
I concern myself with the Law, protocol and good umpiring technique.
Certainly, every umpire would like to be right each time. I'm no different. But I can live with a wrong one once in a while. I accept that I will never be right all the time. Being human, I would also like to go through the day with everyone happy with me. Rarely happens, though. :o)
Firstly, does the Law admit of the bowler's end umpire consulting in case of 'Did the ball hit the bat?' How the striker's end umpire is in a better position to see that 'point of fact' is a bit beyond me. I think he is not. Of course, he will have an opinion, as I would if I were at square-leg. But could I be sure? We all know how ambiguous and misleading sound can be. We are more than likely to enter the realm of guesswork here.
Even if the law does allow it, I would advise umpires to use the facility(?) with extreme caution.
We live today in the time of the Third Umpire with the field umpire consulting for everything. Perhaps that influences our thinking and makes for a greater acceptance of consultation of the sort under discussion. When this thing started, the relevant rule stated that the field umpire will decide whether or not the ball has been played. The third umpire would concern himself only with whether or not the catch is taken cleanly. (A mere extension of the field situation to the third umpire scenario). Now, of course, he looks at the entire incident - fairness of delivery - bat or not - fair catch. Which is not wrong.
But 99 pc of Cricket doesn't have the use of the third umpire. My view is that, this is where good technique and consistency in the use of proper technique, would come in useful for the field umpire and serve him better in the long run.
The point I wished to make was, as I said, we may make the right decision for once but will end up looking indecisive and also give more wrong decisions in the long run with liberal use of 'consultation'.
Also, there is no dearth of umpires ready to run to square-leg for consultation.
Just a point of view...