But then, why is the Indian media still complaining about umpiring and umpire-related issues? I find it quite amazing as to how much umpiring errors get talked about and debated over in our media. It is safe to say that umpiring and umpire-related issues get more media space in our coverage of cricket than other, far more important issues in the game.
Is it because this subject is simply good for the TRPs? Is it because the fans like nothing more than talking about umpiring fumbles? Are umpires the favourite whipping boys of cricket, because they, unlike players, have no way of getting back at the media?
For instance, excessive criticism of any Indian cricketer can be quite hazardous for a media outlet. That could well mean the end of any favours to the outlet from the cricketer. No more will it get exclusive quotes and interviews from the star cricketer that media outlets thrive upon. The cricketer, therefore, has great powers to fight back when in trouble. By comparison, the poor umpire is powerless! No one wants a Billy Doctrove exclusive, right?
It is almost sadistic what the Indian media does to an international umpire who is only trying to do his best—and that too in a very challenging environment.
It was also the time when neutral umpires were not a part of international cricket as much as they are today. At times, players not only had to contend with incompetent umpires but also those who were extremely patriotic. Some countries in the cricketing world were especially infamous for this, and touring teams knew well before that they were playing against 13 players, not 11.
When you get a chance, do watch the Sharjah classics that are often shown on Ten Sports. Watch the kind of lbw decisions that were given then. There would be riots if any umpire were to give such decisions today. A beautiful yorker from the great Wasim Akram raps the batsman on the pads, the batsman is on the floor and the umpire raises the finger. The crowd erupts! Great, classic action from Sharjah, but there was just one thing that was not quite classical in that—the ball was missing the stumps by more than a foot!
Umpires were human then, and to an extent were cricket lovers too. If they saw a great ball and a bad shot from the batsman, he stood no chance with them! That finger of theirs was very happy to go skywards, it did not matter to them much where the ball was eventually headed to.
Then came television in its full technological glory, rapidly changing everything in the game. Especially umpiring, which just got better and better. The TV camera lenses got bigger and, sitting at home, we were brought closer to the action than ever before. New, ultra slow motion cameras that captured pictures at 1,000 frames per second replayed the action so slowly that you could finish a cup of tea while they showed a cover drive.
The game and the umpires came under intense scrutiny from the millions of visually empowered cricket fans and also from those connected with the game in some way. Considering the kind of scanner umpires are put under these days, I find it quite incredible that even without assistance from technology they are still able to have a 92 per cent success rate. Yet, somehow, we are still not satisfied.
Technology was brought into cricket and allowed to go deeper into its very fabric, more than it had in any other sport. With that, inevitably, also came some issues that had all of us stumped for a while, but these are also getting addressed along the way. In spite of all this and the 98.15 per cent correct decisions with technology, all it takes is just one umpiring mistake and we are up in arms once again.
For me, nothing is more ridiculous than the suggestion that an umpiring decision cost a team the match. We go on for days about how that one umpiring decision—for or against one batsman—cost us the game. You’d think that only one batsman bats in this game and not eleven.
If we chose to focus on the right things, we will find that it was actually how the players played that decided the game. In any lost match, the players have made far more mistakes than an umpire has, but somehow the umpire seems to bear the brunt. India tied the game against England not so much because Billy Bowden made an important mistake, but because India did not bowl as well as they should have. That also reminds me, we do have a weak bowling attack, don’t we? Couldn’t that have been more the reason for not winning against England, and not Billy boy?
We also have to remember that after a game is lost, the players too will sometimes attack an umpire on impulse if an important decision has gone against them. This is typical of us players; all of us have done this at some point of time in our careers as international cricketers. But to use the players’ reaction to further an agenda of your own is just not right and terribly unfair on the umpire.
I really feel that if we want to boast of being sports lovers, we need to be sports-minded ourselves. Show some of the sportsman’s spirit that players often show. Try raising the Billy Bowden issue with the Indian captain M.S. Dhoni today and he will brush it off as a non-issue. He has moved on; time for us to do the same.
(Sanjay Manjrekar is a former Indian batsman)
A well-argued and timely article from Sanjay Manjrekar (Don’t Shoot the Judge, Mar 28). I hope it will bring sense to the cricket ‘pundits’ in the media. I feel the scrutiny of the eight per cent wrong umpiring decisions goes with our media’s general hunger for everything negative in the world around us.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Well done, Sanjay. A timely article. I hope it will bring sense to the 'pundits' in our media. I feel that the excessive focus on the 8% wrong decisions is just in line with our media's general focus on everything negative in the world around us.
The stats you provided cant be justified , i have followed the world cup as well and what i have observed is the 92 % accuracy is exaggerated for the simple reason being whenever a decision is given out and even when the UDRS is called for if the ball is clipping say the top of leg stump or grazing the leg stump if the umpire has given it out it stands and if the umpire has given it not out it stands as well , so this can't be judged as a good decision from the umpire because most of the times i saw the UDRS the replay shows ball grazing the leg stump and being given out .
In such cases th benefit of the doubt should b given to the batsman for sake of technology rather than the umpires intution be given more preference. No doubt they are doing a great and thankless job. But these people choose to be umpires they should keep it in mind b4 they opted for it . 1 will never forgive a judge for giving the wrong decision with the stats in hand , same is the case with an umpire . They are expected to be flawless.
iam totally against this racist concept..the whole issue happened because subcontinental umpires are preseieved as not being upto the mark
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT