From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:39:43 GMT

In article 01GMZN31QJMQAKVSYT@ccmail.sunysb.edu,  ABEGLEY@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Anthony M. Begley) writes:
>
>Wasim and Waqar are certainly world class
>bowlers but I cant rate the rest of the attack as world class. 

So who is better leg spinner than Mushtaq in the world today?  Gooch,
and Smith are supposedly England's best batsmen at the moment and after
4 test matches, 2ODIs they still can not read him.  There are of course
some of us who believe Aaqib to be world class but we are perhaps
deluded by our Pakistani biases.

Rajeev says:
>> I think you have to make up your mind. If Alderman was really good and trapped
>> more people in front, he should get more LBWs. Shamim's point was that
>> when you have a truly neutral umpire then he is equally fair to both sides.
>> Are you saying that England was disadvantaged because the umpire was neutral?
>
>Well, that was what the original posting implied.

I must confess that I do not quite understand who is saying what here.
Let me clarify what I had tried to say in my original posting. An
umpire is supposed to be fair and should not give an advantage to any
side. If somebody claims that Alderman sometimes got the advantage over
Gooch in LBW decisions because English umpires were too fair then this
is a nonsensical statement. Either the umpire was fair and nobody
should have been given the advantage, or else the umpire made mistakes
in favor of Alderman. Now which is it?


>You think Im implying that English umpires are completely impartial and the 
>rest of the worlds umpires (esp Pakistan) are not. As all the sensible 
>posters have been saying no country's umpires collectively are any better than
>anyone elses. Every country has its umpires who SEEM to favour the home side,
>although this is more likely a psychological feeling of being picked
>on in a foreign country (argue that one :-) ).
It is not clear, at least to me, what you are saying here. "impartial" and 
"better" are not the same thing. I do not know whether English umpires are 
impartial (I have my suspicions but that is another matter). I do believe that 
English umpires are not better than any other nation's umpires in the sense that 
they also make mistakes just like everybody else. What we have been discussing 
on RSC is the English cricket establishment's continued defense of the absurd claim
that English umpires are the best in the world. It is the attitude (rascism or 
colonial attitudes etc as have been discussed) that is under discussion. Let me give 
you an example. 

In the latest Cricketer, the editorial is written by Richard Hutton, who because of his roots, 
county play and now editorship of The Cricketer, I would take as a member of the estab. 
He says: "Of all eight clauses of the Code of Conduct Pakistan have failed to breach only one, 
that relating to the use or distribution of illegal drugs...so far as we know." 

To me, that last phrase smacks of bigotry, rascism and colonialism. It is no use claiming 
that this was written in jest; the entire editorial has a very angry tone and levity is 
not at all expected. 

He goes on: "...how or why Gooch should be brought into ICC's despatch
is a total mystery because he was unconnected with the incident and has
never been offensive." Mark the sweeping generalisation. How
conveniently is Gooch's SA tour  and the slap in the face of TCCB
forgotten. But that was a long time ago. Also forgotten is last week's
incident in which Gooch wrote and protested Conrad Hunte's decision.
And we thought the referee's word was final? 
We mustn't forget that Intikhab also criticised Hunte's decision and
was widely censured for that. In fact Colin Cowdrey was asked to 
speak to Intkhab about his ill-conduct. We have also forgotten how just a few
months ago, Gooch wrote a book on captaincy in which he went against
the rules of TCCB and offered to fine himself.

But let us go on to what Mr. Hutton writes:  "No doubt if he [Roy
Palmer] had been a 'neutral' umpire from a third world country, the
benefits of which the Pakistanis claim ad nauseum to be the lasting
solution, as well it might be in their own country, and standing in his
first test he would have been putty in their hands."

Need one look any further for biased, uninformed, prejudiced and
downright offensive attitudes amongst members of the English cricket
estab?

It is clear to me that an eminnetly satisfactory solution in the eyes of the 
English estab would be if English umpires stood in matches in England,
and we had third country umpires everywhere else.

>This is getting sillyagain. Its always back to the Gatting incident isnt it !!
>How many other incidents of English dissent can you name ? 
I could name several. For example, England is the only side in the world to rough 
up an umpire after a test match, physically beat him up and throw him in the 
hotel's swimming pool. This happened in Pakistan and the umpire in question was 
a gentleman by the name of Mohammad Idrees. 

	--SAN