From: mohan@phi.mel.dms.CSIRO.AU (Mohan Krishnamoorthy)
Subject: Re: Neutral Umpires ---> Pick your own !
Organization: CSIRO, Div. of Mathematics & Statistics, Melbourne, Vic., AUSTRALI
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:15:57 GMT

In article <9221100.27199@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes

> Another example, from an unrelated sport ...

> In the Olympics, now going on, in women's field hockey, yesterday
> (that is, last night Aust time), Aust played Canada, one of the umpires
> was from South Korea.  Sounds like almost an ideal neutral umpire.

> Now I know nothing about hockey, even less about umpiring, and what's
> more, to the best of my knowledge there have been no comments made by
> anyone about the umpiring there, but if Aust had lost the match, and
> there had been some disputed umpiring decisions, may Aust have been able
> to claim (probably incorrectly, but remember all this is hypothetical)
> that the umpire wasn't truly neutral, as in the previous olympics Aust
> had beaten Korea in the final?

Duh!  That is terribly contorted...  At best!  It is also highly
irrelevant to the debate on hand for, picture the following situation:

England defeat Pakistan in England (hypothetical Ok DS[Q]A, j n a, and
         the rest, so don't scream and jump up and down in protest :-)
England visit Pakistan a few years down the line (they will be well
         advised to leave behind one portly man who answers to the
         name of Gatting :-)
Stretching your analogy to cricket, the English team should be terribly
worried about umpiring decisons _because_ they won the previous series,
and not because they _feel_ Pakistani umpires are inherently biased!!!

Thus, in order that they receive favourable decisions at Pakistan next
time around, in the absence of third-country umpires, they had better
lose the current series!

Naaah!  Logic does not stretch that far...  But, that is the result of
stretching your analogy to its logical (hmmmm!) conclusion. 

Hockey has had third-country umpires for a hell of a long time.  It
has also sufferred from bickering and disputes, particularly in the
past, when it was terribly difficult to interpret the `sticks' and
the `off-side' rules.  If memory serves me right, the Pakistan team 
once refused to collect their medals (in either the world cup or the
olympics), as a form of protest at the umpiring in one of the games.
However, they were not protesting at the _bias_ the umpire exhibited.
They protested against the incompetence that was on display.  

Protests in the Olympics are valid and accepted.  Why?  The Australian
swimming team protested yesterday when their bronze medal winner in one
of the events was tested for drugs while the gold and silver medallists
in that event were left alone.  This was a protest against an aberration,
an irregularity in the application and interpretation of a rule -- not, I
hope, one that accrued out of `percieved bias'!

> Aust won that match, and the umpiring was probably perfect (as I said,
> I wouldn't know one way or the other) so the issue simply didn't arise,

The issue is plain irrelavant!

Umpires are NOT out there to seek vengeance for the defeat of the
national team.  Therein lies the total irrelevance of your analogous
reference to the hockey game.

> but it does point out that finding an umpire that everyone, in all
> situations, is truly regarded as neutral is not at all easy.  Just
> coming from some other country doesn't do it.

My argument is that it (third-country supervision in sport)
. removes suspicion from the minds of the people involved in the game.  
. renders any misinterpretations and aberrations and inconsistencies more 
  readily acceptable.
. makes protests, if any, more easy to handle;  mechanisms for lodging
  them and reviewing them can be put into place more easily.

> Note - this isn't an argument against neutral umpires, just showing
> that the benefit (one benefit anyway) that is hoped to be gained might
> not really be there.

I am not sure you have demonstrated that clearly, because, your
assumption that there _are_ umpires  out there who seek vengeance
for defeats of the nation they `belong to' just _does not_ hold water.
Umpires `belong to' nations.  They do not `represent' the nations they
hail from...

> kre

/Mohan 

-------
Mohan Krishnamoorthy, CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics,
Private Bag 10, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
Phone: +61 3 542 2263; 	email: mohan@mel.dms.CSIRO.AU