From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: "Cheating" Aussie umpires?
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:32:13 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec15.084853.29414@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, nudd@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Nai Ying Kwok) writes:
> : >In article <1992Dec3.142901.10550@vax.oxford.ac.uk> mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> : >>Is it surprising that the recent unfortunate events re: Umpire Prue are being
> : >>used to fan the simmering resentment of the 91-92 Indian tour? (by "aggrieved
> : >>Indian fans" and "injured Aussies").  Strangely, you don't see the net full of
> : >>rabid WI fans accussing the Aussies of cheating.  Chill out people.  I will
> : >
> : >	Maybe that's because there are very few WI fans on the net - a
> : >relevant fact.
> : >
> : >>give Prue the benefit of the doubt, because I wasn't on the field, nor was I
> : >>watching the match, which is the same position most of you guys posting in
> : >>North America were in.
> :
> 
> Well, I was watching the whole thing on TV and I saw the endless
> replays.  Lara (great player!) was not out, beyond the shadow of a
> doubt.  If Prue gave him out, and he was not sure, then the man has no
> place umpiring ever again.  His fitness to umpire is even further
> questioned when he caved in to the pressures caused by that decision,
> and made some appalling decisions thereafter, most notably the Arthurton
> not out when he most certainly was (I am 99% sure given the replays, but
> I could be wrong :-). A man who caves in to pressure like that is
> clearly unsuited for Test umpiring.  

This supports my general post.  If Prue is not fit to umpire then that is a
totally different issue from  cheating.  Incompetence means that he shouldn't have
been there, but I can't judge from umpteen miles away.
> 
> BTW there were a couple of other bad decisions in the game as well,
> although I am not sure whether they were given by Prue or not.  I am
> almost convinced that Richardson was not caught behind (did not connect
> with the ball) in WI's second innings.  Certainly it was far too close
> for me to call, but from ALL the angles of the replays, it seemed that
> Richie actually played the ball far too late and the ball actually hit
> the pads before the bat had even completed the motion.  The TV angles
> weren't too good so again I will have to reserve judgement on that.
> Still, it seems to me that the West Indies were desperately unlucky at
> CRITICAL moments in the game.  Although a lot of that could be
> attributed to McDermott Reid bowling incredibly well, (Brilliantly, in
> fact) just before the lunch break.
> 
> It should also be noted that I am not partisan in any way, as I am a
> Singaporean and do NOT have either WI or Ozzie sympathies.  I am not
> trying to promote the superiority or otherwise of either team.  (Now, if
> Singapore could score more than 6 all out in the ICC trophy, I would
> have something to be partisan about! :-)  ).  These are purely my
> hopefully objective opinions based on my observation of that particular
> game and my knowledge of cricket.  Of course, I may have been
> brainwashed by decades of WI superiority into believing that they are a)
> unbeatable and b) if are do get beaten, it is by a fluke, but somehow, I
> do not think so...
> 

I wouldn't say that.  Somebody like yourself who has the prima facie evidence
at hand would be in a position to arrive at an *informed* judgement.  What
pissed me off was the bandwagon effect, used ostensibly to rehash simmering
resentment over previous incidents having nothing to do with the matter at
hand.

McBean.

WI rule the world!
(My pathetic attempt at jingoism-:).  I apologise..
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket