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 02:36:53 GMT

In article <9207280902.AA21367@vassal.cm.cf.ac.uk> Carl.M.Jones@cm.cf.ac.uk (Carl Jones) writes:

> There has been a call for neutral umpires on the net recently.  In my
> opinion, if this becomes a requirement, the following scenario is possible.

Firstly (again!), they ought to be referred to as `third-country
umpires'.  By definition, being umpires, they are (already, supposedly)
neutral anyway!

>	Pakistan playing (say) Australia.  Roy Palmer (neutral) umpiring.

Like, for example, in the recently concluded world cup in Australia.
Yup, I can envisage such a situation...

>	Aqib Javed bowls a sequence of short balls at Australian no.11, and
>	is warned.

So, he ought to be!  Indeed, if my memory serves me right, wasn't an
English bowler no-balled by the West Indian umpire (Steve Bucknor) in
the finals?  We saw repeats of such instances right through the world
cup.  In the world cup finals, the bowler in question, accepted the
decision and just got on with completing the rest of the over.

The concept of third-country umpires is not new to cricket.  They have
been used regularly in the many Sharjah Cup tournaments too.  

>	"You haven't forgotten Old Trafford" might come the retort from Aqib
>	, followed by, "we want the neutral umpires who we like !" from
>	Intakab.

That would be highly unlikely.  The history of the use of third-country
umpires in sports like hockey and tennis tells us that, if an umpiring
mistake is `observed' or `percieved', it is normally put down to
incompetence, a temporary loss of concentration, a minor and untimely
blip, or an inexplicable aberration _rather_ than bias.  And we all know
that incompetence is easier to handle (as was observed in the recently
concluded world cup, where some of the umpires made some bad decisions)
than perceived bias.  It would also wipe out `suspicion from the minds
of players.  An incompetent umpire is surely better than a biased one.

It is the latter (ie., `percieved bias) which makes the Pakistan team
suspicious of Palmer and Constant; the English team suspicious of Rana
and most of the other Pakistani umpires; the Indian team suspicious of
King and the other (bespectacled) Aussie umpire whose name suddenly
escapes me (Steve Randall?)!  After all, in the former case (ie.,
incompetence), the concerned manager can take comfort from the knowledge
that the umpire would be _uniformly_ incompetent.

> I am not Pakistan bashing, you may substitute any teams you like, and 
> change the names used, but the principle will still be the same. 

> So think of the consequences before calling for change!

Take a look at how monetarily `poorer' sports like hockey run the game
before you comment on the applicability of third-country umpires.

The only direct consequence of applying the same principle to cricket 
would be that the TCCB and the English crowds will not be able to see, as
often as they currently do,  umpire David Shephard do an imitation of a
one-legged stork at triple-Nelson time (111, 222, and so on).  I believe
this `fear of loss (of a national heritage)' is one of the most serious
stumbling blocks in the way of wider acceptance of the concept of third-
country umpires in cricket.  

> Carl Jones

> PS If England appointed Ray Holder and Kevin Lyons for a test, 
> would there be any grounds for accusations of  white English racism ?

I doubt it seriously...

Anyway, I thought we were talking more about `bias' rather than
"racism"!

/Mohan 

-------
If you wait at the bridge long enough, your enemies will float past below.
-------
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket