From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:45:22 GMT

bnataraj@uceng.UC.EDU (Bhaskar  Natarajan) writes:
>I believe in something that can be called an umpiring decision by "instinct"
>tho' i feel even that is not quite the word. It is something like you are 
>watching the events leading to an appeal  ( lbw/run out/stumping/bat-pad) 
>closely, and your 'instinctive' or  'intuitive' decision has been made, no
>sooner the critical moment has passed. Like, i feel the umpire has formed a
>decision before ANYONE can even think of appealing. I have done some 

I disagree completely.  I completely hate it when I am given out lbw
by one of these "instinctive" decisions.  For a caught behind, I agree
that the type of decision you described is acceptable, but for an lbw
there are a number of things for an umpire to consider, other than was
the ball going to hit the stumps, and if his finger goes skyward
instantly, I always suspect he never gave them much thought (to
compound the problem, since the umpires are appointed from the batting
team, many are unsure about the lbw law, and I have been given out at
least twice to balls that pitched oputside leg, but thats another crib altogether).

>umpiring myself (in minor weekend/vacation time tennis ball cricket matches,
>for those of u from Bombay) and i have never faced any problem in arriving 
>at decisions. My decisions were usually very prompt and i daresay, correct,
>going by the reaction of everyone.( this includes both, YES and NO kind of
>decisions) And just in case it sounds as if i am blowing my own trumpet, i
>have seen others give very good and prompt decisions from vantage points on
>the field.

For the last 5+ years I think I have become quite deliberate in my
umpiring.  I always take an extra pause on the decision to review it
-- the key to avoid any unpleasantness is to give the decision firmly
-- a wavering decision, with uncertainity writ all over your face will
always lead to remonstration.  Now, instinctive decisions are almost
always firm and prompt, and therefore may well avoid any
recrimination, but I am extremely uncomfortable with them.  

>What i dislike and suspect are late decisions, where you play over the 
>incident in your mind, which is also fine except that by the time you start 
>playing it back in your mind, the fielders are shouting their heads off
>in appeal, and no matter how objective you try to be, your attention DOES
>get diverted (even if a wee bit) from the mental play-back and you start 
>feeling the pressure to soon give the decision. 

I obviously disagree.  A case in point, I was given out lbw when I
went across and the ball cut back sharply and hit me.  The umpire
(actually the most respected "umpire" on the team, our spinner and #11
who would usually umpire throughout our innings) promptly gave me out
and I walked, but I was guilty of shaking my head slightly.  Later on,
over a pint he asked me why I had disagreed, and after I tried to fob
him off, I suggested the point of impact was just outside off.  He
replayed the incident and realized that I was right, but at that
moment since it was CLEAR that the ball was going to take the stumps
he had given me out without even considering how far across I had
gone.  He apologized profusely (I came out well ahead on the incident,
since it was a non-league game, and I git multiple pints and dinners
pressed on me on many occasions afterwards:-), and said then that he
would always replay decisions from now on.  I would like to add that
IMO he was by far the best non-professional umpire that I have seen,
rigidly fair and logical, and usually right in his decisions.

>Now if you are REALLY a 
>rational thinker, you will play back the incident again, but the intense
>pressure of the appeal would have blurred things more than you would like 
>to admit (and you as an umpire realize it) which makes the continuing 
>appeal now sound very nasty indeed, and you think " damn! how i want to 
>get out of this tangle ! " and you can ( and want to) hesitate no longer
>and give again an 'instinctive' decision which is now not purely instinctive
>in the sense that your mind is still confused. More often than not, this 
>would be a "bad" decision.

If you get pressured by the opponents volume and passion of appeal
then you shouldn't umpire.  I find that very often the intenisty of
the appeal is directly related to the state of the match, and not how
close it was.  In a tight match, for example 7 down with 20 runs to
go, every time the ball hits the pad, there will likely be an
impassioned appeal, even from the fellow at the square leg boundary;
on the other hand on one occasion when we had collapsed chasing a huge
total, and the last man was in, he was caught in front by a full toss
and all I got was an embarassed howzat from the bowler only -- every
one else was laughing at him.... so thats hardly a judge...

>I don't know what you guys feel about this theory of mine, but that is how
>i felt when umpiring. What i wanted to say when i started off, is that there
>need not be any limit like 1/10 th of a sec. for giving or not giving a 
>batsman out. If you have been observing closely, this time would not be any 
>barrier, and if on the other hand, you were not REALLY observing, no amount 
>of time can convince you of your decision, which has to be "blind".

Nope -- I disagree.

>Just to test out my theory, Shamim, how long did it take the umpires to give
>the decision in the Gooch and the Shepard incidents ?

Thats beside the point.  Those fellows are PROFESSIONAL umpires,
trained to give such decisions and have finely honed instincts.  We on
the other hand have to be even "sure"r as our "instincts" are more
likely to be wrong than theirs.

>-Bhaskar-
>                                                                                                                
Bharat
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket