ECB ACO Newsletter - Spring 2013

Your letters…The DRS has been in use, out of use,and back in use throughout variousTest series’ over the winter. Our firstletter comes from Brian Butson on thatvery topic:DRS should be mandatory in all formats ofInternational matches. There should not bean opt-out option.In the recent series India versus Englandthe umpires have made some wrongdecisions. They were not deliberate but theywere still wrong. A good example is LBWwhen the ball has hit the bat.DRS will support your appointed umpiresand ensure that the correct decision is made.Also it will eliminate the very unfortunateintimidatory scenes against the umpires thathave occurred in the final Test in India.If the ICC is in charge of the game it needsto be very firm. Acquiescence is not anoption. For the sake of this great game dothe correct thing and make DRS mandatory.MS Dhoni of India talks to umpire BillyBowden about a decision during the OneDay International match between Australiaand IndiaJames Emmerson, Cheshire, mentionsthe disparity between international umpiresand recreational umpires out in themiddle every Saturday, including StevenFinn and a lengthy drinks break:The more Test cricket I watch, the more frustratedI find myself becoming at the often glaringdisparity between the role andperformance of the umpires there, and the restof the cricketing world, from County Championshipright down to the recreational levelwhere the likes of myself and many others areinvolved. It is not so much the standard oftheir decision making, which is generally goodand impressive, more their role as defined inthe Laws of cricket as ensuring “the conductof the game is strictly within the Laws” andbeing “the sole judges of fair and unfair play.”By this I am referring to several examples inrecent series where the umpires seem unwillingto use their authority within the Laws toensure the game is played properly, which inturn has implications for club match umpireslike myself.The Steve Finn dead-ball incident is perhapsthe most glaring example. My ‘take’ on thisSteve Davis (R) signals a no ball afterEngland's Steven Finn (L) removed the bailswhilst bowling during day one of the secondinternational test cricket match betweenEngland and South Africawas that Steve Davis, for reasons passingcomprehension, allowed himself to be hoodwinkedby the SA batsmen complaining aboutbeing distracted - when in fact they were moreinterested in unsettling the bowler. It seems asthough Davis’ own personal irritation withhaving to replace displaced bails got the betterof him, and he permitted this nonsensical situationto develop whereby dead ball was called- despite the SA batsmen being quite obviouslynot distracted in the slightest. ObviouslyI am hypothesising but the ludicrous situationnow exists in ICC controlled (i.e. international)games where the regulations have beenaltered because of one player’s idiosyncrasies.In another example, in the India/Englandtest in Kolkata, a drinks interval on day onelasted for over six minutes, after which the Indianbowler and captain discussed field placingsbefore eventually deciding to actuallyplay, then delaying things further by makingmore changes. On the final day, one suchbreak lasted ten minutes! The umpires wereclearly visible standing in their positions, butseemingly having no control over the playerswho were slumped in groups over the outfieldwithout a care in the world! Why on earth theybother withdrinks intervalsanyway,when a veritableposse ofsub fielders,spare umpires,physios, icecreamvendorsetc swarm ontothe field withrefreshmentsand kit atevery availableopportunity, isanother matter!But why theAustralian bowlers BenHilfenhaus and Peter Siddlecheck the pitch during anAustralian nets sessionumpires stoodidly by andpermitted somuch time tobe wasted, when sizeable crowds had paidgood money to watch, was, I thought, highlyregrettable.The whole business of players leaving thefield and having substitutes come on for them,in direct contravention of Law 2:1c, has longbeen a blight on the game and yet continues togo unaddressed.I did also hear a piece of radio commentaryin the early hours of one morning of the secondIndia-England Test, where the commentatorremarked on the players practising on thesquare between innings! The umpires did notseem to be anywhere in the vicinity.My point is that these types of occurrencesmake the job of the recreational umpirethat little bit harder. People rightly commentabout professional sportsmen setting good orbad examples to the thousands of amateur orrecreational players - and it’s no different forofficials. The umpires at the ‘top’ of the cricketingtree in terms of officiating seem to havea disregard for the wider implications of theirjob - and little things, like the Steve Finn incident,or players coming and going off the fieldwilly-nilly - feed down to recreational levels,when players start to expect that they too cando similar things, or will get similar adjudications,because ‘they saw it on TV’.I’m aware that the ICC regulations are whatgovern some of the examples I mention, butthis is simply a recipe for confusion andgreater difficulty for lower-level umpires. Isthere anything ECB ACO and/or MCC can doto get the ICC to recognise their wider responsibilitiesand stop meddling with the Laws ofthe game?ECB ACO Response: Not surprisingly, weare as one with James on this 'apparent' timewasting.We chose to say 'apparent' in deferenceto our superior colleagues who,according to the Laws, should take action ifsuch time-wasting was absolute, deliberate,and against the spirit-of-the-game takingplace. Whilst agreeing that so many of theseinstances are obvious, it is - when even notbeing a 'jobsworth' - a very fine line to pickbetween 'patience' and 'positive match management'as opposed to being totally pragmaticand saying 'get off' as the flood ofapprentices, farriers, pie-sellers, quacks-withpotions,embalmists, and equipment suppliers,cascade onto the playing area after every 10seconds of nothing happening!It is - we might as well say it - quite ludicrousas well as frustrating, and though wefeel sympathy with our elite colleagues, itwould be good if just one or two of themwould scare the mass of 'pigeons' away - orat the very least, be seen to be encouragingtheir dispersal back to the boundary boards.In wanting more than this, we await actionby the ICC.e-mail us at ecbaco@ecb.co.uk 24 contact us on 0121 446 2710