2nd Test - Controversial umpiring

By Anil - Aug 14, '02
August 14 2002

The second Test between India and England has alternately been enthralling, frustrating, tedious, pressure-filled. Marred by controversial umpiring, this match ended in a well-deserved draw for India, one they can consider a "moral victory".

India did an admirable job drawing the second Test in spite of two significant factors lined up against them. First, the weather favored seam bowling in India's first innings, and it was sunny when England started. However, Nasser Hussain's defensive tactics meant that he lost the opportunity to put pressure during India's first innings, allowing them to pile up a total close to 400, and even Indian tailenders prospering.

However the major factor that India struggled against was some shockingly poor umpiring. This was far worse than the umpiring seen in England's tour to Sri Lanka, went further than most home umpires would go.

The umpires were Zimbabwe's Russell Tiffin and South Africa's Rudy Koertzen. Neutral umpires on paper, the fact that almost every one of numerous umpiring errors favored England makes it difficult to see how this could be labelled as "incompetence" or the infamous "rub of the green". It is learned that the Indian team has lodged a complaint with the match referee Clive Lloyd on the poor quality of umpiring.

Here, then, is a blow-by-blow account of all the questionable decisions by the umpires.

1st innings - India

Agarkar was given out caught by Butcher at 34, but replays showed that the catch had been taken off the grass. Unusually, the umpire did not bother to check with the 3rd umpire on the legitimacy of the catch, which looked suspicious in real time.
Ganguly, going great guns at 68, was given out caught behind by Tiffin on a ball that clearly brushed his arm guard. There was no way the umpire could have reasonably assumed the ball touched his glove given the shot, as he defended his decision later. This was the second successive time Tiffin gave Ganguly out wrongly, the previous occasion being an LBW decision in the crucial second innings in Lord's on a ball that pitched outside leg stump. That decision by Tiffin may well have changed the course of the match and given England the victory. On this occasion, Ganguly was livid walking back to the pavilion, and he made no secret of it.
England bowlers were judged to have bowled just one no-ball. They were also judged to have bowled only 2 wides, in spite of a very large number of deliveries wide of off stump and leg stump, thanks to Hussain's defensive tactics.
When India's tail contributed with the bat, England's bowlers sent down several bouncers, often bowling threatening bodyline bouncers coming round the wicket. The umpires did not interfere. Tailenders should be able to deal with it, you say? Let's see what happens during England's innings..

2nd innings - England

Butcher was caught by Jaffer off the bowling of Nehra. Umpire Koertzen, expecting to see Butcher walk since he had driven the ball to the fielder, instead saw Butcher shaking his head violently. He duly called for the replay (since when are appeals by batsmen allowed?), and there was only 1 TV camera angle available. With only 1 angle instead of the normal 3 to 5 angles, the 3rd umpire gave Butcher not out, to Jaffer's amazement.
Stewart was caught in the slips off Agarkar. Again Stewart stood his ground and asked Sehwag whether the catch had been taken, Sehwag replied in the affirmative. He still refused to budge, and umpire Tiffin dutifully asked the 3rd umpire (are appeals really allowed now?) The catch, which appeared to be clean but close to the ground, was judged as not taken by the 3rd umpire, and Stewart stayed on to the open disbelief of the Indian players.
Vaughan, in his 140s, was caught behind off Nehra. Umpire Tiffin had, however, called it a no-ball. Replays showed that Nehra's foot was well grounded behind the line. Tiffin had unnecessarily called the no-ball and denied the Indians yet another important wicket.
Coming to no-balls, umpire Tiffin in particular was an extremely busy man. A total of 15 no-balls were called. While some of these were genuine no-balls, a large number of them appeared to be a little too "tight". Apparently, the Indian bowlers had come in for much greater scrutiny than had the England bowlers in the first innings.
Whenever the Indian bowlers tried England's defensive tactics by bowling well outside the offstump, the umpires called wide. Apparently, the Indians had much less leeway than did their English counterparts with these negative tactics.
Among the most outrageous of officious umpiring actions was Tiffin's 2 warnings in quick succession to a surprised Zaheer Khan for running on to the pitch. It was clear to most familiar with the game that Zaheer was clear of the danger area, but Tiffin didn't seem to think so. A third warning would have sent Zaheer out of the bowling attack for the rest of the innings, hence he was forced to bowl from wide of the crease, reducing the effectiveness of India's best bowler hugely. Later, pitch inspections revealed that not only were Zaheer's footmarks well clear of the danger area, England's right arm seamers who bowled from close to the wicket had been straying a lot closer to that danger area. Tiffin had exceeded his brief. Was Tiffin getting back at Ganguly who had indicated his anger with Tiffin's decision the previous day? Or was this his "style" of umpiring regardless?
During the very long England innings, there were numerous times when Vaughan was beaten and the ball hit his pads during his knock of 197, as well as Stewart, and other England batsmen. Several confident LBW appeals, at least a couple of which appeared to be plumb, were negated. At the end of a massive England innings, not a single wicket was given out LBW.
When England's tailenders prospered and the Indian quickies finally decided to "bounce" them, the umpires were very quick in declaring the bouncers no-balls. One bouncer sent right at Hoggard's face was exemplary - umpire Koertzen immediately called a no-ball on Nehra for it, hinting clearly that no more bouncers were to be sent at tailenders. Contrast this with the umpires inaction during the Indian innings noted above.

3rd innings - India

Umpire Tiffin had apparently come out in a mood to give Indian batsman out on the slightest doubt. Sehwag was given out LBW, and then Jaffer in quick succession, eliminating both openers and ruining India's start. Both were given by Tiffin. Of the two, the Jaffer delivery was well over the stumps, and it was shocking to see that being given out.
Sachin Tendulkar was out to a blatant no-ball from Vaughan. The umpires, so vigilantly observant of the Indian bowlers, seemed to be letting the England bowlers off lightly.
Dravid was given out LBW to a ball that swung greatly, and hit him when he was well outside his crease. The ball was judged by the umpire as "likely to have hit leg stump". This is an LBW decision no umpire would normally give, but Tiffin was up for it. Dravid had to walk back, surprised. Here, it must be noted that a huge deal has been made of Dravid's "thin edge" when he was at about 70 to the wicketkeeper, but replays showed that the ball was nowhere near the bat. Various England commentators have made a surprisingly big deal about this not-out claiming that it could have turned the match. These same people have apparently turned a blind eye to the very, very large number of decisions that went England's way. Clearly, a third umpire would not have been able to give the batsman out.
Agarkar was given out LBW to a ball travelling comfortably above stumps. This was Agarkar's second wrong dismissal in the match, and he was batting very well at that point for his 32. So far, 4 LBWs had been given of 7 wickets, of which only one (that of Sehwag) appeared legitimate.
Bouncer after bouncer after bouncer was bowled at Ganguly and the Indian tailenders. Far from declaring them no-balls for height, they were not even declared no-balls for exceeding the maximum 2 per over. Flintoff in particular often bowled 3 or 4 bouncers an over, but the umpires refused to trouble him for it.

After this shocking display of apparently biased umpiring, India did an excellent job to save the match. In truth, the greatest thing going for England was the umpiring, without which the match should have been very even and perhaps even gone India's way, given that most of their major batsmen clicked, and that each of the "Big 3" either exceeded or were close to the century mark in the second innings.

What can be done?

Clearly, this sort of umpiring can play a large part in losses. India's captain, coach, cricket board, and media lacks the savvy to effectively and skilfully attack erring umpires to discourage it, which the England team management did successfully when they toured Lanka. As a result, in their second Test there, the home umpire did an about turn to give England as many doubtful favorable decisions as had gone against it in the first, which went a long way towards winning them that match. Still, as noted earlier, the umpiring in this match has been far more horrendous than that in Lanka. If these umpires ever come to India, they will ensure that India's proud record of home victories becomes but a distant memory. India must lodge an official complaint against these umpires, and ensure that appropriate action is taken, or that these umpires never again officiate in a match involving India.