An umpire speaks

By Anil - Dec 26, '02
December 26 2002

An umpire speaks up about Indian suspicions that for some reason, ICC umpires are "hostile" to India and clarifies other questions which have Indian cricket fans increasingly disturbed about the administration of the game.

Inquiring minds want to know why a large number of umpires on the ICC elite panel appear to be frequently hostile to India. The whole idea seems to make so little sense. Why would these international class umpires have an axe to grind against India?

On the other hand, it is difficult to swallow LBW decisions given against the most key of Indian batsmen unhesitatingly even when it's a 50% call, or worse still even when the ball is edged or pitched outside leg, whereas in the same match plumb LBW decisions are often not given when it is the Indian bowler appealing for it, thus encouraging the batsman to cover the stumps with his pads to avoid being bowled.

Here then are all the answers straight from the horse's mouth. Based an interview with an umpire who wishes to stay anonymous.

Interviewer: Thank you sir, for agreeing to speak with us. Indian fans will be grateful for the enlightenment.
Umpire: Certainly. I am always happy to speak with the fans of the most cricket-crazy place on earth.

Int: Sir, there is a tendency on the part of the Indian fan to believe that the "cricket establishment" is against India. Can you comment on that?
Ump: That is wholly incorrect. By "cricket establishment", if you mean the primary cricketing powers of England and Australia, it is their goal to address equally the interests of all international cricket teams of the world. While it is true that the positions of power are often in the hands of these two, it is incorrect to say that the interests of the other teams are not represented. All countries, including India, have representatives in the ICC.

Int: Sir, is it correct to say that England and Australia are the "primary cricketing powers" as you call them? After all, isn't India today the majority financer of the game, and doesn't the interest in the game come mostly from the Indian subcontinent, as well as Indian diaspora in the other cricketing countries such as England, Australia, South Africa, etc?
Ump: First of all, source of money is irrelevant to who should be running the game. History has shown that the game has always been well served by officials from the Australia-England axis. Even now, you will see that the top two executives who make all the calls in international cricket are both Australian. And by virtue of the fact that the ICC head office is based in London, they ensure that England has an equal say. If this state of affairs were not right for the game, it would not be in place.

Int: But wasn't the ICC headed by Jagmohan Dalmiya just before these two took over?
Ump (laughing): Yes, but that was an experiment intended to allow Dalmiya to show us how to best market the game in the subcontinent. Once he had shown us, it was not necessary to keep him around. In any case, he wasn't calling the shots even when he was the president, and had what we call "lame duck" status through most of his term, where ICC policies were determined by the executive staff rather than the president. Incidentally, we also terminated his contract midway through his term, as you may know.

Int: You say "we" as if you are part of the ICC.
Ump (frowning): As umpires, we are part of the ICC and work towards strengthening their hand. They sign our paychecks.

Int: That may not be comforting to the Indian fan. Let us move our attention to on-field affairs. Why is it that in crucial matches, umpires such as Tiffin, de Silva, Shepherd, Koertzen, and Orchard usually rule against India? There is an impression from their record over the last one year that they give the benefit to our opposition at the crunch stages of a match, especially when it comes to LBW decisions.
Ump: It is important that matter this be cleared up. First of all, the Indians appeal far too much. This is unacceptable to umpires, who already have a difficult task to perform. I think I speak for most elite umpires when I say that the dice are already heavily loaded against India before the match starts due to this unfortunate reputation.

Int: Sir, why would the umpire keep anything other than technical considerations in mind when judging an appeal?
Ump: I just told you. Nobody likes aggressive people. The Indians, especially since the obnoxious Ganguly has taken over, have become increasingly aggressive in not only their appealing, but also their treatment of opposition batsmen. They have shown an increasing tendency to unnecessarily sledge opposition batsmen. In the past, we have not seen Indians do this, and it is important to encourage them to return to their normal gentlemanly behavior.

Int: But haven't the Australians shown that sledging and mental initimidation is an important part of the game? Aren't Australians and English also aggressive with the umpires in the matter of overappealing, and even talking to the umpires, when they feel unfairly done in?
Ump (impatiently): You are comparing apples and oranges. The behavior of the Australians is an integral part of their nature. What they say on field is no different than their behavior in private life. As such, you cannot really consider it unpleasant because that is not their intention. However, we all know that Indians are mild and pleasant in everyday life, hence when they start using sledging tactics that is a tendency towards the aggressive which should be discouraged.

Int: Some may also say that what you call over-appealing is a subcontinental tendency that tends towards the enthusiastic. It could be an "integral part of their nature", to use your words.
Ump: Some tendencies must be discouraged. Indian teams must tone down their appealing, especially when they detect that the umpire is no mood to give them the benefit of the doubt anyway. As I said, it is always important to recognize who is in charge. Whether a batsman is out or not is less important than what the man in charge thinks. And I warn you not to talk about TV replays, because they are irrelevant to what happens on the field.

Int: Why are LBW appeals against Indian batsmen given so easily by the same umpires, even many doubtful ones?
Ump: The umpire must go by his best judgment. We must all trust the umpire's judgment, otherwise we will disturb the traditions of cricket.

Int: Sir, we've observed that on a recent tour when Zaheer Khan stared down England batsmen or spoke cutting words to them, which ended up being a factor in getting such batsmen as Flintoff out, the umpires appeared displeased. Tiffin, Shepherd, and Koertzen made no bones of the fact that they did not like him dishing out that stuff to England batsmen, and often made their feelings known by calling several wrong no-balls on him, or giving him a warning for running on to the pitch immediately thereafter. The message was unambiguous - lay off the batsman. Now why is this any different than a good old MacGrath sledging?
Ump (carefully): This is where you need to be more sensitive. The sight of a tanned-complexion bowler, particularly one with that sort of name, behaving aggressively with an Anglo-Saxon, is a disturbing sight for the world in these troubled times. As umpires, we have to use our best judgment.

Int: But sir, what does an Indian have to do with any of that? We are just as much against terrorists as you are!
Ump: Perception is everything. You have to be sensitive to that.

Int: Sir, Indians feel that umpire decisions consistently hostile to India have often cost us a Test or an ODI. That seems unfair.
Ump: That is where you people have to understand. Money does not rule the game. Cheeky Indians like Dalmiya and Ganguly think that they actually have some influence in the game. Never forget: Money is less important than who is in charge.

Int: All we hear about is the $550 million contract that the ICC has won, $400 million of which comes from Indian sponsors. Some may say that those who finance an activity ought to have some influence towards it.
Ump (laughing): That money could never have come into the game had we not run it properly. Administration is everything. Also, it is important that money in the game, regardless of where it is sourced from, is distributed equitably, and that is where the ICC comes in.

Int: Cricket influence should also be dictated by quality of teams, and we often hear of Sachin Tendulkar as the supposedly acknowledged best batsman in the world.
Ump (sternly): Sachin Tendulkar, as far as we are concerned, is simply another cheeky Indian. He claims to be the best batsman even though everybody who matters agrees that Sir Don Bradman was, and will always remain, the best in the game.

Int: Not fair, sir. Sachin has always shied away from comparisons with the Don.
Ump: As long as he does not berate people who call him the best, we consider him agreeing with them and claiming that he is the best. To you he may be great but for us, he is a nobody. Don't ever forget that. Wisden, our venerable almanac of the game, has already proven that Sachin has never hit a useful innings. Another thing: when Tendulkar is on the field, to us he is yet another batsman whose LBW we can judge as we see fit. He is always answerable to the authorities.

Int: A change of subject: why do you think a subcontinental like Asoka de Silva appears consistently hostile to India on the field?
Ump (smirking): Now, wouldn't you like to know that. When Dalmiya insisted that a subcontinental umpire be present in most India matches, he didn't know what he was letting himself in for, did he? (chuckles)

Int: Are you implying that de Silva has orders to give unfavorable decisions to India?
Ump: All I am saying is that umpires report to the ICC, and that we all should understand who runs the ICC. de Silva has nothing against India, but he is interested in keeping his very lucrative job. Dalmiya needs to be a gentleman, as the good Dr. Muthiah before him was. But he asks too many questions before signing on the dotted line. Remember what I said: money isn't everything, it's who controls it.

Int: Umpires usually are understood to "tend" towards giving an edge to the home side. Even with neutral umpires in place. But in the recent series against West Indies, we saw the bulk of the poor decisions from Shepherd and Asoka de Silva go to India?
Ump: Indian crowds have a reputation for bad behavior. They should be controlled even when the umpire has a poor day.

Int: I was talking about umpires, not crowds. When TV replays show that umpire decisions are hostile to India even in India, how can we address that?
Ump: Doesn't matter. It's who is in charge that matters. If an umpire makes consistently bad decisions then the ICC referee will talk to them about it. And if the referee does not talk to the umpires, the ICC will talk to the referee. But ask your backchatting Dalmiya why these processes aren't in place when the team affected is India.

Int: Why haven't the Deness decisions been reviewed yet?
Ump (furious): Let's not talk about that. We all know who was right and who was wrong. Deness is a wronged man. The humiliation of Deness will always shape ICC's attitude towards India.

Int: Why are the Indian players being forced to sign a contract which violates their pre-existing contracts?
Ump: It is best not to ask too many questions. You must trust the Malcoms when they say they are working hard towards the best interests of the game. The questioning attitude of your players only shows that money is more important to them than your country's interests. You should write about it and expose their greed.

Int: Sir, thank you for a very enlightening talk.
Ump: Not at all. And remember, if you write favorably about us, we will take care of you. If you can represent our point of view and help us shape opinion in your part of the world, we will remember that and reward you suitably when the time comes.