Biased neutral umpires

Koertzen
By Anil - 28 July, '02
July 28 2002

The concept of neutral umpires is taking a beating in England's first Test match against India. Four incidents in the first few overs of the 4th day's play showed why neutral umpires can sometimes lead to even more unfairness than home umpires.

The two umpires here are South African Rudy Koertzen and Zimbabwean Russell Tiffin. Both are of minority colonial origin from South Africa and Zimbabwe, and both appear to openly favor England in their decisions.

First case

---

Nehra had Vaughan out caught behind in his 90s, and South African Koertzen claimed he could not see whether it was a clean catch. He referred it to square leg umpire Tiffin who claimed he couldn't see it either. It was then referred to English umpire Willey who was obviously reluctant to give it out. To help him out, the TV crew declined to show the front closeup of the wicketkeeper which they normally do every time, the only shots reproduced being the ones from afar which did not show the ball clearly, and the closeup from behind which was of the wicketkeeper blocking the view. Vaughan got a life in his 90s with the 3 umpires hell bent on getting Vaughan to his century.

Second case

---

Very same over, still in his 90s, Vaughan was caught absolutely clean plumb LBW in front of the wicket off a straight delivery. Koertzen was unmoved by the confident shout and the shock on the Indian fielders face was evident. It was headed for his middle stump. The Eng TV crews denied viewers the "hawkeye" technology for obvious reasons. Vaughan was gifted his century, and was out immediately after - for the third time but this time the catch was very clear.

Third case

---

Kumble had Crowley LBW plumb in front, the ball hitting him on the back leg low in front of middle stump. Koertzen again denied the wicket and this time even the jingoistic English commentators were amazed. This time they did play the hawkeye results and the ball was crashing into the middle of the stumps. Kumble was furious but Koertzen was determined to help England out again.

Fourth case

---

Just in case we start to think that Koertzen is very conservative on LBW appeals, one of India's main batsmen Ganguly was given out first ball LBW to a delivery that pitched well outside legstump by Koertzen. Ganguly looked upset, knowing he had been given out wrongly, but had to leave. This well and truly killed India's chances to draw, and Koertzen knew it well.

Let's do some rough calculations here: If Ganguly had not been given out wrongly, he may have made 155, as Hussain did. If Hussain had been given out rightly when he was LBW more than once, he would have made about 10. That already makes a difference of 145+155 = 300 runs. Could that have made a difference between an India victory and an England victory? With fair umpiring, the result of this match would almost certainly be affected.

Penalize the umpires

---

It is critical to penalize dishonest "neutral" umpires who are clearly biased towards a "friendly" country. They do it with impunity because with the "neutral" label, they figure they are less susceptible to punishment. These umpires, aided by a friendly TV crew and the "home" third umpire, are winning matches for the countries they help. What pride can a team possibly get out of any victory that is helped by 3 openly partisan officials? This is far worse than Hansie Cronje and his matchfixing. Punish the umpires and clean up cricket.