Showing posts with label umpires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label umpires. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Simon Taufel Reminisces about the past and talks about umpiring

"The best way I can describe it is that umpiring chose me. I didn't choose it."

- Simon Taufel, renowned former international cricket umpire and former member of ICC's elite panel of umpires.

Having spent over a decade as an ICC umpire, Simon Taufel is now semi-retired and recently spoke to Betway, over Skype from Australia, about his career, what he is up to currently, and how he feels umpiring has changed and can be improved going forward.

Taufel stood in 74 tests, 174 ODIs and 34 T20Is resulting in the best part of his life spent on the road. This trip to Australia however, is for pleasure as he is there to watch is daughter compete in an Under 12s regional tournament.

“When I pulled the pin on my international career," he says, "I sort of thought that I'd lost a lot of my two boys growing up, and I didn't want to lose my daughter."

Taufel was just 29 when he umpired his first Test in December 2000 between the West Indies and Australia.

He estimates that, for each of his 13-and-a-half years as an umpire, he spent an average of between 60 and 70 days officiating, and another three days away for every one that he was on the field. That is about 180-210 days a year!

That is a total of over five years spent away from family.

"It's not easy and it's not for everyone," he admits.

Taufel was only looking for some "handy pocket money" when he took up a friend's invitation to enroll in an umpire's course before starting university in June 1990.

His friend, Dave, failed to achieve the 85% required to pass, but Taufel, managed it.

"If anything, I was always probably a little guilty of over-preparing," he says. "I'm a bit of a checklist freak."

By the time Taufel reached International level, he was reviewing and summarizing six different laws every day to refresh his memory of the cricket rule book. He studied bowlers and batsmen, he reviewed previous series, and he attended net sessions to watch teams train.

He also prepared for contingency by reading up on local airports and alternative hotels in case of emergencies.

All this was before the cricket had even started!

"I think I probably went further than most, simply because I wouldn't describe myself as a natural umpire," he says.

"I had to work harder at my game to feel that I was ready and that I deserved to have a good day out there, rather than just turn up and it be OK."

Such dedication saw Taufel win the ICC David Shepherd Umpire of the Year award for the first five years since the award's inception, though he's since given all but one of the trophies to people that supported him along the way.

"I did feel embarrassed and uncomfortable with those awards," he says, "because umpiring is a team sport and we were singling out one person."

Talking to Taufel, the importance of teamwork between umpires is a recurring theme.










































After retiring from umpiring in 2012, he moved to the head office to work as the ICC Umpire Performance and Training Manager, where he supervised the development and implementation of additional resources to support umpires on the field and in the television booth, including the deployment of umpire coaches to all international matches.

“If I did my career again, I would probably want to talk more about my mistakes," he says.

"To share my shortcomings more with my colleagues after a day's play, rather than keep them to myself and have to deal with them on your own in your hotel room."

One would think that DRS would have helped ease the burden on umpires but Taufel, who experienced only 4 years, out of his 13.5 year career, with technology thinks otherwise.

“I don't think DRS has necessarily made umpiring easier or more difficult," he says. "It's just made it different."

“Pre-DRS, you'd deal with the error later. With DRS, you've got to deal with it at the time.You hear your decision dissected in your ear piece, in front of millions of people, and then, after 90 seconds, two minutes, you have to publicly change your decision and somehow regather your thoughts. You can feel a bit embarrassed and humiliated. It's really tough to move on and focus on that next delivery.”

As was made clear in March this year, when Australian batsman Cameron Bancroft was caught using sandpaper to alter the condition of the ball in a Test match in South Africa, technology has become increasingly important not only in aiding decision-making, but also in helping to manage player behaviour.

"The third umpire, quite easily, has got the toughest job out of the whole umpiring team," explains Taufel.

"Their job is to watch the TV as their primary focus. There should be nothing that goes out to people in their lounge rooms that is missed by the third umpire.”

But, the sandpaper gate, which led to Bancroft, his captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner all being banned, proved that this is not always possible.

"I think it's fair to say that nobody would have expected what happened in Cape Town to unfold before our eyes as it did. As much as you try to simulate different scenarios in a training environment, sometimes there are things that you just think: 'Wow, is this really happening?'"

Taufel was working for Cricket Australia, in charge of umpire selection and match referee management, at the time, and has sympathy for officials that are put in that position.

"The game of cricket is now more commercialised. It's a different type of animal at Test and international level. There are a lot of people who push the envelope to try to get the result to go their own way. I've got no problem with players playing the game hard, no problem at all," says Taufel.

Not many know that Taufel also played some cricket before he went on to become an umpire. He captained his first team at secondary school before going on to play for New South Wales Schoolboys Under-19s alongside Adam Gilchrist and Michael Slater.

He laughs “I played the game pretty hard. I appealed for just about everything I could. I don't think I ever got into trouble with the umpires, but I do remember getting a bit of a bollocking from my coach for swearing on the field. For me, behaviour is a captain, a coach and a team issue. At the moment, people seem to abrogate that responsibility of managing player behaviour through code of conduct or umpires.”

Yet Taufel, who remains the only umpire to have ever been invited to give the MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey lecture, believes that the episode can serve as a turning point for the game as a whole.

“I hold the spirit of cricket close to my heart. Results come and go, but who we are and how we play really defines us. We are guardians of the game of cricket. We have to leave it in good shape for the next generation. The only way that we can do that is through adherence to the laws and to the spirit of that game." 

This is where Taufel believes that players and coaches can learn from umpires.

“You can't change what's already happened, it's part of history now. But, like a cricket umpire who can't change the ball that’s already gone, you can certainly do your best to get the next decision right,” he says.

“That's what I would say to Australian cricket and that's what I would say to the global game: learn from what's happened and use the opportunity to make the game stronger than it's ever been before. That's something that everyone can look at. Not just one country or one player or one captain, it's up to everyone to play their role."

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , ,


Saturday, February 23, 2013

Asad Rauf: Every Umpire's Hero





Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , ,


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Role Reversal

I have an idea on how the ICC can ensure that all the umpiring decisions referred to the 3rd umpire - whether by the players or the on-field umpires - are always 100% accurate.

Give the 3rd umpire duties to the commentators.

The commentating team always, always get the decision right.

On top they reach the decision faster than the TV umpire.

What I don't understand is that if the commentators can see it, the viewers can see it, everyone with one eye on the TV can see it, then why can't the TV umpire see it?

Andrew Strauss was caught behind. Chanderpaul in the previous test was not out. Boucher in the 1st test was not out.

These are not even half the decisions that a TV umpire has got wrong.

What is going on here?

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , ,


Monday, December 15, 2008

Vettori Dissapoints

If someone ever asked me who the most intelligent people in cricket are, I would put Daniel Vettori up there on the list. Not only does he look professorial, his skill, acumen, and achievements warrant such accolades.

However, he has seriously damaged his credentials today in my eyes. Here's what he had to say after the end of the 1st Test against the Windies:
[Vettori] also proposed only one referral per team per innings instead of the three being used in the New Zealand-West Indies series. "What's happening a little bit is the 50-50 ones are coming into play and I don't think that's what it was invented for," Vettori told NZPA.

...

"If you look at it [the Flynn replay], you can see it's out but is that the reason it was brought in ... to decide on such a fine-line decision?" asked Vettori. "The premise of cricket is the batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt and I think you want to still keep that part of the game in."
[LINK]

So the referral system is helping umpires make correct decisions, but you're not happy with that? You want the benefit of doubt to remain a part of the game, when there exists a pretty straightforward process to reduce it drastically?

Strange comments really. Not sure why players are so reluctant to embrace this system. And I like how these players use the diminished role of the on-field umpires as their cop-out. Uhhh...hello??? The third umpire is not a backup umpire - he's an integral part of the game. If he gets a bit more responsibility, what's wrong in that?

My biggest concern is the time factor. But so far I have seen little or no complaints about the time factor by the players, umpires, or analysts.

Bad decisions have been extremely costly to teams in the past, and that's why the referral system is a good idea. I'm disappointed that someone like Vettori is acting quite ignorant about the whole thing.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , ,


Thursday, November 20, 2008

India Shining

The team - yes. The city of Kanpur - no.

Today's ODI between England and India ended in slightly strange circumstances as bad light abruptly ended play early, and India won on D/L. This is nowhere near the farcical end of the WC final, but it does bring into light (no pun intended) a few things.

First, the match was delayed by 45 minutes, yet only one over was cut from each team. I've heard of slow over rates, but 22.5 minutes per over??? C'mon!

Second, the lunch break was untouched at 35 minutes. Look, I know the players need a break. But think about it, the previously-batting-now-bowling team is pretty well rested and is probably ready to field. And only a few players on the other side would be affected. It's not like this would apply to all matches, but just ones where there's a delay. Now, ICC has a rule about lunch break being affected only if 60 minutes or more are lost. I say this - make that a guideline, and allow the captains to decide before the game starts (or once light/weather become a factor).

Third, there were lights at the stadium. OK, these are not certified ICC/BCCI lights and maybe that's enough to exclude their usage in this specific match. But, in general, lights should be used when they can be. Per this Cricinfo article, the captains decide on playing conditions before a series (which includes use of lights). Maybe the ICC should make it a rule - i.e. use lights when they exist.

I like D/L, I think it ends up being fair, and credit to India for keeping D/L in their sights. My issue is not with D/L at all, it's with how playing times are affected by weather/light. So, what's the solution? Should games like this go into the next day? Should lights be used whenever possible? Should lunch break go away? Should matches in stadiums without lights require a half-hour earlier start? A combination of all I guess. Let's hope the ICC will start thinking - hey, miracles can happen!.

(Sidenote: I also think that playing cricket in North India in late November is not the best idea. I know there's a whole rotation system, but give preference to central/southern cities in winter tours, and northern cities in fall/spring tours. There are enough grounds to go around.)

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , ,


Sunday, August 31, 2008

John, did you really mean that ?

Here's a quote I saw on Cricinfo. It's John Buchanan, Australia's former coach, reacting to the review/referral system:
"Cricket ought to initially clean its own backyard and then strive to secure a place in the Olympics. I consider it miserable that the decisions of the authorities are questioned. I'm totally against the referral system and Twenty20 cannot be a part of the Olympics as the referral system is against the spirit of the Games."

Wow! Questioning the decisions of the authorities is "miserable"??? Which ex-Soviet state did he grow up in? (The rest of his statement is equally bizarre, and I'll leave discussion on that for another time).

Cricket fans have had just about enough of the horrible decisions (intentional or not) by the so-called "elite" umpires, as well as seeing the culprits not taken to task for their failures. So they have put enough pressure that a system is finally in place to provide reasonable correction. It has its quirks but, just like with everything else, those will smooth out over time and increased usage.

So Mr. Buchanan, stop acting like a Communist Dictator and embrace the democratic movement of cricket fans worldwide. If you are afraid that Australia will suffer since less-than-honest Australian fielders and umpire bias (in favour of Australia) and will be exposed by the system, don't be. Australia is still an awesome and unparalleled team, even without those advantages they have enjoyed for quite some time.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, July 24, 2008

An Impressive Debut

So, Cricket's much anticipated referral system got underway today in the first Test of the ongoing Sri Lanka - India series.

In summary...both the batsman and the captain of the fielding side are allowed to ask for a referral (aka challenge, review). Each team gets three unsuccessful challenges per innings (there is no limit on successful challenges). The third umpire looks at a few replays to determine whether there is enough to overturn the on-field umpire's decision. Use of Hawkeye or anything like that is not allowed (which is fine).

There were three referrals done today, with the second one a perfect example of why referrals are a great idea:

45.4: Harbhajan to Warnapura. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

105.3: Zaheer to Dilshan. Dilshan given out caught behind. Dilshan challenges it. Third umpire overrules on-field umpire's decision! Challenge was successful.

119.1: Harbhajan to Dilshan. LBW appeal turned down by on-field umpire. Kumble refers to third umpire, who agrees with on-field umpire's decision. Challenge was unsuccessful.

Of course, there are innumerable pros which are fairly obvious. But I'll mention a couple of potential issues I see with this system...first, there is the time delay factor - how much will this referral system impact a sport that is already so pressed for time (yes, even five days aren't enough! ;-). Second, what is the time limit to challenge a decision? You want to avoid pavilion involvement, i.e. you don't want the supporting cast to see a replay and then signal accordingly to the on-field players. As long as a player decides to challenge within 10-15 seconds, it should be ok.

Overall though, a great idea, and a much-needed relief for players, umpires, and fans. This cricket fan, for one, is extremely excited. Let's hear it for Technology! And, we all take our shots at them all the time, so let's give them a rare moment of appreciation...kudos to you, ICC, for pressing on with this system despite less than welcoming attitudes from many in the cricketing world, and a failed trial in domestic cricket.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Refereeing the Refs

I know, they are called "Umpires" in cricket, not referees, but the point is that there is a need for some clear and decisive actions. Umpires can have a bad day in the field and sometimes even a whole string of bad days as we just saw in Sydney. But umpires are human too and they have their weaknesses and their off days just like anyone else. Why not relieve them of their misery if they arent having a good day or good season?

I have heard that an umpires performance is being monitored in the third umpires room and that he is either retained or asked to move on from the elite panel based on this assessment. But what if an umpire has a really bad test match (I dont care about one dayers or 20/20 games)? Shouldnt he be replaced quietly and pro-actively by the ICC for the remainder of the series? Does a team have to cry foul and threaten a possible boycott for a poor umpire to be replaced?

Make no mistake - threatening to boycott a game or tour is rubbish... Pakistan were wrong to do it at the Oval and India must not do it (because of the umpiring) in Australia. But other sports such as the NFL have a great system where all games are taped, poor umpiring decisions are taped and a copy of those decisions is sent to the Chairman of the NFL within hours. Referees that made poor performances are given feedback and even removed from duty from the next weekends games. Call it whatever you want but it is better than the current system in Cricket. It doesnt reverse a poor decision but it does vindicate the aggrieved to an extent and also lets the umpire know that he doesnt have to wait till the end of the cricketing season to get the boot.

I know Im rambling on a bit but thats because of the incompetency of the ICC. Today they have said that Bucknor has been removed from the next test not because of India's complaints but because he had a poor test. Why couldnt they have done this earlier? I also thing that a code of conduct should be applied to sides that complain too vocally about an umpire, behind the scene objections are ok but statements in the press are not kosher. The ICC should have the final say - it should act faster and it should act in a more decisive manner. After all, what good is a sport if its governing body isnt in control of matters

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , ,


Sunday, November 11, 2007

Gentleman's game?

In the spirit of the game, Ithought it maybe useful to revisit the theme of sportsmanship and player demeanor. As most if not everybody may have noticed, Saurav Ganguly missed a ball in the earlier overs of the game and claimed to have hit it by gesturing to the umpire with his bat. Let us for a moment ignore the possibility that the umpires in today's India-Pakistan game were incompetent. Then how weak must a player's moral character be to try and pull what Ganguly did? there is just no excuse, it is downright shameful and to be honest, a little pathetic.

let's not forget the altercation between Afridi and Ghambir... while sledging may be a part of cricket, historically speaking, there is no justification for the exchange of words and grand standing that took place between them. I happened to catch the game on zee sports and was quite disappointed to see that the lunch break analysis of the first half consisted of the Indian analysts condoning the exchange by justifying Ghambir's 'response' to Afridi.

Getting back to the game now... I thought it was pretty much lost when the game began. the team never looked like it had the confidence to take control of the game. Akmal was as usually abysmal and butt's dropped catch didn't help. fielding was wayward and it never seemed like the team was trying to put its back into it. Shoaid Akhtar was unsurprisingly average in his efforts and looked to be under pressure towards the end. The only performance worth praising was Sohail Tanvir, who is line and length in bowling is something that all Pakistani bowlers should be aspiring to.

India on the other hand, played the game superbly. With the exception of Ganguly, who looked like he was struggling, each member played his role to near perfection... job well done India.

Make your pitch on this post...



Labels: , , ,