Accepting Umpires’ Decisions

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31276, 24 January 1967, Page 15

Accepting Umpires’ Decisions

(By

R. T.BRITTENDEN)

So the last has not been heard of the unfortunate incidents which occurred in Plunket Shield matches in Dunedin this season.

It was inevitable that a reference to umpiring in an article on the Carisbrook matches, and the statement of the chairman of the Wellington Cricket Association (Mr R. A. Vance), should have drawn a reply from the secretary of the Cricket Umpires’ Association (Mr D. E. A. Copps). If Mr Copps read into the article a criticism of New Zealand umpiring, he is unduly sensitive. No-one could be associated with cricket for very long before winning a warm regard for the service umpires give the game. The standard of New Zealand umpiring may very well be, as Mr Copps suggests, comparable with world standards. But umpires have always made occasional mistakes, and they always will. Errors in umpiring are as inevitable as the bowling of long hops, and the missing of full tosses. The article Mr Copps criti-

clses suggested that heckling on the field can stem from batsmen not walking when given not out in error. It hoped to make the point that players should accept such decisions in a proper spirit. There can be no doubt that unhappy incidents do occur because players sometimes tend to remind a batsman that he was out, perhaps hours earlier. Such a reaction cannot be admired, nor can that of the batsman who refused to walk.

Mr Copps has asked on what facts the article was based, and follows the question with the twin and familiar defences that any criticism of umpiring must be wrong because the writer is giving an opinion on an incident at least 70 yards away, or is basing his comment on the remarks of'others. On this second leg of the double Mr Copps puts the rider that the great majority of players in all grades and a considerable number of administrators are woefully ignorant of the laws of the game. No reporter could reasonably comment on a leg before

wicket decision save in exceptional circumstances. Umpiring errors, unfortunately, are not confined to lbw’s. Mr Copps might agree that even from 70 yards away, a bad run-out decision can be apparent, from a side-on position. There are many ways, in which reporters could legitimately comment on umpiring, if they sat about with pencils poised and that objective in mind, which is unthinkable. This season, there was a clear misinterpretation of a rule governing stoppages of play in a Plunket Shield match, and one did not have to be in the middle of the pitch to detect it As for basing comment on the opinions of others: provincial and international captains have said that they much prefer a reporter to check his facts with the players than to make assumptions. An experienced reporter knows which captains and which players are reliable. He will also consult umpires. No-one—not even an umpire—can see everything that happens on the

field, and if reporters were not encouraged to check facts, the game would be done a disservice. There are many occasions when a, reporter must base his comments on the opinions of the players. When he falls into error, it is because he is without sufficient experience to know where and who to ask. Perhaps a batsman in a Plunket Shield match is clearly caught in the slips, but he does not walk, and he is given not out Perhaps he has another similar experience later in his innings. Perhaps he later explains that he knew he was out, but says his team at the time was up against it, so he continued batting. And perhaps the fielding side —quite wrongly—comments to him on his actions. That is how heckling can and does occur.

In such a situation, would Mr Copps suggest that an umpiring error has not contributed towards an unhappy exchange of words? He concedes that umpires are human, and make mistakes. They will always make them. The only point worth remembering is that players should 'accept their decisions.