Technology in cricket March 23, 2010

Mirpur mistakes will spur UDRS usage - David Morgan

38

David Morgan, the ICC president, believes that the umpiring controversies that marred the third day of the Mirpur Test will help to encourage all cricket boards to embrace the use of the Umpire Decision Review System, but added that the business of footing the bill must still be shared by the host broadcaster for each series.

"I think that UDRS makes for wonderful television," Morgan said. "It adds a dimension to the package that a viewer receives, and I do believe that the broadcasters have a responsibility to fund part of it. Cricket is not afloat with dollars and pounds and euros. It is not a rich sport and we believe there has to be a contribution.

"But next time Bangladesh host international cricket, against New Zealand in October, I am sure that the BCB will have the equipment available," he added. "They clearly regret not having it in this series."

Shakib Al Hasan, Bangladesh's captain, was critical of the BCB following the third day's play, saying that had they chosen to pay for the referral technology, his team could have claimed a first-innings lead over England and made a push for their fourth Test victory.

"We would have been in a very good position if [UDRS] was in use here," he said. "I think we would have asked for a referral four times with full confidence, and three of them would have come to our way for sure. It's really bad for us that we did not use the referral system, which we could have done."

"Umpires can make mistakes, but a series of mistakes have gone against us, and it's very unfortunate," said Mostafa Kamal, the BCB president. "We have been talking about [UDRS] issue, but we found that other countries have not been using it extensively, so we thought that, first of all, we must know about the system itself. It is very delicate and if we misused it, it might go against us."

Speaking during an official visit to Bangladesh ahead of next year's World Cup, Morgan also defended the integrity of the ICC's elite umpires following Andy Flower's pre-series comments that more influential teams tend to get the rub of the green in marginal decisions, a suggestion that was backed up by Bangladesh's coach, Jamie Siddons, at the close of the third day's play.

"I have a great deal of time for Andy Flower. I have not chatted with him on this matter, but I'd like to," said Morgan. "I cannot accept that any of our international or elite umpires are biased. This game will be monitored in Dubai, and the match referee is here monitoring umpire performance as well. We will also listen to the captain of Bangladesh and the coach, but their views will not necessarily be regarded as value judgements at the end of the day.

"The UDRS system is being rolled out and is being used significantly more than in situations such as this when it is not in use," said Morgan. "Boards and broadcasters are being pressed to ensure it is available, and I think it will not be too long before we have the system operating with the optimum equipment available at each Test match, wherever it is played in the world."

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo. Go to http://twitter.com/miller_cricket to follow him on Twitter through the England tour of Bangladesh.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • realredbaron on March 27, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    @Yorkshirepudding, you are comparing apple with orange. Whenever Trott was given out, it mattered less than a little to England because of the situation they were in. England was surely in course of a victory or piling up mountain of runs when he was given out. That does not justify the wrong decision but it was neither an absolute wrong decision. Yes it was a situation with doubt and yes the benefit of doubt goes to batsman. But that was a case for one batsman. Tamim, Shakib, and many other Bangladeshi batsman got out because of umpire judging them out when they were clearly not out. And when it came to bowling, Bangladeshi bowlers were denied plumb LBWs and bat-pad decisions. And that too not for once but multiple times. The two situations are not even comparable. If they were, then not everyone would be screaming at the umpires. Mike Atherton was comparing Bangladesh with Cambridge Uni team citing the unfair treatment that the Cambridge gets when playing against county teams.

  • realredbaron on March 27, 2010, 21:35 GMT

    @Yorkshirepudding, part of your comment does not make sense. English fielders dropping catches is not the same thing as umpires giving extremely one sides decisions, repeatedly for more than one occasion that is. Bangladesh fielders also dropped easy chances in England's first innings. Dropping catches is part of cricket. So is umpires making mistakes. But what happened in this series was more than that. Umpires repeatedly gave Bangladesh batsman out when they were not out. And when English batsman were in the crease, umpires gifted most of them a life each, at least once, against seemingly plumb decisions. I have been playing and following cricket for fairly long time and I have hardly seen something of this sort. I have heard of Pakistani umpires taking side against Sober's West Indies in Pakistan's home series few decades ago during when cricket was not broadcasted live but not in this era. Just accept what happened and realize the graveness of the umpiring situation.

  • jstein91 on March 27, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    what a joke. bangladesh robbed of atleast a draw.

  • YorkshirePudding on March 24, 2010, 20:17 GMT

    Hasan_uiu, I have to agree, the ICC elite umpires shouldnt be in the IPL, when theres a test match on. I would have prefered to have had Billy Bowden, as one of the umpires. It may or may not have made a difference.

    Unfortunately if one of the decisions had gone for bangladesh, there is no saying the others would have happened, its just like saying if the england fielders had held onto thier catches they would have been chasing 130 rather than 200.

    The game was still there for bangladesh to draw today they just had to bowl tight lines, and prevent englands batsmen from scoring easy singles, unfortunately they didnt. Test cricket is about creating pressure, bangladesh have only created pressure for small periods of time in this series.

    In short in test cricket you need to have a pragmatic approach as a fan, accept decisions will go against you, but make the best off them when they go for you.

  • hasan_uiu on March 24, 2010, 17:07 GMT

    yes Umpires are human and they can make mistakes. But through out this series they have given 12 bad decision and unfortunately 9 of them go against bangladesh. As a result we lost 1 ODI and last Test (I think we can easily make a draw ).

    Why poor umpiring always hark weaker countries like Bangladesh ? Top class ICI umpires are now busy in IPL and low graded Umpires are officiating this series and I am sure this is not good for Test cricket

  • on March 24, 2010, 16:49 GMT

    'Frustrated Umpiring'-- Umpires can make mistakes, but a series of mistakes have gone against BD, and it's very unfortunate.

  • jameslawler on March 24, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    I beleive the current referal system is wrong. Players should not be able to question an umpires decision-it undermines all their authority. All the technology and replays should be available to the unmpires so if he is unsure of a descion he can eaisly refer the decision. Also if the 3rd umpires sees from a reply that a descion is incorrect he can imform the onfield umpire who can reverse the decsion. Such replys wil take seconds and for example an incorrectly given out batsman can easily be called back. The ICC should pay to ensure all countries hve access to all technoology. Umpires are Human and will make mistakes but we have to make sure umpires receive the best possible training and feeback so they can learn from their mistakes

  • YorkshirePudding on March 24, 2010, 15:41 GMT

    Those suggesting that the umpiring decisions were all against bangladesh, then i suggest that you review the tests series, Trott was given out twice incorrectly, once off the helmet in the first test, and the run out in this 2nd innings. The rules state that the batsman should be given the benefit if there is any doubt, and as it was a split frame for the run out this would be doubt.

    In the first test there were a couple of england LBW appeals of the same degree not given.

    Regarding the LBW's on the 3rd day, Hawkeye as far as im aware has them clipping the stumps, thus the 3rd umpire would have also had to go with the onfield umpire. Hawkeye is not acurate, as it can only give a statistical overview of the balls trajectory based on the data that is fed in. If the Margin of error is between 1-2%, that is 1.22-2.5 cm from crease to stump, A stump is appox 3.5-3.8cm diameter.

    This is doubt and in all probability the ball would have missed, the leg stump.

  • mujahidul on March 24, 2010, 14:49 GMT

    "Umpires are human and they will make mistakes" I totally agree with the statement. But, this world is a place where "survival for the fittest applies". We shine when you do less mistakes in life. If you do mistake you pay for it. Do you forgive the driver who is at fault? No, no one will forgive a driver for his mistakes, because it affected another party. Same rule applies here. As an umpire, the more mistake you make your value should go down, if not, no umpire will ever bother to be careful not to make mistakes.

  • Luke77 on March 24, 2010, 13:39 GMT

    The human factor in umpiring has remained the same in 133 years of test cricket. Everyone has accepted that this is a resident evil in our great game. The tinkering with technology seems to have only caused more anger finger pointing than ever before and for that reason I believe it should be totally scrapped. Imagine a close, nail-biting finish in a test with 1 wicket in hand, for the climax turn into an anti-climax with a referral ! As for all the anti-western sentiment regarding incorrect umpiring decisions, I wonder who the racists actually are with all the "oh poor us, victims of the West" attitude. I lose respect for those who write such 'poor-loser' comments. All sport has a human factor. Accept it like a man. Don't just take your bat and ball and go home when you're out and you disagree. Thank the opposition, shake hands and focus on the next match.

  • realredbaron on March 27, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    @Yorkshirepudding, you are comparing apple with orange. Whenever Trott was given out, it mattered less than a little to England because of the situation they were in. England was surely in course of a victory or piling up mountain of runs when he was given out. That does not justify the wrong decision but it was neither an absolute wrong decision. Yes it was a situation with doubt and yes the benefit of doubt goes to batsman. But that was a case for one batsman. Tamim, Shakib, and many other Bangladeshi batsman got out because of umpire judging them out when they were clearly not out. And when it came to bowling, Bangladeshi bowlers were denied plumb LBWs and bat-pad decisions. And that too not for once but multiple times. The two situations are not even comparable. If they were, then not everyone would be screaming at the umpires. Mike Atherton was comparing Bangladesh with Cambridge Uni team citing the unfair treatment that the Cambridge gets when playing against county teams.

  • realredbaron on March 27, 2010, 21:35 GMT

    @Yorkshirepudding, part of your comment does not make sense. English fielders dropping catches is not the same thing as umpires giving extremely one sides decisions, repeatedly for more than one occasion that is. Bangladesh fielders also dropped easy chances in England's first innings. Dropping catches is part of cricket. So is umpires making mistakes. But what happened in this series was more than that. Umpires repeatedly gave Bangladesh batsman out when they were not out. And when English batsman were in the crease, umpires gifted most of them a life each, at least once, against seemingly plumb decisions. I have been playing and following cricket for fairly long time and I have hardly seen something of this sort. I have heard of Pakistani umpires taking side against Sober's West Indies in Pakistan's home series few decades ago during when cricket was not broadcasted live but not in this era. Just accept what happened and realize the graveness of the umpiring situation.

  • jstein91 on March 27, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    what a joke. bangladesh robbed of atleast a draw.

  • YorkshirePudding on March 24, 2010, 20:17 GMT

    Hasan_uiu, I have to agree, the ICC elite umpires shouldnt be in the IPL, when theres a test match on. I would have prefered to have had Billy Bowden, as one of the umpires. It may or may not have made a difference.

    Unfortunately if one of the decisions had gone for bangladesh, there is no saying the others would have happened, its just like saying if the england fielders had held onto thier catches they would have been chasing 130 rather than 200.

    The game was still there for bangladesh to draw today they just had to bowl tight lines, and prevent englands batsmen from scoring easy singles, unfortunately they didnt. Test cricket is about creating pressure, bangladesh have only created pressure for small periods of time in this series.

    In short in test cricket you need to have a pragmatic approach as a fan, accept decisions will go against you, but make the best off them when they go for you.

  • hasan_uiu on March 24, 2010, 17:07 GMT

    yes Umpires are human and they can make mistakes. But through out this series they have given 12 bad decision and unfortunately 9 of them go against bangladesh. As a result we lost 1 ODI and last Test (I think we can easily make a draw ).

    Why poor umpiring always hark weaker countries like Bangladesh ? Top class ICI umpires are now busy in IPL and low graded Umpires are officiating this series and I am sure this is not good for Test cricket

  • on March 24, 2010, 16:49 GMT

    'Frustrated Umpiring'-- Umpires can make mistakes, but a series of mistakes have gone against BD, and it's very unfortunate.

  • jameslawler on March 24, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    I beleive the current referal system is wrong. Players should not be able to question an umpires decision-it undermines all their authority. All the technology and replays should be available to the unmpires so if he is unsure of a descion he can eaisly refer the decision. Also if the 3rd umpires sees from a reply that a descion is incorrect he can imform the onfield umpire who can reverse the decsion. Such replys wil take seconds and for example an incorrectly given out batsman can easily be called back. The ICC should pay to ensure all countries hve access to all technoology. Umpires are Human and will make mistakes but we have to make sure umpires receive the best possible training and feeback so they can learn from their mistakes

  • YorkshirePudding on March 24, 2010, 15:41 GMT

    Those suggesting that the umpiring decisions were all against bangladesh, then i suggest that you review the tests series, Trott was given out twice incorrectly, once off the helmet in the first test, and the run out in this 2nd innings. The rules state that the batsman should be given the benefit if there is any doubt, and as it was a split frame for the run out this would be doubt.

    In the first test there were a couple of england LBW appeals of the same degree not given.

    Regarding the LBW's on the 3rd day, Hawkeye as far as im aware has them clipping the stumps, thus the 3rd umpire would have also had to go with the onfield umpire. Hawkeye is not acurate, as it can only give a statistical overview of the balls trajectory based on the data that is fed in. If the Margin of error is between 1-2%, that is 1.22-2.5 cm from crease to stump, A stump is appox 3.5-3.8cm diameter.

    This is doubt and in all probability the ball would have missed, the leg stump.

  • mujahidul on March 24, 2010, 14:49 GMT

    "Umpires are human and they will make mistakes" I totally agree with the statement. But, this world is a place where "survival for the fittest applies". We shine when you do less mistakes in life. If you do mistake you pay for it. Do you forgive the driver who is at fault? No, no one will forgive a driver for his mistakes, because it affected another party. Same rule applies here. As an umpire, the more mistake you make your value should go down, if not, no umpire will ever bother to be careful not to make mistakes.

  • Luke77 on March 24, 2010, 13:39 GMT

    The human factor in umpiring has remained the same in 133 years of test cricket. Everyone has accepted that this is a resident evil in our great game. The tinkering with technology seems to have only caused more anger finger pointing than ever before and for that reason I believe it should be totally scrapped. Imagine a close, nail-biting finish in a test with 1 wicket in hand, for the climax turn into an anti-climax with a referral ! As for all the anti-western sentiment regarding incorrect umpiring decisions, I wonder who the racists actually are with all the "oh poor us, victims of the West" attitude. I lose respect for those who write such 'poor-loser' comments. All sport has a human factor. Accept it like a man. Don't just take your bat and ball and go home when you're out and you disagree. Thank the opposition, shake hands and focus on the next match.

  • foisal936 on March 24, 2010, 13:36 GMT

    why we are always the victim of umpires' one sided decision. why this is not considered as a serious issue to the cricket controller? is it the SAME vessel WITH DIFFERENT CABIN strategy taken by ICC? why new and amateur umpire are used to suppress the victory of Bangladesh? is it really possible to happen consistently in case of India,Australia? i want to get the answer of these WHY from the cricket lover and from the people making these stupid.....

  • greatkhan on March 24, 2010, 13:07 GMT

    Its astonishing to note how only Asian teams are at the suffering end of poor umpiring decisions & i believe its time that all the asian teams should take this matter to the ICC. Bangladesh in my view would have managed a draw if not a win had the umpiring been accurate.

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 24, 2010, 12:19 GMT

    Well what ever may come and go and no matter how much sub-continent make progress,few countries will always see us as 3rd world countries and treat us like thay...

    I am pretty sue Mr.Morgan would have been singing a different tune if England,Australia were involved.

  • on March 24, 2010, 8:46 GMT

    MR. Miller if u think tht Englands cricket is on track in this time thn u r wrong.Be honest please.You people blind thts why cant write good something about bangla cricket.see ur england.and im sure in 10 years england cricket rank will be 10 or after zimb or ireland.be prepare.ur collum wil kick in ur bum very song.good luck bangladesh............

  • on March 24, 2010, 7:22 GMT

    Glaring Umpiring errors in the Sydney test of January 2008. Eight out of Nine incorrect decisions went in Australia's favour: 1)Ponting caught behind down the leg-side. Not given---Australia benefit. 2)Ponting given LBW off the inside edge---India benefit 3)Symonds not given caught behind----Australia benefit. 4)Symonds not given out stumped----Australia benefit 5)Symonds stumping not referred---Australia benefit 6)Jaffer bowled off a no-ball in first innings---Australia benefit. 7)Hussey not given caught behind down the leg side off RP Singh---Austraila benefit 8)Rahul Dravid given caught behind off the pad---Australia benefit 9)Saurav Ganguly given out after a dubious claimed catch---Australia benefit.

  • on March 24, 2010, 7:09 GMT

    If you adjusted for Umpiring errors over the last 10 to 15 years, the Batting and Bowling averages for Australians would suffer. India was denied series victory in each of its last three visits to Australia because of poor Umpiring.

  • on March 24, 2010, 5:43 GMT

    "Umpires are human and they will make mistakes", we have no beef with that statement. However, why did their mistakes only cost Bangladesh throughout the entire series? It is easy for David Morgan to take it lightly, after all, he is not spending 5 sleepless night watching the game. What happened to sense of fairness?

  • RoyalBengalTiger77 on March 24, 2010, 3:29 GMT

    Agreed 100% with Degiant. The umpires in this case Mr. Hill from New Zealand and Mr. Tucker from Australia should be have been strongly punished (financially and point wise) or degraded for their intenational mistakes that heavily favoured England (not surprisingly!). Also, look at the hypocracy in this so called "1st tier" cricket team like England, New Zealand, Australia or India. They would call promising teams like Bangladesh as "minnows" but when face with real possibility of defeat by the "minnows", they don't mind getting wrong umpriring (brotherly support!) in their favor! Such a Hypocracy and shame!

  • Bengali-Tiger007 on March 24, 2010, 1:02 GMT

    This is all nonsense. Why would you even need UDRS when your pathetic novice umpires can just send the decision to the 3rd umpire???? I hope these two umpires don't get picked for the t20 world cup. Also Mr so cald president, if you guys are not biased, then as well as fining Jamie Siddons, why not fine Swann and Finn for their outside public abuse in the field against Siddique in the 1st test???? Oh deary dear, I smell racism in the air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • redneck on March 24, 2010, 0:29 GMT

    what crap! australia or england or south africa or any side have some dodgy decissions go their way and other times have it go against! this whole the sub continent losse out every time is crap! people just have selected memories over decissions going against them and forget the ones that fell their way! @Gupta.Ankur in the rules as far as i know, you can be out LBW if you use any part of you body including your head to block the ball hitting the stumps aslong as its not part of your bat!

  • nafee on March 23, 2010, 23:43 GMT

    this type of mentality of umpires has to be changed for the sake of this game..............

  • ScriptWriter on March 23, 2010, 22:25 GMT

    So basically, Morgan is encouraging poor umpiring in the name of pushing through UDRS. Whoa!

  • Domzo on March 23, 2010, 22:04 GMT

    "It was shocking to see 4 blunder decisions benefited England in their 1st innings otherwise they would have all out for less than 250."

    Not necessarily...Swann and Broad have several test fifties under their belt and probably the talent to score centuries, as does Bresnan, as was found out after the bad decision. That doesn't make the bad decisions any better, just worth pointing out that if any of those had been given out, the rest of the innings might have been different.

  • degiant on March 23, 2010, 21:14 GMT

    Bangladesh coach was docked 10 percent of his match fees, what about the umpires being dock part or all of their fees because their good or bad decisions determines the whole game. What about charging the umpires under some CODE because the coach was only reacting to the BAD calls that was against his teams.

  • iftekharmukul on March 23, 2010, 20:39 GMT

    Umpires are human being & they may make mistake....its very natural and normal thing in cricket....but, its absolutely unfortunate that, when Bangladesh, zimbwe, even kenya playing cricket specially Bangladesh..then ICC appoint some very new and in-experienced umpires to running the match ..ODI or Test whatever....ICC thought, Bangladesh is the best team for practising and appointing these umpires whose are very new comer or hvn't enough In'l umpireing exp....such a bad idea...!!!

  • Philly.rocks on March 23, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    I respect Andy for his brave statement accepting the truth that strong teams always gets benefited from umpiring decisions. It was shocking to see 4 blunder decisions benefited England in their 1st innings otherwise they would have all out for less than 250. Being ICC president Mr Morgan would have better accepted that his so called elite panel umpires did plenty mistakes and all benefited stronger team on the field which eventually proved Andy's Pre-series statement. What seems to be strange is that in stead of accepting the fault of his elite (novice) umpires he tried to blame Bangladesh cricket board and broadcasters. He made himself as a joke. Mr. president, being on the top chair, you have to either depend your officials controversial decisions or brave enough to accept the fault, no way you can blame a third party for that. Mr. President, dont make broadcasters rule over ICC, but you have to make sure that ICC rules these broadcasters. We want2see no teams play against 13 player.

  • Iftekharul_Hasan_Siam on March 23, 2010, 18:18 GMT

    yes UDRS should be there but why morgan did not comment anything on the umpires? umpires are also human being & they can also make mistake,but the way they made mistakes in dhaka test (not 'mirpur test').they should be charged for it.

  • on March 23, 2010, 18:02 GMT

    Andy Flower hit the nail on the head. Australia especially have benefited from Umpiring mistakes over the years, as have England and South Africa. Teams from the Indian Subcontinent have suffered.

  • on March 23, 2010, 14:21 GMT

    england team is playing well as i see how easily ian bell scores his century as bangladeshi bowlers get tired due to over heat in the ground in third day .but today english players show the revers. what i axpect tomorow is both thing may get some twist.

  • Lovetesh on March 23, 2010, 14:04 GMT

    I wonder the richest cricket board in the world, BCCI, has supported the system but has never used it in any series. I don't think money is an issue with BCCI. Either make it mandatory or just scrap it.

  • Rezaul on March 23, 2010, 13:02 GMT

    Mr Morgan, when your country receives four lives in an innings from your so called (novice) elite umpires then it is not biased, wow! How can you turn down a catch, isnt it biased, Mr President? When a ball going to brush leg stump is given LBW but a ball going to hit at the middle of leg and middle stump is not given LBW by the same umpire, isnt it biased Mr President? Why dont ICC generalize the use and cost of UDRS technology for all test matches in stead of giving option to broadcasters and host board?

  • RemyLeBeau on March 23, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    "...but we found that other countries have not been using it extensively, so we thought that, first of all, we must know about the system itself. It is very delicate and if we misused it, it might go against us." ....what a lame excuse. The BCB are fools for not opting for the UDRS. I find all talk about how the UDRS 'might work against our team' or 'it worked out for us', 'it worked in our favor, but next time the decision may go against us' utter nonsense... the sole purpose of the UDRS is to increase the number of correct decisions whether in your favor or not.

  • Percy_Fender on March 23, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    There is no doubt that the more influential teams have the rub of the green loaded in their favour always, be it umpiring or referrals or penalties. In fact it was always the case when one or the other sub continental or West Indies teams played against Australia and England in the days when India was not economically as relevant as it is today and the IPL not as lucrative for cricketers all over the world. Today India can have the Bucknors removed and therein lies the irony.The URDS scheme should not have any human element in the ultimate decision for this reason. It should be entirely automated --- which I am sure is possible---and should be a tool for the umpires to refer to at their discretion when in doubt. This apart the teams could also have the right to seek 3 referrals each when they question a particular verdict. I do not think much song and dance should be raised over the loss of time in the process. We need decisions to look correct and unbiased.That is important.

  • on March 23, 2010, 10:31 GMT

    I think Bangladesh should be the real winners in this test match if not for umpiring blunders. I think Bangladesh should have won the 2nd ODI against England but Eoin Morgan was lucky to survive! UDRS must be compulsory in ODIs and T20s too!

  • on March 23, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    Andy Flower is right. Over the years Australia has been the main beneficiary of incorrect umpiring decisions. England and South Africa have also benefitted. Teams from the Indian Subcontinent have suffered the most.

  • akinahd on March 23, 2010, 9:53 GMT

    so.. the game is controlled by broadcasters. ICC has lost the control of the game and just handing it over to the TV stations. if ICC make it a mandatory requirement, then all broadcasters will have it. since ICC is wagging on this, broadcasters make fun of ICC. if it is a rule, it should be treated as a rule.

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 23, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    Does David Morgan means to say that BCB is responsible for Un-fair umpiring in the ongoing test?

    What kind of im-mature reply is this? Is he here talking about consumer product which has a new upgrade to make it function better?

    ICC and its umpires have always been biased towards the repeated il-treatment metted out to Asian team both when it comes to umpiring decisions and Bad-conduct appeals handled by Referees...

    Steve Bucknor twice denied India a series victory in Australia with atrocious umpiring.......in 2003-4 and 2007-8 And who can forget Helmet-b4-Wicket for Tendulkar?

  • zoomboy on March 23, 2010, 9:23 GMT

    Bangladesh have been cheated.No doubt about that.These umpires have favoured England lock,stock and barrel.They should be removed immediately from the panel otherwise it will become a big joke!Just look where these umpires are from and you will soon realise their bias.Sad for cricket!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • zoomboy on March 23, 2010, 9:23 GMT

    Bangladesh have been cheated.No doubt about that.These umpires have favoured England lock,stock and barrel.They should be removed immediately from the panel otherwise it will become a big joke!Just look where these umpires are from and you will soon realise their bias.Sad for cricket!

  • Gupta.Ankur on March 23, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    Does David Morgan means to say that BCB is responsible for Un-fair umpiring in the ongoing test?

    What kind of im-mature reply is this? Is he here talking about consumer product which has a new upgrade to make it function better?

    ICC and its umpires have always been biased towards the repeated il-treatment metted out to Asian team both when it comes to umpiring decisions and Bad-conduct appeals handled by Referees...

    Steve Bucknor twice denied India a series victory in Australia with atrocious umpiring.......in 2003-4 and 2007-8 And who can forget Helmet-b4-Wicket for Tendulkar?

  • akinahd on March 23, 2010, 9:53 GMT

    so.. the game is controlled by broadcasters. ICC has lost the control of the game and just handing it over to the TV stations. if ICC make it a mandatory requirement, then all broadcasters will have it. since ICC is wagging on this, broadcasters make fun of ICC. if it is a rule, it should be treated as a rule.

  • on March 23, 2010, 9:55 GMT

    Andy Flower is right. Over the years Australia has been the main beneficiary of incorrect umpiring decisions. England and South Africa have also benefitted. Teams from the Indian Subcontinent have suffered the most.

  • on March 23, 2010, 10:31 GMT

    I think Bangladesh should be the real winners in this test match if not for umpiring blunders. I think Bangladesh should have won the 2nd ODI against England but Eoin Morgan was lucky to survive! UDRS must be compulsory in ODIs and T20s too!

  • Percy_Fender on March 23, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    There is no doubt that the more influential teams have the rub of the green loaded in their favour always, be it umpiring or referrals or penalties. In fact it was always the case when one or the other sub continental or West Indies teams played against Australia and England in the days when India was not economically as relevant as it is today and the IPL not as lucrative for cricketers all over the world. Today India can have the Bucknors removed and therein lies the irony.The URDS scheme should not have any human element in the ultimate decision for this reason. It should be entirely automated --- which I am sure is possible---and should be a tool for the umpires to refer to at their discretion when in doubt. This apart the teams could also have the right to seek 3 referrals each when they question a particular verdict. I do not think much song and dance should be raised over the loss of time in the process. We need decisions to look correct and unbiased.That is important.

  • RemyLeBeau on March 23, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    "...but we found that other countries have not been using it extensively, so we thought that, first of all, we must know about the system itself. It is very delicate and if we misused it, it might go against us." ....what a lame excuse. The BCB are fools for not opting for the UDRS. I find all talk about how the UDRS 'might work against our team' or 'it worked out for us', 'it worked in our favor, but next time the decision may go against us' utter nonsense... the sole purpose of the UDRS is to increase the number of correct decisions whether in your favor or not.

  • Rezaul on March 23, 2010, 13:02 GMT

    Mr Morgan, when your country receives four lives in an innings from your so called (novice) elite umpires then it is not biased, wow! How can you turn down a catch, isnt it biased, Mr President? When a ball going to brush leg stump is given LBW but a ball going to hit at the middle of leg and middle stump is not given LBW by the same umpire, isnt it biased Mr President? Why dont ICC generalize the use and cost of UDRS technology for all test matches in stead of giving option to broadcasters and host board?

  • Lovetesh on March 23, 2010, 14:04 GMT

    I wonder the richest cricket board in the world, BCCI, has supported the system but has never used it in any series. I don't think money is an issue with BCCI. Either make it mandatory or just scrap it.

  • on March 23, 2010, 14:21 GMT

    england team is playing well as i see how easily ian bell scores his century as bangladeshi bowlers get tired due to over heat in the ground in third day .but today english players show the revers. what i axpect tomorow is both thing may get some twist.