Rudi Koertzen July 22, 2009

'If you have to use technology, use it fully'

His 100th Test turned out less than auspicious when he found himself at the centre of several claimed catch controversies. Rudi Koertzen reflects on the issues confronting umpiring, his time in the game, and what keeps him going

Listen to the interview here

They didn't make your 100th Test easy.
All Test cricket is intense. There's nothing better than Ashes cricket. I expected that when I heard I was coming to Lord's. I said, 'That will be another tough one in my career.' But you can't have it all easy. The more pressure that is on you, I actually think makes you better. It makes you concentrate harder. I survived it. There are probably a few more to come.

Have you been satisfied with the spirit in which this series has been played?
I'm one of the umpires who does allow them [the players] a little bit of banter. You should talk to the batsman as a bowler. In this [Lord's] Test match they were all friendly chirps. Not once did they say anything bad to each other. The spirit in this Test match was absolutely amazing.

The Australians have been accused in the past of applying pressure to umpires, particularly when appealing. How have you found them?
It doesn't really bother me. The more pressure they put on you, the better you are. It makes you tougher out there in the middle. It's not only them, it's all spheres of cricket. Whether it's club level or whatever, if they know they can get hold of you and break you down, they will do it. That's why the appeals are of that quality. You might think, 'It must be out.' And once you make that decision and it's a wrong one, they know they've got hold of you and they're going to break you down slowly but surely over the day, the next day and the day after that. It doesn't really bother me. It's tough.

It sounds like you enjoy the combative moments.
That's what we strive for. I couldn't see myself without this game because the pressure gets to me and actually makes me strong. I feel, 'Yes, I'm there, I'm part of the game.' It's much better to have that pressure on you than stand there for five days and relax and nothing happens, because then you don't enjoy the game.

Would you rate the Lord's Test among your favourites to have stood in?
It definitely is amongst the top few. Of all the Ashes Test matches I've done, I would say the last one, at The Oval in 2005, was actually the hardest one for me. When a guy like Shane Warne is on you for 40 overs non-stop, and he appeals and puts pressure on you, that's when the game is very tough to handle.

Although the weather was also a bit dicey in that series, the fact that England batted so well, especially Kevin [Pietersen] when he scored that 158, and then when Warney came in and put all sorts of pressure on you… he said, 'I have to bowl England out' and he couldn't manage to do that. That was really tough.

Do you keep a mental glossary of your favourite individual performances?
You know, sometimes I walk off the field and don't even know what the final score was because I concentrate more on the decision-making than performances. Freddie's [Flintoff] performance yesterday was something special again. You can see the man struggling. He walked past me and said, 'Rudi, I'm getting old now. I'm battling.' I told him, 'Just hang in, keep going, you're still all right, you know.' Those are things you just pick up through the game. For me, decision-making is probably the more important thing. It's not about me, it's about the game. If I get it right, things go smoothly with the game as well.

On to the video side of things. We have the Umpire Decision Review System to be introduced to Test cricket in October. Are you in favour?
I'm not against any television assistance. In 1992, when we started the television replays in South Africa, I was the first umpire to do a Test match with replays. It was only line decisions at the time. You were thinking, 'How many guys were given out that were not out, and not out which were out [before] the television was there?' It's proven within a millimetre. You can now make the right decision. I've been involved in three of the video-review series - the first was in Sri Lanka against India, then New Zealand against West Indies, and England against West Indies. It's definitely helpful. But I would say the technology should be spot-on there. [The third umpire] can't sit there and guess, then 10 or 15 minutes later they probably find another view of another angle, and then prove that the third umpire has made the wrong decision.

"The appeals are of such quality, you might think, 'It must be out.' And once you make that decision and it's a wrong one, the players know they've got hold of you and they're going to break you down slowly but surely over the day, the next day and the day after that"

So you're for it if they've got irrefutable video proof to assist in the decision making?
One hundred percent, yes.

Have they got that now?
Hotspot is a very good machine that they're using in cricket at the moment. Whether Hawk-Eye is accurate I don't really know. They all say it is. They're the suppliers, so they will back their product, but how accurate it is I don't know. I would say if we go that route, the third umpire should have access to everything. [But] the predictive path shouldn't be there. If you give a batsman not out, and the opposition see the replay on TV and the ball is just clipping the bails or clipping the edge of the stumps, they will think, 'That was out.'

Are there decisions you would not like to see go to the third umpire?
Why shouldn't you go all the way? Why should you just have 50%? They're going to prove us wrong anyhow. If you give a caught-behind not out, and the Snicko shows he did hit it, what's the use of using technology? I'm still going to make the wrong decision. [Technology is] going to improve the decision-making from where we stand at the moment, at 96%, to about 98 or 99%. But we want 100%, to make everybody happy. If we have to go, go all the way. It's not going to lower the dignity of the umpire, definitely not, because the umpire has still got to make decisions. It's the crucial ones that we get wrong at the wrong time - those are the ones we want to get out of the game.

Do you not feel it erodes your authority when batsmen or fielding sides are challenging your decisions?
I don't mind. At the end of the day I don't read newspapers and I don't look at replays. I know when I make a mistake. As soon as the batsman walks off the field, you can look at his body language and you will know if you probably got it wrong. I would say, let's get it right. If he wants to challenge me, if you want to put it that way, and I made a mistake, I would be happy to change it and the right decision will be made. Tomorrow morning you won't see Rudi's name in the newspaper.

Were there times at Lord's when you knew straight away, judging from the body language of some of the batsmen, that you had made a mistake?
No. I was happy with my performance inside myself. When you walk off the field you speak to the referee and he'll tell you, 'You got that one wrong'. Then you say, 'Shucks, what happened? Why did I get it wrong?'

I can use the Ponting example. The sounds were perfect. There were definitely two sounds and I gave it. If I didn't give him caught-behind, if I didn't consider the fact that he hit the ball, I would've given him out lbw anyhow. But the fact is, the caught comes first, and that was the reason I went upstairs, to see whether it carried, because I couldn't tell. But the noises were perfect and I gave him out because I thought he hit it. I haven't seen [the replays]. They've said when they had the magnifying thing on the ball that it missed the bat.

That's not an excuse. I will not make excuses to cover myself and say, 'That's the reason I made the wrong decision.' I'm happy to carry the blame if I make a wrong decision. I'll put my hand up and say, 'I'm sorry, I cocked it up.'

How do you practise? I have noticed you standing in the nets before matches on occasion.
That's the only way we can do it. We keep ourselves fit, first of all. I go to the gym for an hour and a half on the days I'm off. The only other practice we get is to stand in the nets a day or two before the game starts, just to get focused on the ball, see what the bowlers do. Sometimes you get a new lad in the squad who you have never seen, and you don't know what he does with the ball. It's good to go out there and see what he bowls: does he swing it? If he's a spinner, how he turns the ball. And if he's a batsman, what kind of shots he plays. When you get used to batsmen, you know he's not going to flip the ball from off to leg; he's going to play straight. That's one of the ways I prepare - to know at least when I go out there what I can expect from the bowler and some of the batters.

Do you like to engage with the players on the field?
I like to be on my own on the field most of the time. When you get a chance, when you speak to the guys and they want to talk to you, you have a bit of fun with them. You can't just stand there in your own little sphere for six hours. You're going to go mad. You sometimes have to relax a little bit. I will only speak to players when they approach me. There are quite a lot of the guys who come. I get on with the players pretty well, and they will come and talk to you and ask you where you have just come from, where are you going after the Test match and what series you have coming up. We do have a chat.

Are you proud to have reached 100 Tests and 200 ODIs?
For anybody to achieve what I have achieved, it must be a special moment. I remember when I started I didn't think I would get that far. I started as a club umpire and 10 weeks later I did my first first-class game. They pushed me through the ranks. It's just the way things happened. I was available and they used me.

I just thought that I've got the opportunity to put something back into the game that I loved. In 1992, when I was picked to be on our Test panel when we returned to international cricket in South Africa, I thought that was a bonus. I was doing a Test match when there were a lot of umpires who have never had that opportunity. I'm standing at 201 [ODIs] and 100 [Tests] at the moment and it's just amazing.

Your Test debut came during South Africa's first home series after readmission, didn't it?
South Africa's first series was against India in 1992, the friendship series. I did the first Test with David Shepherd. I can't remember much of that game. All I know is that we had an exchange system where there were three umpires appointed to the game. We were rotating. That was South Africa's first Test and my first Test. To think... South Africa was back in international cricket and I was a part of if it was just a great feeling.

How long do you intend to continue umpiring for?
I'll carry on as long as I enjoy the game. I still get up in the morning and say, 'Yes, I'm going to umpire today.' A day like today, I know I'm free, but what do I do with myself? I hang around, I go and play golf if I get the chance. But for me, I would rather be out in the middle every day of the week. I'm still fit and healthy. I'm going to try and go as far as the next World Cup in the subcontinent and then make a decision after that whether I'll still carry on.

For me, the most important thing in my career is the respect the players have given me, and I do respect them the same way. I would like to know that when... the guys see me in the nets when they're training two or three days before the game and they say, 'Look who's here. Rudi is back. He's doing the Test. I'm happy to see him.' So long as it's going that route, I will probably carry on for another two years, or maybe three. I won't overstay. If I think it's time to go, I will just call it a day. It's going to be hard to do that. It's part of your lifestyle. You live, eat, drink cricket. That's all we do. But if the time comes, I will go.

What are the greatest challenges facing umpires?
I feel sorry for some countries where the guys struggle to get through the system. You can get on to the panel one year and the next year you're off, doing maybe two or three ODIs. In our country we've got a system that's in place and you have to go through the ranks to get to the top. Once you get to the top, your country will leave you alone and say, 'It's your baby now. We've got you to where you are. Now you've got to look after yourself.' It is challenging for you to stay at the top.

It's good that the [Elite] panel has increased a little bit. It's going to make us do fewer games, but you will have more quality time spent with your family at home. Not that my family is really concerned about it; I've been doing it for so many years. I think sometimes I'm just a burden when I get home. As a joke they will ask, 'When do you leave again?'

The hardest thing for us is the travelling and the dead time you spend in places doing nothing. It is a challenge to get used to it. The young guys coming through the system, it's good to see them. They're less than 40 and it's good they can get into the system and can feel what it's like. The only thing I feel sorry for is that they've all got young kids.

I've been doing this now for 17 years. My oldest son is 28 and the other one is 25. I've never had special time with them. That's what breaks you, if you sit back and you think, 'I could have had some good time with the family…' But if you love this game, you don't get it out of your blood. It's there and it's going to stay there.

Any other challenges?
Probably the big challenge is getting used to this new system. How are we going to handle it? Are you just going to stand out there and say, 'I'm just going to use television wherever I can?' Or go out there and still do what you used to do? We have to accept the fact that if we make mistakes it's going to be rectified and be man enough to accept it and don't feel bad about it. At the end of the day the right decision will be made, and that's what we want.

Would it bother you if the next generation of umpires became completely video-dependent and took away old-fashioned instinct?
At the end of the day I would like to see the right decision made. An umpire will always be an umpire and have to work on those skills to become a good umpire. You're not always going to have that video advantage. You're only going to use this in Test cricket. Everybody is not going to get to that level. At first-class level you will not have that opportunity. The only thing is, at the level we are now, with the professionalism and so much money involved in the sport, it's a good thing we can use it [technology].

Umpires are forever under the microscope. Has the good outweighed the bad in your career?
I'm a lucky man to be involved in the greatest sport. It's not the easiest job in the world. I always say I think it's the hardest job in the world: to stand there for six hours, have about 20 or 30 cameras watching you the whole time, millions of people viewing you at home, 10 people commentating on you and saying how bad you are, and the press who sit there and write about the mistakes you make. You have to accept those things. I am so fortunate to be part of it. I will not change my profession for anything in the world.

It used to be that the word of the fielder was good enough. Now, it seems, no one is walking, and you have awkward situations like at Lord's. What are your thoughts on the matter?
It's supposed to be a gentleman's game, but I can't say it always is. Guys know they can cheat and get away with things. I don't mean that with both those catches [Hauritz and Strauss] they were trying to cheat; they probably believed they caught it.

"At the end of the day I don't read newspapers and I don't look at replays. I know when I make a mistake. As soon as the batsman walks off the field you can look at his body language and you will know if you probably got it wrong"

The catch-referral system is so straightforward. There are two ways of doing it. The first one - [like] with Hauritz - you stand there in the middle and you see the batsman play the shot, and for a few seconds you lose the ball because you don't always know where the ball goes. The next moment all I saw were his hands going down. I just thought, 'I'm not sure whether he caught it.' That's when I had to go to my colleague. I spoke to him and he said to me, 'Rudi, I'm not sure either. I missed the flight of the ball as well.' Then we have to go upstairs. That's a protocol. As the third umpire indicated, it was inconclusive - because it's not three-dimensional, it was inconclusive to him as to whether the catch was taken or not. We had to give the benefit to the batsman. It's as simple as that.

The one the day before yesterday [Ponting], I couldn't see where the catch was taken because I had the bowler running down the wicket. I didn't have a clue. I didn't even know who was catching the ball at that stage. I went straight to my partner and asked, 'Was it a fair catch?' and he said, 'Yes, it went straight in.' That's it. So long as one of the on-field umpires is sure that the ball has carried, the decision will stay on the field. That's a protocol from the ICC. It's been in our conditions all the time. I would say at the end of the day, the best way of doing it now is to go upstairs for all of them.

Isn't it a shame that the fielder's word isn't enough?
It is a shame. As I said, the players will stand there, nick the ball and wait for the umpire to make a decision. For me, that's cheating. Why don't you get off the field and make it easy for the game? There would be more pleasure in the game. I know that Ponting would say, 'Boys, let's try [accepting the umpires' word].' I've been in those meetings when he said, 'Let's try it,' and then you get to the second day in a Test match and a guy claims a catch and 10 minutes later you hear, 'The ball didn't carry,' and then the argument starts again. Let's use the technology when it's there.

How have attitudes changed?
The days when you used to do it for the love of the game, there's no such thing anymore. You can go around the world and the first thing people talk about is money. All they want is, 'How much are we going to get?' That's actually sad, to think that everybody is looking that way, that they're not going to do it if they don't get proper money for it. We did it because we just loved it.

What were you paid in the early days?
We used to get paid for it, but you couldn't even buy a beer for the money we were getting. I can remember doing a day game for 75 rand, which in those days was probably 20 quid. You could just get the cab up and back and that's it.

I'm not one who whines about money. For me it's just an honour to be part of this sport. I've seen the world - 18 countries - and it never cost me a cent to go there. Who can sit back and say, 'I am so privileged to see the world, to do what I love' and to get up in the morning and say, 'Yes, I'm going to umpire again today'? There's not many people who can do that. I know when I was working for the railways, I would get up in the morning and say, 'Argh, I have to sit in that office again today.' You just wanted to get out, get some fresh air and be part of life. That's how fortunate I am.

This exclusive interview was made possible by Emirates, title sponsor of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires and Referees. The Dubai-based international airline is also an Official Partner of the ICC, giving it sponsorship rights at the Cricket World Cup, Champions Trophy and the World Twenty20.

Listen to the interview here

Alex Brown is deputy editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Constancio on July 23, 2009, 23:10 GMT

    Well done Rudi. You have hit the nail on the head. Players have become cheats. By putting additional pressure on the umpires, they have been getting away with it for too long. I say that if we consider this still to be a gentleman's game, let's change the rules to make it such. For all appeals by the fielding side if the batsman is given out then and the decision is incorrect with the batsman given out, would recommend that the batting side can select to remove the score of one of the batsmen or not allow that batsman will be out without scoring in the next innings. For the Batting side if the batsmen is out and the decision is incorrect against the fielding side, a penalty of runs against or choice of the fielding side selecting the penalty. I guarantee cheating will disappear from the game quick smart. Australia has got away with it for far too long in my opinion. Now that other teams are winning we are whinging!! Particularly the media.

  • Atul on July 23, 2009, 17:27 GMT

    here Rudi has mentioned that caught behind comes before lbw, I did not understand that. Lbw should come first as batsman is already out before the ball reaches the keeper/fielder. Another thing I would like to say is that Ricky ponting is worst person when it comes to game ethics/sportsmanship. He always wants decisions in his favour. he does stupid stuff when there is some wrong decision. He wants other teams to take fielder's view when his team is fielding and take third umpire's decision when other team is fielding. I don't understand why umpires don't report his actions when he shows disregard for a umpire decision??

  • Chetan on July 23, 2009, 16:04 GMT

    ICC should seriously consider cheating penalties on cricketers who nick & wait, claim suspect catches with confidence etc.

    Penalties should be so severe on both the player & team that if anyone even waits in good faith, his team members would ask him to desist.

  • KISH on July 23, 2009, 13:23 GMT

    Rudi and Azad Rauf are my favorite umpires. Rudi used be perfect. But, nowadays he makes more mistakes. I hope it doesn't continue on. I like both of these umpires for being tough and not getting carried away by aggressive captains and aggressive appeals etc. They are not at all biased either. Whatever Rudi said in the interview are correct and well said. I beleive technology should be used whenever the umpires are unsure. Referral system also is good, provided the third umpires understands that they are only looking for obvious mistakes and support the on-field umpires if there was no obvious mistakes made. An LBW decision shouldn't be overruled, just because the hawk eye shows that it is going over the stumps. Because, the onfield umpire can judge the bounce of the ball better than the technology. But, if it is pitched outside the legstump, please don't hesitate to give it not out.

  • J on July 23, 2009, 5:34 GMT

    Personally I would rather see the catch referral scrapped until they can find a better system - after all a 2D image is rarely going to be conclusive that close to the ground. If the umpires don't see it - then not out. If they see it and are sure then out. Don't even bother going upstairs - when they need to go upstairs they are nearly always inconclusive it seems.

    Ponting missed a chance as well. He told Hughes to stay put, yet he is one of the main ones banging on about walking when a fielder claims a catch. Hughes was prepared to take Strauss' word for it - Ponting was not. When they need a wicket the Australians have been known to appeal for everything using some sort of bizarre war dance that not even Monty Panesar can emulate. The Australians method of win at all costs in the past is the main reason no-one will sign up to it. They are just not trusted.

  • Abhyuday on July 23, 2009, 2:41 GMT

    @khadeerkaleem, for your information, Indians wanted to call off the tour because a false racist allegation was made against them, and not because of some stupid umpiring decisions. When those decisions were made, Aussie media said "bad decisions are part of the game, Indians should grow up and accept it." Now they are raising such a hue and cry because their team has been affected. The aussies should also grow up and accept these decisions and not lecture other people about what to do when they can't do it themselves.

  • Peter on July 23, 2009, 0:36 GMT

    So Rudi believes that most players are cheats because they do not walk. Is it any wonder when you get the howlers that change games?

    In the Ashes test at Sydney in 2007 Adam Gilchrist - a known walker - was given out caught in the slips by Umpire Bowden when he did not hit the ball.

    Micheal Hussey was not out in the second innings at Lords yet Koertzen would call him a cheat if he waits for the Umpires decision the next time he bats.

    Russell Tiffin from Zimbabwe cost Micheal Vaughan a certain double century in Sydney in 2003 when he adjudged a ball LBW that would have cleared the stumps by feet. Earlier in that Series Vaughan stood his ground in Adelaide when a low catch was claimed and when subsequent video proved inconclusive was given not out.

    It appears that Koertzen is a protected species who can 'cock it up' with regularity (including a World cup final ) but when a player waits for a decision from the paid official they are cheats.

  • Romulus on July 22, 2009, 18:58 GMT

    I think only 2/3 decisions were controversial. Ponting caught behind does not count, because he was LBW anyways. I saw both the catches, and both are dodgy, but Strauss' catch seemed a lot cleaner. Also, how is it that Hauritz, with a bad finger, gets his fingers below the ball and shows no pain? Nor any elation. Strauss, on the other caught the ball and was up celebrating, immediately The real question is: Have Australians lost trust because of Sydney, by their opponents or the umpires? In a 50/50 situation, this will always benefit their opponent. Trust once lost, and openly lost on a world stage is very hard to regain. This is Ponting's real legacy.

  • Michael on July 22, 2009, 16:44 GMT

    I believe that being a Cricket Umpire is the toughest job in all sports. You have to be aware of the fielders, then concentrate on the bowlers run up whether or not they have crossed the line, and check to see if their arm position is correct then see the ball zoom pass towards the bats man and hear any nicks or memorize the ball's path to see if it is inline with the wicket. All that in less than 1 second. That's pretty much the time you take to read the first few words I have typed.

    Maybe to train new umpires they should have boundary umpires to check for fielding placements, and the third umpire checking for hand motions while the main umpire is concentrading on leg position or whether or not a wicket has been taken. The boundary umpires can then be eased into a more responsible role such as third umpire before moving into the field umpire. They need to train more umpires, not just old umpires who retired from cricket, but young umpires who have better, hearing, eyesight.

  • A on July 22, 2009, 15:54 GMT

    To all Aussies, it's just a matter of "sour grapes". All the people specially Aussies who are complaning about Rudi right now would'nt have said a word if the decisions would have gone against them. As far as Ponting playing in the sprit of the game comments is a "Joke". We could all see how he was questioning the umpires when the decision went against him and Australia.

  • No featured comments at the moment.