M Atherton: Players should not take all the blame (19 Jul 1998)

19 July 1998

Players should not take all the blame

By Mike Atherton

IT SEEMS clear that, following a meeting of the Test umpires panel in Surrey last week, the relationship between players and umpires, like a difficult marriage, has gone sour.

Indeed, the umpire's dreaded finger has gone up once again and, with its usual finality, as the blame seems to have been placed squarely at the players' door. The claiming of dubious catches, orchestrated appealing and non-walking are apparently on the increase and were roundly condemned as cheating. Lest the relationship sours any further (and heaven help the cricketer who has to square up to Peter Willey), it is worth remembering that yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the birth of one of the greatest of cricketers, W G Grace, a batsman who even managed to con the umpires when he had been clean bowled.

Clearly, the umpires feel aggrieved. That they do reflects poorly on the players. Nowhere is it written within the laws of cricket that players and umpires must be bosom pals, but respecting and then accepting the umpire's decision is the most basic principle of the game. The human factor, human error if you like, is fundamental to cricket, whether it be fieldsmen, batsmen or umpires.

In every match there will be mistakes. A player has no right to expect perfection from an umpire - how can he when so many slow motion replays are inconclusive? Once a player accepts that axiom, then the bad decisions, after the initial disappointment, are easier to take. What a player can expect from an umpire is clear and decisive decision-making, unflappability in the heat of the moment and more right decisions than wrong. An umpire who displays these attributes is well on his way to becoming a good one.

Umpires feel that the claiming of dubious catches is a problem. Very occasionally a fielder, especially when diving forward, may be unsure if a ball carried, but a fielder knowingly accepting an unfair chance is unacceptable. Unfortunately, because of the widening of the role of the third umpire, the batsmen and umpires no longer accept the fielder's word and wait for an inconclusive replay.

It is difficult to believe that a player would deliberately cheat, as the consequences are fierce. Firstly, press and TV reaction would be acute and, more importantly, you would be labelled a cheat by your peers and receive such a subsequent "bagging" as to make your life a misery. If a fielder is unsure he should say so, and if the umpire is also unsure the benefit should go to the batsman and, if a fielder is proven to have cheated on TV, the referee should suspend him.

Judging by the mood of the umpires and the candour of the comments after their meeting, it is clear that they feel the modern player will do what he can to con an umpire to gain an unfair advantage. Unfortunately in Test cricket the era of walking is over and it is largely a game of non-walkers. I feel it would be helpful if umpires understood this and accepted it, rather than resenting it and harking back to halcyon days of another era.

After all, umpires are paid (Test match fee is equivalent to that of a player) to make such decisions. In my opinion not walking is not cheating with two provisos. Firstly that a committed non-walker accepts the rough with the smooth as with every bad decision he has probably had a lucky escape; and, secondly, that he does not try to con the umpire before he makes his decision. By that I mean rubbing his arm, for example, when he has clearly hit the ball. It is the umpires who are there to run the game, not the batsmen. The only time I ever engaged in not-so-polite conversation with a batsman during my time as captain was when that happened.

I do feel, however, that umpires are put under unnecessary pressure by the presence of big screens. Often, players wait to look at a replay and, no matter how strong-minded an umpire is, he will hear the groans of the crowd and may even want to see the replay himself. Screens are beneficial to the crowd and are therefore a must, but the umpire's sensibilities must be respected and, surely, it can be arranged so that appeals for catches and lbws are not replayed. As for TV criticism, players have to lump it and I am afraid the umpires will, too.

Orchestrated and over-enthusiastic appealing is another area of concern for umpires. Some bowlers appeal more than others, but I would have thought that as this becomes known it can be counter-productive. Maybe I am naive or England are naive, but designated appealing to put a particular umpire under pressure does not happen. There is a big difference between appealing when you are not sure whether a batsman has hit the ball and when you know he has not.

Captains have a big role to play to ensure that the latter is kept to a minimum. Strong captains who control the dressing room are in a good position to enforce their will. It is best if a discussion of umpiring decisions is kept to a minimum. 'Control the controllables' is a well-worn phrase, but a very relevant one here, for it is easy for a team to delude themselves as unlucky and lose sight of the things they can change. Captains, through umpires' reports, have the channels to criticise or praise umpires and it is important that these reports are fair and done in the cold light of day. Which is why the referee's insistence that they be completed within an hour of the match does the umpires no favours.

I hope most of these views have been sympathetic to umpires. However, there is a correlation between player behaviour and the standard of umpiring. The only game I have played in where there was deliberate and over-indulgent appealing was when an umpire was giving decisions solely on a percentage basis. The more appeals you had, therefore, the more chance of success. The governing body of the game, the International Cricket Council, need to do everything to ensure standards are high, but there is still the odd incompetent umpire on the Test panel. Players, too, are under pressure to perform and deserve the highest possible standard of umpiring. The ICC should start by scrapping their 'one home and one neutral' policy.

It is said that football is streets ahead of most things at the moment. In their problems between players and officials the recent World Cup showed that football is indeed streets ahead. The conning of referees with diving and fake punches and the abuse hurled was pathetic.

Cricket is better than that. The umpires feel there is a problem and they need to be listened to. By captains and the ICC confronting the problem, we can once again have a game where the integrity of umpires and essential decency of cricketers can work in harmony.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)