T Chesterfield: Spinners Tales (04 Jan 1996)

SPINNER`S TALES (January 1996)

Only an idiot, and a prized one at that, would want to become an umpire, was one of the horrified comments that greeted me when I announced my intentions almost 40 summers ago. What with a wonky knee having ended my playing career, there was little else (apart from writing about the game) but to get involved as close to the action as possible. Little wonder my former Central Districs provincial (colts) teammates in far off Kiwiland were alarmed at the prospect. After all novice umpires (and cub reporters) I was assured by my former club captain are eventually considered to be (when they "graduate" I assumed) a jack of all trades and a master of none. He was sure I wouldn`t enjoy the angry glares from bowlers after having turned down their often innane appeals; or take the silent contempt from the batsman who hopefully guessed that you`re going to get it wrong sooner or later; and the audible sniggers from the fieldsmen claiming catches and shaking their heads when they got it wrong and know they haven`t fooled you. It was an era long before the captains reports marked you as being: fair, indifferent or plain "bloody useless"; and your knowledge of the laws were listed as: competent, incompetent or totally ignorant. As some of the captains` knowledge of the laws are usually in the third category, and their views of practical can be classed as "bloody useless", you really aren`t doing too badly if your reports are marked C on both counts. When it comes to first-class umpires they are meant to be unflappable and of sound temperament, and judged by a different list of criteria. The higher you go the tougher it becomes. That is until you reach test level when you can see your honestly given decision held up to ridicule and replayed on the TV screen moments after it has been made. By then it is too late and you get Trevor Quirk, Robin Jackman, Jack Bannister et al saying, "I`ll let you make up your own mind about that one." There is a difference, of course (as we know all too well these days with those involved in Northern Transvaal umpiring circles) between competent and incompetent. The first is the fellow who gets it wrong occasionally and admits it; the second is the one who never admits to making a mistake. For those who last week were criticising, castigating or merely slamming Dave Orchard`s decisions in the fifth test at snobbish Newlands in Cape Town, it is so easy to pass judgment with the benefit of the TV replay and that modern curse the "ultra slow-mo". A former Natal all-rounder, "Orchie" is a solid umpire; sure he makes the odd mistake, but when there is a split second to make a decision it is not always easy to get it right. What about those he got right? Even the tougher ones? Sure he was praised for a particular toughie: but his second test as an umpire will allways be recalled. Mud is inclined to stick. As for the run out replay decision, it is so easy, with thoughts focused on making the decision to let the matter of calling on the technology slip one`s thoughts. At least he admitted his error. How often do batsmen, bowlers and fieldsmen meet with the same fierce criticism for their blunders? Few are hauled before the TV jury the same way as an umpire. And then we have those fools who want to extend the use of the TV technology to include lbw, bat-pad and caught-behind decisions! They will destroy the character of the game if they have their selfish way.