Most Test Matches officiated by an Umpire

It now does look as if Steve will be the only member of the 100 club for some time with Shep calling it a day at the end of the West Indies-South Africa series with his tally reaching a possible 92 by the end of his last match.

No i don't think Steve will be going anywhere anytime soon. I think that he has at least 3 to 4 years still left in him. I do think that he is the best official still ijudicating in the world at the moment but i don't think the best 2 in the world will go as i think Simon Taufel is the second best umpire behind Bucknor. If you mean Jeremy Lloyd then no i think he's a bit of a waste of time and a bit too much like Ashoka Da Silva (thank god he's gone). Everybody loves Billy Bowden even though he is a little mad he does still get the job done and quite well it has to be said, i would have actually ranked him above Shep too at number 3.

Edited by JALRC

Well i think when it comes to time spans these days with so much cricket current umpires comfortably lead the way. Shep has now called it a day but will retire have officiated the most One Day matches ever but that is of course only for themean time and could one day be surpassed.

No that's total non starter Inducker. That would never happen.

Originally posted by swerveman Originally posted by JALRC No that's a total non starter Inducker. That would never happen. That's an interesting comment.  I'd love to hear your reasoning.

It would just never happen. I don't mean it literally can never work but that it would never get off the ground as a viable option. Its a thought proccess or an idea that would literally get nowhere. Technically it seams like a reasonable enough idea though to be fair there would have to be one umpire for each session of a days play at both ends meaning that including 3rd umpires and so on so through the period of the entire match the game would require at least 12 officiating members and there is no way in hell that the ICC would agree to that. They barely agree to fees the current system with the amount of umpires and match ijudicaters there are - they force the boards of the representative nations to now provide the television cameras used for television replay decisions and won't spend a cent more than they have to. Having one umpire officiating one session and another officiating 2 is just simply discriminatory under employment laws and would never stand a chance but with 3 different sets of umpires per day you will have all sorts of controversial decisions like when they come off for bad light say if one set disagrees and one pulls off one day earlier than another set another day so for that you also have to have each set of u,pires officiate the same session. Then comes the question of weather interfferance. Say the first couple of sessions are plagued by heavy rain and snow and the final session has to be a good 40+ overs to accomodate? Hardly seems fair does it? Anyway the ICC is trying to go the other way and try and go toward eliminating human officiating completely with having things like electronic devices to measure no balls and so on. How can i be so sure of this? All these ideas have been thrown about before and have all been objected and there is not one single umpire who has ever (not to me anyway) complained of being tired of having to stand out there in the middle or of anybody having to stand all 3 sessions and so on. Then comes the issue of how many of the umpires are home field bases and how many are international and how many are nuetral and so on and it all has to be proportionatly fair to both sides and it has to also be feesable which it simply isn't and for a start beyond anything formoost we haven't got enough damn umpires! At any given time there can be either 2 Test series' and 3 One Day series' running concurrently or 3 Test Series' and 2 One Day Series' which all involve different nations so that could mean a possibility of 52 elite member umpires (all standing umpires in any form of an official international match now have to be elite panel members) being summoned to officiate at the same time (assuming that as you would have to be fair you would have to have 2 different sets of umpires in a one day match to officiate each innings) and that is not possible as there can only ever be 24 members in the elite panel at any one given point! You would have to change all the rules completely to implement such a system! Nobody has complained so far (mainly because if they did they'd be told they weren't fit to stand as an umpire and would probably be releived of duty) and nobody probably will and if anything umpires would take offence to such actions as they may feel they are being devalued and undermined. This has all been argued and counter argued in the board room for years and nothing has ever and will ever come of a sugggestion to increase the amount of standing umpires in the middle beyond 2 and to ever have more than 5 total (at most and it can be 4) match ijudicators. The system works just fine and everyone is happy.

Originally posted by swerveman I think Shep is going at the right time.  It's tough at the top.

Well he certainly has no reason to go. He's fiting fit and he's certainly doing a great job like he always has. A good example of that is that i am yet to hear one single person say he should go now and that he is getting too old for the job which you would usually get when somebody gets to say 60+ like he has as an excuse to push him out and especially if he is beginning to slip a little of which he is neither beginning to slip up or being pushed out. I should reiterrate that Shep went of his own accord and that he was offered to stay on and even though he did decline has the best wishes of the ECB, ICC and UOCA for whatever he decides to do later in life.

Originally posted by swerveman Billy Bowden is my favourite umpire, because he manages to be really good at the same time as being bonkers.  Why is he called Billy when his name's actually Brent?

Well you'd be surprised but most umpires off the field are just as active and i guess the word you'd use is excitable but its just that Billy is the only one to ever take it onto the field; but i must emphasis he does so in a responsible, sensible, enjoyable way. Shep, Steve, Simon and co are just as much as fun out of office hours (by that i mean out there in the middle) as Billy is. With some of the time i've spent with umpires from past years they very rarely show much emotion out there in the middle and to an extent they can't really afford to either out of proffessionalism but when given the opportunity some do exhert some sort of relief to tense situations and so on when they can with a little gentle humor and a joke or two even while out there in the middle. I think behind Billy comes Rudi as possibly the only other umpire to ever show and have a real pesonal touch out there in the middle and off the pitch Rudi is the nicest guy you could ever meet.

Originally posted by Swerveman Simon Taufel is simply the best, and his hat is supreme.

He is a great umpire but there so many up there with him like Shep, Steve and Rudi. All 4 of them practically never make a mistake and the easiest way to tell is that they are the 4 umpires that are involved in the least altracations. Then comes Billy and then a long way behind comes Daryl and Darrel. Finally bringing up the rear in Aleem Dar and before he came to the elite ciruit the person who held that title was Ashoka Da Silva for 3 whole years! Now he had to go! The reason that judging them on the basis of the amount of altracations they encounter is an accurate assesment of their standard of application when it comes to job performance is because these are altracations they avoid player to umpire and not player to player and the reason that is an accurate assesment of how well the umpires perform is because there is very rarely any discent to these 4 (possibly 5 if you include Billy) men in white and that is because of the respect that they have amongst the players themselves because of the reputation that follws them and carries them in escence. These days their reputation goes ahead of them and in a way its more like a reseme. There are official listings of who does the best job and examples the likes of which i won't divulge but its fair to say of the 4 ahead of the others nobody really leaps a mile ahead of anybody else and that's because none of them could probably do a better job. The one thing that none of you will have taken into account is the accountability factor of human error which is always taken into account by the panel of appointees of the elite circuit as no human being is above human error or the nature of mankind and this is all worked out as accurately as the Duckworth Lewis method.  

Originally posted by Swerveman Steve Bucknor is much-maligned, but seldom puts a foot wrong, in my opinion.  It's probably because he wears spikes.

As correct as that is that's a very bad pun.

Originally posted by Swerveman Aleem Dar is getting better all the time, and he was no slouch to start with.  He's no fashion victim, either;  as far as I can make out, he wears a giant paper clip instead of the normal tie slide.

Now that is actually some of the stuff that the ICC can't phathom - monkeying about with popular fashion and so on. You should have heard how abusive some of the reaction was to the request by the NZ team to have the umpires clothing changed. Surfice to say the request was rejected! Anyway Aleem Dar is certainly not that well regarded (well not at the moment anyway) be either his fellow umpires or by some players.

Originally posted by Swerveman That leaves Darrell Hair, Daryl Harper, and Rudi Koertzen.  I can't think of many negatives for them, either.

Both Darrell and Daryl have actually had a few problems and it has led to them not being given too many matches to officiate though nothing too bad just that when you don't have to umpire all that much its hard to be recognised as a true great. Rudi is truly one of the best.

Originally posted by Swerveman On the whole, I think ICC have got it right.

I think they have got it at close to perfect as possible especially with the budget they offer the OUC and the UOCA to use. They boot out whoever is not good enough and keep the best in the elite panel and are forever trying to imrpove the use of technology for the better of the game's officiating and also trying to uphold the integrity of the game as much as possible too.

Originally posted by JALRC The one thing that none of you will have taken into account is the accountability factor of human error which is always taken into account by the panel of appointees of the elite circuit as no human being is above human error or the nature of mankind and this is all worked out as accurately as the Duckworth Lewis method.

JAL you have a way with words! You are forever coming out with statements that you have no tangible way of proving! How can you possibly state that I have no perception of human accountability - you simply cannot !!

   Your final rambling statement about human fallibility and Duckworth - Lewis is a peach!

   Employing people for a position requiring decision making made from data acquired instantaneously using human faculties needs careful consideration. The appointment of the best person is simple - look to their record. Check their decision making in the past and compare that with other candidates.

There is no concrete , irrevocable data that says one is better than the others , other than a panels gutfeel - that is called subjective analysis - and it works pretty well , but is open to human fraility such as nepotism , racism ,favoritism and suchlike.

The Duckworth-Lewis Method was developed by two students who had reams and reams of concrete data. They analysed thousands of cricket matches , both finished and unfinished. They discovered scoring traits/patterns from this hard evidence and then put together their mathematical progression to arrive at the system used today. It's not perfect , nothing ever can be , but it is far and away the best method of making curtailed cricket matches fair.

   Do you see the difference , one is intuitional , based on human experience , the other is researching hard facts to overcome a definitive problem.

Originally posted by Inducker Originally posted by JALRC The one thing that none of you will have taken into account is the accountability factor of human error which is always taken into account by the panel of appointees of the elite circuit as no human being is above human error or the nature of mankind and this is all worked out as accurately as the Duckworth Lewis method. JAL you have a way with words! You are forever coming out with statements that you have no tangible way of proving! How can you possibly state that I have no perception of human accountability - you simply cannot !!

I meant it in terms that no human being can possibly make an accurate assesment, not just you. Since when am i the one who comes out with statements that i have no way of proving. That my friend is your department! 

Originally posted by Inducker Your final rambling statement about human fallibility and Duckworth - Lewis is a peach!

This is where you're gonna make a complete idiot of yourself. 

Originally posted by Inducker Employing people for a position requiring decision making made from data acquired instantaneously using human faculties needs careful consideration. The appointment of the best person is simple - look to their record. Check their decision making in the past and compare that with other candidates.

Okay let's just say that this was the best way to look at it. Say there was an analysis of a match that an umpire officiated similar to the one where Zimbabwe recently played South Africa. Say the side batting first were out for 30 odd and say the side batting second made 200 odd, declared then bowled again and dismissed their opponenets for a similarish total and won by an innings and 100+runs in a couple of days. Say every decision was stone cut and no debate over any dismissal or any ball gong to the rope, there were no LBW and no run outs. Now that umpire didn't make a single mistakeor have a single decision that was called into question but does it mean he is the best umpire in the world - you tell me Inducker seeing as you're so full of it. Then you have say a match like the one recently between South Africa and the West Indies and you have an umpire held in such high regards as Shep who has umpired to the highest level for 20 years and just because he gives one decision that a fan doesn't agree with the fan calls for his head. You incidently are that fan who called for his head Inducker and say the proccess of judgement was humanly orchestrated instead of technologically like you said Inducker and every person who was asked to decide on the merit of a performance by an umpire had the same views as you? Come on then what's your response?

Originally posted by Inducker There is no concrete , irrevocable data that says one is better than the others , other than a panels gutfeel - that is called subjective analysis - and it works pretty well , but is open to human fraility such as nepotism , racism ,favoritism and suchlike.

There are, beleieve me, ways in which this can be ascertained precisely. As you said human decision making is open to such abuse even if you didn't want to do so you probably would do so subliminally. There are ways of ascertaining job performance but it is not a system that is indicative of who is better or not, yet again you are mixing issues and this is about disyphering what sort of a job the umpiring is doing and not a game to see who is the best!

Originally posted by Inducker The Duckworth-Lewis Method was developed by two students who had reams and reams of concrete data. They analysed thousands of cricket matches , both finished and unfinished. They discovered scoring traits/patterns from this hard evidence and then put together their mathematical progression to arrive at the system used today. It's not perfect , nothing ever can be , but it is far and away the best method of making curtailed cricket matches fair.

The DL method has been analysed by mathematicians the world over has been found to be as mathematically precise as can possibly be. There are no possible arguments or debate as to whether it can now be improved or not and it is based on some of the most complicated mathematical formulas that ever exist. The system has nothing what so ever to do with research based on data using as you said "traits and patterns" and each individual match is completely independant and on no occassion ever when the DL method has been used has it ever involved any outside interferrance to do with any other matches or any other data. The method has been tweaked and adjusted several thousand times since it was first discovered and it had nothing to do with the way you say it happened with 2 students doing research. The aim was to figure out a way in which a precise mathematical formula could be used to give exact definitions on the result of a cricket match and if possible how a result could be achieved and that is exactly what was done. The research and whatever else is completely independant of the actual method used in cricket matches and even though may have had something to do with the reason for creation (whether it has or not i don't know) it has no effect what so ever on how the system is implemented in match situations. The ICC is in the proccess of trying to get copyrighting rights to the program and the formula and then it would of course become interlectual property of the ICC.

Originally posted by Inducker  Do you see the difference , one is intuitional , based on human experience , the other is researching hard facts to overcome a definitive problem.

No Inducker they are both neither of the above! So you want me to give you exact and precise definitions as to how each of the above is defined?

Originally posted by Inducker Umpire's Duty on Each Day's Play    Morning Session Standing Ump 1 and Ump 2   TV Ump 3 Afternoon Session Standing Ump 2 and Ump 3   TV Ump 1      Final Session Standing Ump 3 and Ump 1   TV Ump 2

Originally posted by JALRC It won't work Inducker! This option has been thrown up before and there have been others that have been similar but it doesn't work! Who stands from what end of the pitch? There are 2 ends of the crease which bowlers bowl from and 2 umpires to stand at each and or either end at alternative breaks rotating per session. 2 goes into 2 quite well but not so well into 3!

Good grief JAL , well spotted , there ARE two ends to a cricket pitch!! So what , one umpire isn't implanted at one end at the start of a test! The simple solution is they choose an end at the start of the next session - what is difficult about that , it doesn't matter which end he stands.

   What happens when an umpire is taken ill - he gets replaced by the 3rd umpire and the game continues without a hitch . That happens DURING play , what I'm arguing for here is something that happens between sessions - it is incredibly simple!

Edited by Inducker

Originally posted by Inducker The Duckworth-Lewis Method was developed by two students.

That is irrevocable . a solid fact , undisputable.....am I getting through?

Originally posted by JALRC The DL method has been analysed by mathematicians the world over has been found to be as mathematically precise as can possibly be. There are no possible arguments or debate as to whether it can now be improved or not and it is based on some of the most complicated mathematical formulas that ever exist.

Haha!! Now I've found the idiocy! I'll talk you through some basicfunctions in mathematics JAL. There are two major players , constants and variables. Constants are things like gravity - it is definable , because we can MEASURE it! The same with the speed of sound and even light - they have a finite value. Then we have variables , these change , like the temperature of the water in a kettle , put on to boil. The distance the Earth is from the sun is another. .........and the result of a rain interrupted cricket match is another!

   Each of those variables cannot be predicted AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT IN TIME - inreality , it is undefinable , so we use the term variable.

   So back to your statement and you talk of precision - NO mathematician would talk of precision when variables are involved - it is just totally impossible!

    Duckworth-Lewis was derived from cricket data and cricket data alone! No pure maths at all - just the data put into a database and analysed. The students studied the scores amassed by thousands of sides over the years. They cross referenced wickets lost , runs scored , overs bowled and when those events occurred. They were the variables they played with , analysed until they were dizzy and came up with a sheet of paper that had numbers on it. That is what is given to captains in ODI's and has been accepted by the governing body. Why? because it's the fairest way to obtain a result from rain affected cricket matches.

There is no magic formula and it could well be improved on because no-one has any way of knowing how good it is! We use the system , but the target needed by the side chasing is an educated thumb-suck!! It is not the definitive answer - it most certainly is not calculatable from some mathematical formula!

   In simplistic terms , there isn't enough data to make a perfect solution - too many variables without any way of finding solutions.

   .....just how long is a piece of string?

Originally posted by JALRC ]Don't try and teach me about constants and variables Inducker, i have a masters degree from Harvard and i can guarantee you my knowledge of math is better than yours.

   I'm not trying to teach you anything JAL ,is your masters in Mathematics , if so I'll bow to your superior knowledge. But that doesn't detract from the fact that you can't answer all my simple questions - and if you won't then I'll continue to decry your statements on this matter. We scientists like to be convinced by sound arguments - I'm still awaiting yours....

Originally posted by JALRC Its a shame that post didn't register but never mind. Look maybe to save all this hasssel we can look at it a different way. You say that i haven't explained why your theory of playing musical chairs with the umpires won't work and i've explained it but i tell you what let's wait and see whether anything does happen over say the next 20 years and when you accept the system still hasn't changed and can admit nothing will be done then i can explain to you why and it may be alittle easier for you to understand?

That will prove nothing , but the intransigience and stupidity of people in the seats of power. Whilst the likes of Percy Sonn is revered in the corridors of power, cricket lovers have much to be fearful of.

Edited by Inducker

I'm glad I joined in!  I don't have time to interject just now, because I have to have dinner then go to the snooker club.  That probably writes off the rest of today, so I'll be in touch tomorrow!

Edited by swerveman

Originally posted by swerveman I'm glad I joined in! I don't have time to interject just now, because I have to have dinner then go to the snooker club. That probably writes off the rest of today, so I'll be in touch tomorrow!

Yeah , good thread this one sweerve!!   

Good to know you're a snooker player too , my highest break is 60 , what's yours?

Quite possibly JAL , but I might just get an answer this time!

Edited by swerveman

Originally posted by JALRC Hilarious Inducker! Maybe this time you might also understand the answer too...

Without doubt , he's English and commands the language perfectly.....

OK, now I'm upset!  I just spent time and effort getting a post together, then lost the whole thing by going off to get more information.  Infuriating!  I know how JALRC feels.

I'm entering this into a Notepad window, and I'll copy and paste when I'm finished.  It's not likely to be as long, but that's probably a blessing!

Just to cap off the snooker thing, my maximum break is 45;  I think it's because I rarely start a game sober.  I don't play for money, though, so it doesn't really matter very much.

I'm with Inducker on the rotation of umpires issue.  The pressure can get very high over a 5 day test match, and I can't see a good reason why the third umpire can't share it.  They're all highly qualified, after all.

Duckworth/Lewis is the fairest method yet devised to decide an interrupted game.  Were they students?  I thought they were lecturers.  It doesn't really matter.

The ICC is in the proccess of trying to get copyrighting rights to the program and the formula and then it would of course become interlectual property of the ICC.

Really?  It's pretty much in the public domain now, isn't it?  The tables are available to download in PDF format, and the CODA program is easy enough for scorers to get hold of:

a PC computer program called CODA is available from ASQM Consultancy Unit (D/L) Faculty of Computer Studies & Mathematics University of the West of England Frenchay Bristol BS16 1QY United Kingdom Price £29.95 (plus £1.50 P&P or £2.50 overseas)