Umpires Get Abused For Making Correct Decisions
It is unacceptable for umpires to get abused even when they make a mistake. But when it happens even when they make correct decisions, then some regulatory action is required.
Law 41.7.1 of the Laws of Cricket specifies the following:
41.7 Bowling of dangerous and unfair non-pitching deliveries
41.7.1 Any delivery, which passes or would have passed, without pitching, above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease, is unfair. Whenever such a delivery is bowled, the umpire shall call and signal No ball.
Under this law, the ball shown below is at best a marginal no-ball, if at all. More reasonably, it is not a no-ball. The batter is not “standing upright at the batting crease” - you can see a long forward stride and a collapsed back leg - and even then, the impact is at the level of the right elbow. Further the ball is travelling downwards and it is very unlikely that it “would have passed, without pitching, above waist height of the striker”.
The square leg umpire Mr. Patwardhan is in the perfect position to judge the no ball and reaches the entirely reasonable conclusion that it was a fair delivery.
The correct umpiring decision was made.
In response, angry fans blamed the wrong umpire for an error he didn’t make based on a misreading of the law. It was not Mr. Menon’s decision at the bowler’s end. Further, the option of referring the delivery to the TV umpire for height was unavailable to the umpires on the field under the prevailing rules for referral. The umpires acted correctly even in this respect. Yet, some fans routinely blame umpires for not following rules which do not exist.
An essential fact about umpiring decisions is that unless they can be shown to be incorrect, they have to be considered correct.
The capacity for people to publish nonsense about umpiring, such as the tweet below, which, at the time of writing has been retweeted nearly 2000 times (warning: loud music plays in the video), is a genuine danger to the umpires. This time, at least the tweeter identifies the umpire correctly.
But the implication of the tweet, that Pollard was upset with Mr. Menon, is incorrect. The delivery is correctly ruled to be fair, and Pollard knows it. Bravo notices Pollard’s guard which positions him outside off stump (Pollard’s trigger moves him even further outside off stump. Bravo knows that this gives him extra leeway on the off-side beyond the marker and he uses it. Mr. Menon knows what’s going on and reaches the correct conclusion.
Pollard is not “standing in a normal guard position” (22.1.1.1). Further, it is reasonable to conclude that further movement towards the off-side “brings the ball sufficiently within reach to be able to hit it with a normal cricket stroke”.
Consider the danger to umpires by irresponsible, ignorant tweeters who exploit the excited engagement of partisan fans for traffic. There has to be some way to protect umpires from this abuse. As the IPL grows, the day is not far away when umpires will face the same problems of abuse which football referees face in Europe.