This question is asked millions of times in every match. It is worded in various ways. Most commonly, it is asked using the words “the law is too vague, it requires a subjective judgment”. Less commonly, it appears in things like advocacy for the soft-signal on low catches to be discarded. In such less common cases, this question has a detrimental effect on the game because rule changes put in place to appease the mob make adjudication more difficult (as was evident in the catch claimed at 1st slip at the SCG today). In 2021,
Agree with the overall sentiment of the piece, but a couple of things.
[Umpires] do not give decisions based on their personal tastes or feelings > Occasionally, they do. There's some evidence in peer-reviewed research: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/86816/3/WRRO_86816.pdf This doesn't make them bad professionals. Biases are part of being human, even though DRS has clearly reduced the chances of biased decision-making. However, even now, you can often see the wheels turning in an umpire's head when they make a decision. E.g., consider a marginal-looking LBW call in the last session of a test match. Let's say the batting team has one wicket remaining and no reviews left, whereas the bowling team has two reviews in the bank. How likely is the umpire to give it out? I'd say the umpire would be clever to forget about their training in that instant and make the decision based on factors unrelated to the only things that should matter in the classical view of umpiring - {impact, pitching, hitting}.
An ambiguous Law is a contradiction in terms > Laws (or at least how they apply to specific situations) are ambiguous all the time. If this weren't true, the world wouldn't need lawyers - judges would be enough for the most part. Ambiguous laws are the reason why amendments are made and why a "helpful clarification" is sometimes required. But... rather than getting into semantics, a better question to ask is - do the laws of cricket cover *everything* that can happen on a cricket field? Clearly, work is still being done in this area. I find it reductive to suggest that the questioning of umpiring decisions is entirely due to the anger of a mob.
Agree with the overall sentiment of the piece, but a couple of things.
[Umpires] do not give decisions based on their personal tastes or feelings > Occasionally, they do. There's some evidence in peer-reviewed research: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/86816/3/WRRO_86816.pdf This doesn't make them bad professionals. Biases are part of being human, even though DRS has clearly reduced the chances of biased decision-making. However, even now, you can often see the wheels turning in an umpire's head when they make a decision. E.g., consider a marginal-looking LBW call in the last session of a test match. Let's say the batting team has one wicket remaining and no reviews left, whereas the bowling team has two reviews in the bank. How likely is the umpire to give it out? I'd say the umpire would be clever to forget about their training in that instant and make the decision based on factors unrelated to the only things that should matter in the classical view of umpiring - {impact, pitching, hitting}.
An ambiguous Law is a contradiction in terms > Laws (or at least how they apply to specific situations) are ambiguous all the time. If this weren't true, the world wouldn't need lawyers - judges would be enough for the most part. Ambiguous laws are the reason why amendments are made and why a "helpful clarification" is sometimes required. But... rather than getting into semantics, a better question to ask is - do the laws of cricket cover *everything* that can happen on a cricket field? Clearly, work is still being done in this area. I find it reductive to suggest that the questioning of umpiring decisions is entirely due to the anger of a mob.