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.
Let's put it this way. Do you agree with the research findings?
If so, what is your explanation for the cause of home bias?
I'm aware that home umpires aren't a thing in the elite panel now. But I want to know what you attribute the research findings to, if not "personal feelings". Because the link was shared to argue that personal feelings do affect umpiring decisions.
If there are no home umpires then personal feelings don't come into do they? Under the current system, in other words, personal feelings don't come into it.
As far as the research is concerned, its not clear that it shows bias. One way to test it would be to do the exact same calculations, but for bowled dismissals instead of LBW dismissals.
Home teams are typically better than visiting teams, and home bowlers are typically better than visiting bowlers (they're more used to the conditions). So them getting more LBWs is not, by itself, notable.
Neutral umpires remove one kind of bias. But if it's demonstrable that this bias exists and influences umpiring decisions, then it shifts the onus of proof upon you to argue that other biases do not influence umpiring decisions. As an umpire, maybe you don't like (or really like) an individual, maybe you're swayed by crowds, maybe you have a history with a team (e.g., Darrell Hair), or maybe you think a team's playing unfair and is getting on your nerves with excessive appealing. There could be several biases. Umpires are human. And that's no euphemism to imply they're bent. It's just a fact.
Also, this is a quote from the research:
One confounding factor is that home teams receive fewer LBWs because of superiority in familiar conditions. If so, the introduction of two neutral umpires may possibly have led to a bias towards away teams should neutral umpires feel pressure to favour away teams. We control for this in the formal analysis in section 4.
They've controlled for a ton of other factors too. Do check it out; I'm sure you'll understand the math better than me.
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.
That paper you share does not say what you say it says. Umpires are neutral in the Elite Panel.
Home bias is a form of "personal tastes or feelings". What else could it be?
There aren't home umpires in the elite panel.
Besides, "bias" is a convenient euphemism the way you use it. What you really mean is that the umpire is bent.
Let's put it this way. Do you agree with the research findings?
If so, what is your explanation for the cause of home bias?
I'm aware that home umpires aren't a thing in the elite panel now. But I want to know what you attribute the research findings to, if not "personal feelings". Because the link was shared to argue that personal feelings do affect umpiring decisions.
If there are no home umpires then personal feelings don't come into do they? Under the current system, in other words, personal feelings don't come into it.
As far as the research is concerned, its not clear that it shows bias. One way to test it would be to do the exact same calculations, but for bowled dismissals instead of LBW dismissals.
Home teams are typically better than visiting teams, and home bowlers are typically better than visiting bowlers (they're more used to the conditions). So them getting more LBWs is not, by itself, notable.
Neutral umpires remove one kind of bias. But if it's demonstrable that this bias exists and influences umpiring decisions, then it shifts the onus of proof upon you to argue that other biases do not influence umpiring decisions. As an umpire, maybe you don't like (or really like) an individual, maybe you're swayed by crowds, maybe you have a history with a team (e.g., Darrell Hair), or maybe you think a team's playing unfair and is getting on your nerves with excessive appealing. There could be several biases. Umpires are human. And that's no euphemism to imply they're bent. It's just a fact.
Also, this is a quote from the research:
One confounding factor is that home teams receive fewer LBWs because of superiority in familiar conditions. If so, the introduction of two neutral umpires may possibly have led to a bias towards away teams should neutral umpires feel pressure to favour away teams. We control for this in the formal analysis in section 4.
They've controlled for a ton of other factors too. Do check it out; I'm sure you'll understand the math better than me.