By AAP
January 16th 2008 @ 7:27am
Bucknor disappointed to be dumped from Aust-India series
Embattled cricket umpire Steve Bucknor has expressed disappointment at being dumped for the third Test between Australia and India in Perth after making “only two wrong decisions” in Sydney.
The 61-year-old Jamaican veteran of 120 Tests was axed from the series by the International Cricket Council (ICC) after India complained about the umpiring in their controversial second Test loss at the SCG.
ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed acknowledged when dropping Bucknor last week that it was a move borne of “extraordinary circumstances” and taken to alleviate some of the tension after the match, which ended in acrimony and with India threatening to call off the tour after Harbajhan Singh was suspended for a racist comment.
“I am disappointed that I am not continuing the tour between Australia and India, in Australia. But I respect ICC’s authority in the matter,” Bucknor said today in a statement e-mailed from his home in Montego Bay.
“To err is human, to forgive divine, as the old saying goes. However, I consider it a sad day to see umpires sidelined after making only two wrong decisions out of a record of 35 appeals.”
Bucknor was involved in two much-criticised wrong decisions that went against India.
He ruled that Symonds was not out on 30 on the first day, enabling the Australian to hit a career-high 162 in the first innings. Symonds later admitted he nicked the ball to the wicketkeeper.
On the last day, Symonds appealed for a caught behind decision against Rahul Dravid and Bucknor ruled the Indian opener out off a ball that hit his pad.
Bucknor, the most experienced Test umpire on the ICC Elite Panel, made a quiet return home to Jamaica over the weekend, managing to elude the glare of the local press and a group that had planned to meet him at the airport to show their support for him.
The 61 year-old Bucknor, a former FIFA referee, whose contract runs out in March has had a glittering cricket career, setting several records including standing in 120 Tests and five straight ICC Cricket World Cup finals including the most recent hosted by the West Indies.
Speed said last week the standing down of Bucknor did not mean he had umpired his last Test.
“I expect that Steve will continue as an ICC elite panel umpire,” Speed said.
“He’s coming to the end of his career and it’s been a very illustrious career with lots of high-profile matches.
“What we’re seeking to do here is to take some tension out of the situation.
“Steve’s continued presence had become an issue. Steve accepts that in order for us to move forward this is the best course.”
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(2)
Yes MC has his agenda, which is pretty clear…but in reality it’s more about what we think as a culture(s) as the world becomes more and more heavily globalised. The tedency with basically everything is to call...
Because countries that are not so warm to the idea of a global way of doing everything, generally the smaller and more peripheral nations (which is both of our...
Loading ...
Stoffy said | January 16th 2008 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Terrible decision, Bucknoor out for Bowden?
Billy Bowden is the worst umpire out there, Bucknoor had one bad game, Billy has too many. Bucknoor shows none of his 61 year age, yes he had a shocker last test as did Benson but the fact of the matter is overall Bucknoor possess better skills to do the job then Bowden.
smale said | January 16th 2008 @ 9:39am | Report comment
A fair resolution: 1) declare the second test between Australia and India played at Sydney during January 2 – 6, 2008 to be NULL and VOID on legal grounds, 2) cancel the ban on Harbhajan Singh, but punish him along with Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark and Brad Hogg for conduct unbecoming of players of test cricket, and of representatives of their countries.
Explanation: The umpires officiating for the test match (Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor) and the captains (Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble) of the two playing sides have some legal grounds to enter into an oral agreement about umpiring decisions that AUGMENTS the ICC rules which provide for the umpires’ current decision making capabilities. However, under no circumstances do they have the jurisdiction to enter into an agreement between themselves that SUBVERTS the current rules of the ICC. To make this point clear, consider the incident involving Saurav Ganguly’s dismissal in his second innings. Ganguly (a left-hander) had nicked a ball, and the ball was supposedly caught by Michael Clarke in the slip position. Under normal circumstances, if the fielder (Clarke) was not in the direct line of sight of the umpire (Benson), or if the umpire was not sure if the catch was clean, he would consult the square leg umpire (Bucknor). If the square leg umpire also could not deliver a clear verdict, then the third umpire, who has the benefit of the TV replays, is referred to. This is the procedure for determining the dismissal of the batsman, as provided by the rules of the ICC.
Now, there is definitely the possibility that, when the third umpire is called in, the TV replays also could not determine the verdict clearly. This might be the case, for example, if the TV cameras could not provide the complete information on the position and the movement of the ball and the fielder during the catch. Currently, in international cricket, the batsman is usually given the benefit of the doubt, if the third umpire also could not reach a clear verdict. In this second test match, if the captains and the umpires, in this particular situation (where the third umpire is inconclusive), had agreed that to resolve the ambiguity in a more transparent manner, they would take the word of the fielder who caught the ball (to be conveyed to the umpires through the captain of the fielding side), then they are on a relatively strong legal ground. However, in the case of Ganguly’s dismissal, the umpire, Benson, decided to directly ask the captain of the fielding side, rather than first ask the square leg umpire and the third umpire. Thus his action amounts to subverting the decision process provided by the ICC rules. At this point, perhaps it is worth interjecting that there is no need to ascribe any sinister motives to the umpire. He must have simply gone by the earlier ‘Gentlemen’s agreement’, and possibly, he might not have understood the legal implications of his actions. Also, it is worth explaining the seriousness of this issue with an example here. In a game of cricket, if the umpires and the captains, on their own, could make agreements that subvert the ICC rules, then there is no guarantee that what is played at the venue is cricket. Just imagine, years later, the record books would specify a certain result, but what happened on the field, might be a game of gilli-danda, or football, for that matter! Thus it is very important to understand that the umpires and captains can only augment the decision making procedure provided by the ICC rules for the purpose of transparency, but they can never subvert the ICC rules. If they do, it could not be considered a game of cricket. Thus, the second test match between Australia and India played at Sydney, Australia during January 2 – 6, 2008 is NULL and VOID on legal grounds.
Note that this legal implication is also a happy consequence for all fair-minded followers of the game. Australia would still have the chance to go for their 17 straight test wins if they won the remaining test matches at Perth and Adelaide. Moreover, this would nullify the accusations of cheating that the Australian team has been hearing from many of their own countrymen. On the other hand, for India, they could still win the Border-Gavaskar trophy if they won the remaining two tests. Moreover, for Cricket Australia, BCCI, ICC and the media, the fact that the series is still undecided and kicking, would mean more revenue, and hence a welcome resolution. Thus this is the best outcomes for all parties involved.
(The grounds for my conclusions on the Harbhajan Singh ban, and punishing Singh, Symonds, Clarke, and Hogg will be explained later, in a subsequent article).