In an unheard of move, the ICC has released their umpire assessments from the first Test and revealed that the umpires were correct 95.8% of the time over the first Test match.
The stats show that 72 decisions were made, 23 decisions more than average in a Test match. The on-field umpires’ decisions were correct 90.3% of the time, with UDRS correctly adjusting 4 decisions.
The ICC release shows that the three decisions that were incorrect were Stuart Broad’s catch, Stuart Broad’s LBW where he did not offer a shot, and Trott’s LBW being given out by the third umpire. Of interesting note to this conversation is the absolute lack of discussion of Broad’s LBW call which happened well before he was given not out at first slip.
Under difficult conditions, a stressful match and a tense finish, these results are a pass mark for the umpires. It also shows that both teams were equally affected by the umpires, and truthfully, the umpiring had very little effect on what was an amazing Test match.
I know many of the parochial supporters of both nations will stand up and say that Rogers should have been given not out or that Agar was actually stumped and shouldn’t have been given the benefit of the doubt. Yet, in the aftermath, we can only argue that the umpires, being human, need to get the obvious decisions right, and we, the supporters of both countries, should take any marginal calls on the chin.
The report concluded by reflecting that the ICC will remain supportive of the umpiring unit for the first Test, and as such I cannot foresee any changes being made to the four-umpire panel over the series. I only hope that this style of information release puts to bed the arguments over the decisions and allows us to enjoy what was an amazing Test match.
Stats credits: http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2013/media-releases/72599/icc-reveals-umpire-assessment-from-trent-bridge-test
Martyn50
Roar Rookie
90% is a damm good percentage. What percentage of balls bowled are bowled to the field and not loose down the leg side or vica versa? Bowlers would be lucky to get 75% let alone 90%. Batsmen miss hits?
Simoc
Guest
No mention of the Agar stumping. The commentators got it wrong yet again. They need a zoom in lens or a call from the umpire. The TV isn't conclusive as was made out. It just on balance looked out. These things are what people talk about as there was no outstanding entertaining batting apart from Agar and only Anderson in the bowling.
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
Genuine mistake? At the end of the day he is a human. Well, I suppose you could assume most mistakes at the level would've been a lack of concentration.
AGB
Guest
"Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics".....I think we can all accept that umpires will not always get it right on marginal calls. What is unclear is what we should think of decisions that are clear cut. How did AD miss the Broad catch to slip? Fatigue, lack of concentration?
rossco
Guest
The article is balanced but many critics miss the point about the umoires. My crticism is about only one of them - Dar. He was awful! Dharmasena did his work very well. I don't think we can say the wrong decisions did not affect the result. Broad had two lives and with the close result his runs were more than important in the win. OK, so maybe Trott may have scored more if given not out - but then again he may have got out next ball. Umpire mistakes do affect results.
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
For the record, I believe it is also includes appeals that had absolutely no chance of every being given out in a million years. Something I considered putting in was that I thouht Dharmasena had a great game.
Jayvan Collins
Roar Pro
Agreed, Chris. I found that being called a mistake interesting. I thought at the time when hawkeye showed it hitting the stumps that you would feel hard done by if given out in such a fashion.
Chris
Guest
The predictive element of Hawkeye has a margin for error. It is not exact by any stretch of the imagination. The only way it can work is to support the umpire's call if it's sufficiently close to be shown to be hitting. Or missing.
Johnny Banter
Roar Rookie
95.8% correct is an enormously misleading figure. This includes decisions on dismissals such as Matt Prior slashing Siddle to point in the first innings, and Agar getting caught at deep mid wicket by Swann. The review of LBW decisions must also be questioned. According to the statement on the ICC website there were 3 decisions that were incorrect and uncorrected - Trott, Broad, Broad. Thinking back to the "umpires call" LBW decisions on Rogers, Watson, and Root - Hawkeye showed each to be JUST clipping leg stump. Two were ruled to be out, one was not out, yet all three decisions have been given the green light. This obviously shows that the review of umpires is not a simple yes/no scenario, but rather a subjective review. In fairness the umpires had a reasonably good game, with the exception of the Trott & Broad incidents. However, the ICC has broken with tradition in releasing the umpire review report which should make us suspicious. Why are they suddenly trying to bluff us with this 95.8% figure?
arbitro storico
Guest
Harry - I can't understand how you could possibly justify the use of the term "awful' to describe the umpiring team's 95.8% correct result. Is your expectation that they should always get every decision right? Do you always get every decision right in your work life? I don't. These blokes are the best on the planet at what they do. Who else would do their job instead? Perfection would be nice, but a tad unrealistic, don't you think? "Bad for cricket"? Dealing with mistakes made - by players and umpires - with grace and purpose has been are part of cricket since the game began.
Chris
Guest
Yes, that's fair enough assessment I think. The Broad lbw one is interesting isn't it? At the time I was astonished to see Hawkeye suggesting it was hitting, and I would doubt that Australia would have reviewed it, it wasn't a huge appeal. And it does raise a philosophical point. Is that an incorrect decision? There was enormous doubt and I can't see how the umpire would have been doing anything other than making an outrageous guess had he given it. That's the last thing we want in the game I'd have said. Of course, if he had given it, then I wouldn't have complained either - I never have much sympathy when batsmen pad up to one that is vaguely near the stumps and they get given. But a couple of examples of guessing happened in England's tour of the UAE, one against Pietersen, one against Younis Khan. The review system upheld the decisions, just, with two umpire's calls showing in each dismissal, and both were miles forward. But it did look like guessing, not a confident assertion of likelihood. The umpires were praised as getting it right at the time, but it left me deeply uneasy in both instances.
Harry from Floreat
Guest
If players can bring the game into disrepute so can umpires. They were awful in a tight game. No one would be worried if the poms won by 100 runs. Fact is they didn't. It's bad for cricket. How many of those 'decisions' in the statistics were leg byes, or byes, or no balls etc?