Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

What if you towel out your mouth really thoroughly before you take a chomp at it?

So what happens if someone does it? It’s such a reflexive thing to do, over the course of a 5 day test match someone’s bound to do it without even thinking. Do they change the ball and send him off?

because spit has been banned, by default biting the ball has also been banned, only by default....

Polishing the ball is ball tampering.

I have no issue with a 3rd review per-se DaveJ, it's more-so the messaging - or lack there-of - from the ICC as this being a "temporary" measure, that concerns me re the ICC's attitude towards the authority of its umpires.

Tend to agree, though I’d support an additional DRS as a general principle.

"I’ll bet India would not be thrilled at all about using Aussie umpires," .. and yet there's barely been an Indian on the elite panel for 20 years. To my way of thinking they gave up the right to whinge about home town umpires when they didn't put their own onto the elite panel and subjecting them to all the scrutiny the elites get.

Watto was NEVER really out LBW. Just ask him!

Interesting discussion. I’d like to roll back neutral umpires too. I’m still pissed off that in an Ashes series probably 4 of the best 5 umpires are unavailable. It sort of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. One thing is for sure with 3 DRSs. No opening batsman given out lbw will ever go quietly.

A bit of gaffer tape on one side should be kosher, right? It works in the backyard. As for Kookaburra's wax suggestion, that would be rather amusing - I remember getting an old match ball and working on it sporadically over winter with dubbin, and the results at training the next season were interesting - I could get it to swing in about two feet, and late too.

I absolutely agree that now is the time for ICC to roll back neutral umpires. The concept was introduced with the introduction of the Elite Panel and at that time, there was still a lot of hangover from "the old days" with umpires in the system who had been direct employees of the home country's board and still had that cultural/home bias in-built. Twenty years on and that issue should be well and truly a thing of the past. Last year's Ashes should absolutely be a catalyst for doing away with the need for "neutral" umpires, because they are all neutral, irrespective of country of birth/residency. That's what concerns/confuses me about having to have the 3rd referral. The logic behind it is apparent to me. Some will say that it is the ICC trying to ward off the perception of bias by member nations. To that I would say that the ICC is nothing *but* its members. So if the members are saying there is bias, then the ICC is also saying it. Anyway... Good observation re underlying messaging on status of WC. Perhaps they are looking to the very near term - i.e. next 2 months of matches - but it does seem that if they don't think umpires can travel internationally, then the implication is that players can't either so that would put the WC in question. Which makes the ICC decision a bit odd because in that scenario there are no matches to officiate. Then again, I guess every country has different rules in place. The ICC decision will have certainly been influenced by Australia's border restrictions given how many Australians are on the Elite Panel. There is about a dozen bilateral series scheduled for the next 10 weeks so umpires will be in high demand, assuming these series proceed. It will be interesting to see whether the South Africa team is permitted to travel to Sri Lanka this month and whether the India team is permitted to travel to Sri Lanka next month. Both countries still have a ban on international air departures, so upcoming decisions will give an insight on whether major sports teams will be given travel exemptions by their Governments and by the Government of the host nation (Sri Lanka in this case).

I see it a different way Jeff. It's pretty clear the reason for introducing neutral umpires were concerns about hometown bias and questions over the quality of officials from some nations. At that time it perhaps made sense, given the lack of reasonably accurate technology to show whether umpires were biased, were making good or bad decisions, etc. We've now got okay technology in place and it's now a chance for the ICC to roll back it's stance on neutral umpires, for exactly the reasons you've outlined in your first two paragraphs. I'm hoping this will be a first step in that direction. I also think the ICC has a real problem with it's elite panel which was highlighted in last years Ashes. Both England & Australia have excellent umpires IMO, but they make up 7 of 12 spots. Joel Wilson shouldn't be there IMO and Aleem Dar has well & truly reached his "use by" date, which leaves only 3 others. This new approach allows the best umpires to be used, regardless where they come from. I vaguely recall some comment during the Ashes last year from the Aussie camp that they'd have been happy with Pommie umpires, given some of the decision making from guys like Dar. On a separate but related issue, I wonder if this neutral umpires thing is a tacit admission the World Cup won't go ahead any time soon?

Sure, but the decision isn't just about Australian umpires in Australia. If not about quality of umpiring, then it's about bias - an even worse "slander" on the authority of the umpire taking the field. These umpires are employees of the ICC and neutral, not the Board of their home country as they once were, so if the ICC and its members can't accept that as being the case (i.e. neutrality), then the concept of the ICC really is in trouble. If the decision was made on either bias or quality issues, all it is doing IMO is eroding the authority of the umpire.

I don't think it takes away the perception of home town bias, but it's a compromise. I'll bet India would not be thrilled at all about using Aussie umpires,so this can help sooth any concerns. It's interesting because Indian has not been keen on DRS at all, preferring to go with what the umpire decides. I don't think quality decision making should be an issue. I rate the Aussie umpires pretty highly and I think the players do too. Now if Aleem Dar was in the mix???

yeah,nah, not sure either Jeff, but I don't have an issue with an extra review, especially in the shorter forms of the game. I'm guessing the extra umpire thing is a bit of India/Australia issue. There are 4 Australians on the elite umpires panel and if some or all of them have to be used in the next Test series this coming summer ( due to travel restrictions),there's an extra review to offset any possible bias they might have. Again, I'm only guessing that's the reason, but it makes sense given the likely need to use them and not other neutral umpires, who may not be able to get to Australia

That’s certainly another view as to reasoning behind the decision DJM – “home bias” vs “lower-quality”. But if both teams get 3 reviews each, how does it improve the “disadvantage of home bias” perceived by the visiting team? I’m still convinced it’s a decision based on reacting to perceived reduced quality of umpiring, but most happy to be convinced to another viewpoint. But there lies another problem – what exactly is the ICC reasoning behind the decision? Now, I must admit I’ve not researched this in any way and am relying just on the facts presented in this article; it may well be there is a more comprehensive ICC statement addressing reasoning, but the past opaque nature of ICC explanations behind decisions leaves me, sadly, skeptical as to there being a clear message/approach underpinning this particular ICC directive.

I don’t see it like that Jeff. I think they’re adding to the DRS reviews to stop, as far as possible, the visiting teams whinging about home town umpiring.

I have no idea what that 3rd DRS review as an "interim measure" is about Paul.

Hmmm....Because Elite Panel umpires may not be available, local - but still international panel quality - will be used. As a consequence, a third DRS review per innings will be permitted as an interim measure. So essentially the message is "these umpires are likely to be error prone so we'll compensate the teams accordingly". Well, good luck to the umpires heading out onto the field to exercise authority and control of the game whilst at the same time having one hand tied behind their back. What bizarre messaging from the ICC, assuming this article is passing through all relevant information.

It's a tad scary but every suggestion mentioned in this piece from this committee is either sound common sense, a good idea or both