Junior sports across Australia, from rugby league to cricket suffer from a dearth of umpires.
Umpires, referees, whatever they are called, exist to adjudicate on any rule breaches that might occur, advertently or otherwise. Often match officials command respect and loathing simultaneously. Regardless of whether the decision is correct, all match officials deserve respect if for no other reason than to model the correct way to interact with officials for the junior players.
Match officials do make mistakes. They are human and must accept responsibility for their mistakes, especially if that mistake decides the game. Demonstrating an appreciation of the gravity of their decisions only enhances their standing and respect amongst players in the game.
However, players’ responses to their decisions demonstrate to all watching, especially juniors, how these officials should be treated.
Take the example of Tom Curran who has been banned for four matches for intimidation of an umpire. Viewing the footage, Curran is fortunate he has only lost four matches not more. His foul-mouthed response to the umpire, who was doing his job correctly, is not acceptable in any form of cricket.
Curran’s act exposes a fundamental, growing problem within cricket and sport more widely that officials’ decisions are not the only truth. The batter’s or the bowler’s truth, what they saw, also holds validity.
This problem exists throughout the lower and higher grades regardless of whether the Decision Review System (DRS) exists. The proliferation of this problem comes from a distinct lack of belief in the person standing at the other end or a desire to try to game the system, trying to make the DRS work for them.
International players, those at the elite level who should be role models for those in the lower grades, show dissent at the umpires’ decisions the most. Steve Smith effectively laughed at the umpire’s decision to give him out LBW before reviewing it on Day 1 of the Boxing Day Test.
Smith’s instinct proved correct as ball-tracking showed that the six-stitcher would be missing the stumps entirely and the Decision Review System (DRS) exists to eradicate howlers like Smith’s. However, Smith scoffing at the umpire’s decision thinking the ball would miss the stumps showed a lack of respect towards the umpire. Any young cricketer viewing that would think that laughing at an umpire’s decision must be appropriate if Smith did it.
This type of behaviour reverberates into the lower grades where several players and teams routinely appeal vociferously. Then, upon the call being given not out, they incredulously question why the umpire had the temerity to dismiss their appeal. When a lot of the umpires in the lowest grades of club cricket are unpaid, untrained teammates from the batting side who are simply trying to do their best to make the right calls, that type of behaviour is completely inappropriate.
Respectfully asking questions of umpires at all levels of the games forces umpires to reflect upon their decisions and justify their decision, but often, the bowling side does not accept or will not accept the umpire’s reasoning.
Changing this mindset requires further education of all players and discipline for those who significantly overstep the line, like Tom Curran.
Tom Curran. (Photo by Jason McCawley – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
International players, like Smith, must accept decisions respectfully and if there are questions about the umpire’s decision, then use the means at their disposal to question it respectfully like the DRS. That is the only way to stamp out aberrant behaviour such as Curran’s from the game and to be a role model for junior and lower-grade cricketers.
Curran’s act is worse than it appears because it normalises disrespect for umpires and sets a bad example for junior cricketers. If this mindset does not change, there will continue to be a shortage of umpires in all formats because who would want to willingly subject themselves to judgement by their fellow human beings for something as meaningless as a decision in a sports game?
chaukspp
Roar Rookie
Tom Curran is damn lucky to scrap through with a mild punishment. His disgusting act and later his stupid justification deserved at least ONE year ban from all First class cricket coupled with hefty monetary penalty. His so called remorse and asking for forgiveness came only after he and his team realised they had been caught pants down. World cricket lost an opportunity to redeem itself in showing that the game is greater than few arrogant individuals.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Totally.
Gibbo
Roar Pro
Agree! That Henriques supported him was worse!
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I'm a fence sitter when it comes to this sort of question, Dougie. Painful though it is, I'm not keen to commit because I don't know if I know all the facts, I don't know the politics involved and I also don't know what precedents there are around the world for sentencing guys guilty of this sort of thing (the ICC is really lax when it comes to punishing guys. One game bans for ball tampering, for example). All that said, if the raw vision we've seen is exactly what happened, including the verballing, and if he was playing in my association back in my day, he'd likely have to make a formal apology to the umpire and would sit out the season in that format
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
What happened to the report? Hopefully the association took the right action? I wonder how many other match officials have resigned after similar abuses? Shame stats on this aren't kept.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
And he was one of the umpires who allowed England to swap an old cricket ball for a shiny new cricket ball and in so doing change the course of the match in the recent Ashes series, which enabled England to level series (although Australia still won them away again :happy: ).
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Was it harsh though? Four games for blatantly disregarding the umpire's directive (which was completely valid and reasonable) and worse, deliberately bumping an umpire in a smart-alec fashion, seems a heinously low suspension to me.
Gharner
Roar Rookie
Warner - he of the 'umpire stats should be displayed on screen' after DRS confirmed his dismissal.
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
In NZ 1980 Test for the youngies
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
Colin Croft got nothing for his. I'd be more intimidated by him then the English kiddy
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
They made him Captain of Australia. Its like they never met him
The Late News
Roar Rookie
My retirement was caused by one team calling me a fn cheat after several appeals in a One Day Semi. I just walked off and reported the entire team. The report was lodged before the match was over. If we allow this kind of behaviour then we will never get up and coming umpires. Simple.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Called a wife hey...yep that'll do it!
The Late News
Roar Rookie
As a retired umpire I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. Curran should have been sent packing back to England, not supported by his captain. The captain should have been censured as well.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Good article, Gibbo, especially about the impact on lower grades. Curran’s act was particularly bad, but I’m not sure it’s more corrosive than showing disrespect to umpiring decisions on the field, especially by onfield umps as opposed the TMO. I don’t mind players showing disappointment or bafflement at TMOs who get it wrong - eg when Babar was given out to a decision for the ball touching his gloves about which the TMO had no basis for certainty. Or when great catches are taken close to the ground and TMOs find reasons to say the ball touched the ground before he had control.
Micko
Roar Rookie
By that logic, Smith, Warner & Bancroft wouldn't have got any extra punishment apart from the ICC one-match ban.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I had a similar experience in a finals game a loooong time ago. It just happened that I had to make a swag of lbw decisions (the bloke at the other end didn't make one close call all game!). Every time I'd give a not out call, the mid-off would start mouthing. I finally gave one out, (because he was) and the mid-off really started. After the game, I got his name from the opposition skipper, reported him and fronted an association tribunal - made up of guys I'd either worked with or played against for years. Needless to say the mouth got to sit out a lot of games and the following season, I got thanked by the skipper from that finals match. Didn't stop him from trying to take my head off first ball he bowled at me though. :happy:
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Sorry, DTM, I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other on the length of his suspension. I'm hoping those with way more information than I weighed the evidence, came to an appropriate conclusion and issued an appropriate penalty. I'm much more concerned with how the powers that be came to their decision (what justifications did they use), the responses from Curran and members of his franchise, as well as certain parts of the media. I thought CA justified their ban in very clear terms, but supposed experts are wading in, suggesting it was too harsh because......... they think it's too harsh??? These people completely fail to see the obvious - this punishment has to be harsh to be seen to be protecting match officials.
justin
Roar Rookie
Best article and best comment ever posted on The Roar.
DTM
Roar Rookie
BG, I respect your views but I just don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that the penalty was lenient because "he professed profound sorrow for his actions and begged forgiveness." Surely, he didn't do that before the ban was imposed because they launched an appeal? My understanding of the chronological events is: 1 The crime was committed 2 He was given a 4 match ban 3 The Sixers launched an appeal 4 The captain and some supporters suggested he was harshly dealt with 5 The appeal was denied 6 He expressed remorse - maybe 5 & 6 are back to front? If he expressed remorse at the first hearing (2) that wasn't made public to my knowledge and surely being remorseful is an admission of guilt and if it was done at the first hearing it would've been taken into consideration when the ban was imposed. Personally, I think the Sixers should have been fined for launching an appeal - I'm happy that there was not a heavier penalty for Curran (I think 4 games was about right).