Yesterday, Australia beat India in the second test cricket match to equal the world record set by Steve Waugh's team for the highest number (16) of consecutive test wins. However, this test match will be known more for the horrible mistakes the umpires did rather than for equaling the world record. There were mistakes from start to end at crucial points in the game and almost all were given in favor of the home team. All decisions had a crucial impact on the final result of the game.
Was it just India's bad luck? Was it just a coincidence that not one, not two, not even three, but about half a dozen crucial decisions went against India at most crucial times or is there something sinister?
This is not the first time this has happened in matches involving Australia and this is not the first time this question has been raised. In 2005, when Pakistan played Australia, Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer said "close decisions 'went 29-5 against us" - cricinfo.
What really is happening here. This is an attempt to analyze this from a neutral point of view:
Reason 1: Umpires are also human.There will be odd mistakes, but eventually they even out.
This is obvious. Umpires, who are also human beings, do make mistakes. However, it does not explain why all the mistakes help one team only. If this happened in only one series in Australia, this theory may be believable. However, this has been a fact rather than the exception with international cricket matches in Australia in recent years.Probability of this being the reason: 1/5
Reason 2: Match fixing.
Match fixing has happened in cricket and there are a few infamous incidents. However, all these cases involved players and not umpires. There is no evidence to suggest that umpires are involved in match fixing. Although we cannot eliminate this reason, it's extremely unlikely that it is the cause of what we see happen in Australia.Probability of this being the reason: 0/5
Reason 3: Pressure from crowd and media
Umpires no doubt must face the pressure from the host country's crowds and media. This is true for any umpire anywhere in the world. Imagine the pressure on an umpire who's required to make a tight decision concerning a local favorite player in front of 50000 fans. Who will get the benefit of the doubt? The batsman or the local player? This may have played a part in what happens in Australia. However why only Australia? Why not in India or Pakistan? Where the crowds are more passionate about the game?Probability of this being the reason: 1/5
Reason 4: Umpires having personal grudges against certain teams
There's a lot of discussion in forums on this topic following what happened in Australia as one of the umpires is believed to have given a lot of bad decisions against Indian (and sub continent) teams. We cannot completely eliminate this reason. However, in this age where umpires are under the microscope more than ever in history, they will be putting their careers in jeopardy, if they give way to personal grudges when making decisions in the middle.Probability of this being the reason: 1/5
Reason 5: Umpires' minds being manipulated by the body language of the Australian cricketers
Australian cricket teams are well known for mind games. They are mentally strong and play with the minds of the opposing players. They're the masters of sledging and no one can match them. There's no doubt that their mind games have contributed to their success. However, have they also started systematically playing with the umpires' minds? Can any other reason explain what happened yesterday at Sydney? Did the Australian players created an environment in which they made the umpires make decisions in their favor?Bob Woolmer believed this happens with Australian players.
"Woolmer said Australia were very good at appealing, and that the adjudicators had pressure applied from the players and the crowd. "Umpires are not cheats," he told the newspaper. "I would never accuse them of that. The way the Australians appeal and the way the crowd supports them creates subconscious pressure on umpires and it shows. People can say an umpire gives a decision on what he sees rather than the appeals, but I disagree. The appeal is very much a part of it. It is a very fine line.
Woolmer said he was looking at ways to improve Pakistan's appealing. "Even if that means training at it," he said. "Maybe we need to appeal only when we are certain it is out and appeal very strongly. There are also ways of conducting yourself when you are batting to get the message across to an umpire that an appeal against you is not out. We must look at that as well." - cricinfo
All this was seen yesterday at Sydney. Michael Clarke probably overdid the acting when he stood ground after being caught at slip and Ponting's appeal for a catch where the ball clearly hit the ground is another indicator of this.
Can all these be random behavior or is manipulating umpires' minds, a part of their secret strategy? Only time will tell but there will no doubt be more scrutiny following yesterday's infamous match.
Probability of this being the reason: 4/5
