A moral dilemma for an umpire!

[sharmaji]

This is a question asked in an interview in my company. I don't know if this has been discussed before on PP, but here's the question:

In a match, an umpire gives a wrong decision for LBW (gives a batsman not-out when he was clearly out), and it is shown on the big screen that the umpire got it wrong and everyone in the stadium including the players and the umpire himself are upset about the decision.

The next ball, the same batsman gets hit on the pads. The Umpire knows that it is clearly Not out. The bowler and the fielders appeal to the umpire. What should he do?

Should he give the batsman Not Out? Or correct his previous decision by giving the batsman Out?

 

[Ab Fan]

He should give the batsman not out.

Two wrongs don't make right.

 

[Mesozoic]

They should have taken the DRS.

Not umpire's fault. Is it?

 

[sharmaji]

Haha yes, that's the right answer

They should have taken the DRS.

Not umpire's fault. Is it?

 

[sharmaji]

What if that batsman goes on to hit a 100? In the context of the game, that would mean the previous wrong decision had a huge impact, no?

He should give the batsman not out.

Two wrongs don't make right.

 

[Markhor]

You can't correct a bad decision with another bad decision.

That reminds me of how BC Cooray umpired in that infamous 2001 series between England and Sri Lanka.

 

[sharmaji]

Why not? Think about it, would you be ok if you're supporting the fielding team?

You can't correct a bad decision with another bad decision.

That reminds me of how BC Cooray umpired in that infamous 2001 series between England and Sri Lanka.

 

[Itachi]

It's not dilemma. It's work. Mistakes happen.
Its a part and parcel of not only game but life. You just have to make sure that same mistakes doesn't occur twice.

Life isn't fair. Same case for sports.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

This is a question asked in an interview in my company. I don't know if this has been discussed before on PP, but here's the question:

In a match, an umpire gives a wrong decision for LBW (gives a batsman not-out when he was clearly out), and it is shown on the big screen that the umpire got it wrong and everyone in the stadium including the players and the umpire himself are upset about the decision.

The next ball, the same batsman gets hit on the pads. The Umpire knows that it is clearly Not out. The bowler and the fielders appeal to the umpire. What should he do?

Should he give the batsman Not Out? Or correct his previous decision by giving the batsman Out?

I personally did it both ways.
I was umpiring as we had a visiting team from Chicago.
He snicked it and the appeal from all fielders was spontaneous and very strong, but I didn't give him out but felt the mistake.

After a few deliveries, he was struck out side the off stump and above his pads. There was a half hearted appeal by the bowler and I immediately raised my finger.

After the game, he showed me the bruise on his upper thigh and questioned by LBW decision. I said, yeah you were caught behind before that, and we both laughed it off.

 

[sharmaji]

Wow! That is great, I didn't think it would happen in real life. PP never ceases to surprise me.

How do you feel about your decisions, looking back now?

And how do you answer those who say two wrongs don't make it right?

I personally did it both ways.
I was umpiring as we had a visiting team from Chicago.
He snicked it and the appeal from all fielders was spontaneous and very strong, but I didn't give him out but felt the mistake.

After a few deliveries, he was struck out side the off stump and above his pads. There was a half hearted appeal by the bowler and I immediately raised my finger.

After the game, he showed me the bruise on his upper thigh and questioned by LBW decision. I said, yeah you were caught behind before that, and we both laughed it off.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

He should obviously give it not out. This isn't even a debate

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Wow! That is great, I didn't think it would happen in real life. PP never ceases to surprise me.

How do you feel about your decisions, looking back now?

And how do you answer those who say two wrongs don't make it right?

Part of me says, I was guilty for being a bad umpire in the first decision. But then, fixing the first mistake by an intentional mistake which on one hand makes it even worse, but on the other hand, it also gives you an internal and personal satisfaction that you tried to render some sort of justice to both teams.

I think it's more of a person to person choice.

Some umpires may feel sorry after the first mistake and leave it there, while others (not very often) will try to fix it by intentionally making another mistake.

I think the second option is not morally very correct because why should the batsman face the consequences of mistake that you are making intentionally?

In the first appeal, the umpire makes an unintentional mistake, so it's not the batsman's fault.

However, if it's a caught behind, then batsman should've walked by himself to be a good sportsman.

I also have had an incident of a run out.
I was umpiring. It was a semi final but both teams were all friends and from the same community. My batsman had a run out appeal against him. He was given not out by the leg umpire.

But the opposition team got all furious and very, very frustrated. They all gathered around me and said, it's not fair.

From their reactions, I could probably guess that they had a case. These guys were not cheaters.

But I said, I can't see it from non-striker's end. It's the leg umpire's call.
They asked me to consult with the leg umpire who was hell bent to not give it out. But the opposition team wouldn't back off.

So I went to the batsman who is a good friend. And I asked him, look you know very well if you are out or not? And if you are, walk off.

He didn't. And from his demeanor, I felt a sense of guilty consciousness.

Karma hit back and we lost the game. And I was happy about it.

 

[Hyperion66]

There are literally 100s of other jobs that are tougher, require more focus and greater cognitive skills than umpiring. If one can't shrug it of and go about his business then clearly he isn't fit to be an umpire. There is no moral dilemma in the first place, you can not correct an unintentional mistake by deliberately committing another!! A rather poor interview question if anything.

 

[The Viper]

The batsman should be given not out 100%.

You shouldn't allow past blunders to cloud your mind.

 

[Sir Alex]

https://youtu.be/2o60V7KJ-7w

Bucknor gave McMillan not out although a big snick. The big screen showed the mistake.

Next ball, hits his pads and Bucknor gives out immediately. Of course it is debatable it was the right call

 

[Colorblind Genius]

https://youtu.be/2o60V7KJ-7w

Bucknor gave McMillan not out although a big snick. The big screen showed the mistake.

Next ball, hits his pads and Bucknor gives out immediately. Of course it is debatable it was the right call

Yeah that was good one. I liked it.
Umpire's mistake is normal but I think it's fun if once in a while umpire tries to correct it by making an international mistake. It's a not bad thing and supports the fair play where the better team deserves to win.

 

[JaDed]

Yeah he shouldn’t ideally. This is why umpires call makes little sense to me, hopefully we can have umpire goggles soon where he can see the replays immediately and make the decision , cmon automation do it!

Human error makes a lot of difference in sport, esp against two equal level teams.

 

[Caved12]

lol, This reminds of NBA where every game has 5 to 10 make up calls. If there was no drs, then I would like the umpire to correct what he did wrong and balance the game by giving him out on the next ball or whenever he gets an opportunity to do so.

 

[silentkiller187]

You can't correct a bad decision with another bad decision.

That reminds me of how BC Cooray umpired in that infamous 2001 series between England and Sri Lanka.

If the question was asked in a professional interview then this is the answer they were looking for.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

This is a question asked in an interview in my company. I don't know if this has been discussed before on PP, but here's the question:

In a match, an umpire gives a wrong decision for LBW (gives a batsman not-out when he was clearly out), and it is shown on the big screen that the umpire got it wrong and everyone in the stadium including the players and the umpire himself are upset about the decision.

The next ball, the same batsman gets hit on the pads. The Umpire knows that it is clearly Not out. The bowler and the fielders appeal to the umpire. What should he do?

Should he give the batsman Not Out? Or correct his previous decision by giving the batsman Out?

How about if we reverse the scenario when it comes to man vs machine?

Lets say the umpire is 100% sure that it's a plumb LBW (like Tendulkar was against Ajmal in the 2011 WC), and Ian Gould says, he will STILL give it out LBW. But the ball tracking shows it's not out.

Should the umpire try to settle the score with the machine and raise the finger immediately on LBW appeals against such a batsman so that umpire's call goes against him?

I think he should.

 

[ManFan]

How is this a moral dilemma?

If it’s OUT, it’s OUT. If it’s NOT OUT, it’s NOT OUT.

Each ball is judged on its own merit, that’s what an umpire is there to do.

 

[giri26]

Umpires cannot be emotional that way. Mistakes happen and it is human to make one in a game like cricket. If the fielding team did not take the DRS or did not have a review left they are partly to blame as well. The umpire cannot base his future decisions on the one bad one he gave earlier in the day. When DRS wasn't there bad decisions were made in every test, fans and players moaned about it but finally moved on. There is nothing moral about it. It is just their job.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

I can't believe this is even a discussion. Even assuming that DRS isn't in play:

Both times the Umpire is expected to do an honest job: honest to the players, the fans , the game, and himself.

In the first instance he makes a genuine mistake, which everyone is allowed. He is still honest.

In the second instance his decision becomes a wilful, deliberate subversion of the due process, and is a blatant violation of cricketing ethics and morality. The Umpire is dishonest and has cheated everyone - the players, the fans and the game.

If proven that he did it, he should be relieved of all Umpiring duties forever.

There is no 'trying to make up'.

You first made an honest mistake. Then you ended up as a cheat.

No question.