sussexpob wrote:Albondiga wrote:Sussexpob.... I just think that umpires are non biased and if they were biased would not be umpires
Yes, but you are talking about an umpire that is not required to also recommend players of potential quality. Once an umpire becomes accountable, even to a tiny extent, for a recommendation or comment on the quality of a player, he has become a stakeholder in his development, and can no longer claim to be an impartial viewer of a match.
In any system you need accountability, or even some kind of incentive for success, whether financial or mere recognition. I fail to see an umpire who would want to make recommendations without some form of benefit, and recent times have shown that all it would take to protect the ECB's coach would be a press release saying... "yeah the guy failed, but that was Umpire X's recommendation".... the public would find out on the source, and this would put pressure on the umpire in question to justify his decision making, and this is not sensible when cross interests are at stake.
From all angles, its a non starter. It works well on paper, but in practice cant work.
You say that I'm talking about an umpire that "" is not required to also recommend players of potential quality "" However I said that they would be able to ""recognise a good player in the making" Is not that the same thing?