Umpires are Rubbish. Fact.

I was just about to slate Jos Buttler on facebook for botching a simple run out vs the Netherlands, citing the incident as evidence of why the lad, as good as he is, should not be anywhere near the test team if Matt Prior can score runs at an average of more than 5.

If you haven't seen the incident, the Netherlands batsman (apologies for not knowing his name) was miles of of his ground trying for two in something like the 18th over. The throw came in, and Buttler duly removed the bails, with the batsman so far out that he continued running in the direction of the dug-out without further ado. But wait, the umpires are checking something - there is a suspicion the Buttler knocked the bails of with his elbow before he caught the ball. For those of you sketchy on the laws, if both bails are removed pre-contact of ball with glove, a stump must be removed from the ground to constitute breaking of the wicket. If one bail stays on and then is removed when the keeper has the ball in hand, that's fine.

A couple of replays (or more accurately, the same replay a couple of times) is shown from the square leg position which appear to show, very clearly, the bails being removed before Buttler catches the ball, and it doesn't take long for the 3rd umpire to relate his 'not-out' decision. Shortly after the batsman is called back to resume, another replay from the bowlers position is shown on TV which shows, even more clearly, that only one bail was knocked off, then Buttler caught the ball and got rid of the over. It should have been out.

Now, notwithstanding the fact it it really shouldn't have been an issue if the wicket keeper had been doing his job properly, it gives me something else to write about which should kill at least half an hour: namely, umpiring incompetence in the face of flaw-exposing technology.

This was further illustrated in England's earlier game against Sri Lanka, when a clear catch (as clear as it gets, actually) being given not out because low catches always look dodgy on TV. That's a line that is routinely used by umpires to justify their dodging making a decision. And that's not to mention the 2013 England Ashes series, where there were more DRS-based mistakes than a pre-school spelling test. These errors are compounded by (sometimes) ambiguity over the 'protocol' (think of Trotts first ball lbw, where some of the tech wasn't available because it was being used for another replay) or (always) by bad decisions being paraded in front of the crowd on a massive screen. When you have 20,000+ boozy Englishmen and Aussies gathered in a relatively confined space and stick replays like Usman Khawaja's phantom nick (not out - given out) or Ashton Agar failing to get his foot behind the line (out - given in) in front on them for scrutiny you're simply asking for trouble. Because every single one of those drunken fans, dressed as nuns and cartoon characters, now know themselves to be a superior umpire to the two blokes in the middle and the muppet in charge of the replays. Which is a ridiculous situation and should not be allowed to happen.

You hear a lot about DRS being introduced to 'eliminate the howler'. All well and good, but giving captains more reviews not less means that they will be used tactically, especially in tight situations and especially now that they are reset to 2 after 80 overs in tests. Batsmen have referred nicks they probably got bat on on the off chance that hotspot would show nothing, especially the last recognised batsman with the team at 100/5. And every batsman, EVERY batsman, is going to refer the low catch, given umpires track record with giving benefit of the doubt. Personally, I would like to see a change of policy as far as these are concerned, with the catch assumed to be clean unless you can see it bounce clearly - as in change direction and move up. 90% of these are clean catches that just aren't being given.

Other than that, proposed changes include giving discretion over whether a decision is reviewed or not to the umpires. Hmm. Well that would certainly lend a different dynamic to the situation and it seems to work in rugby, but then how long before they review everything? Umpires would effectively be absolved of responsibility for their decisions, unless limits are imposed on WHAT they can review. So where do you draw the line there? Can you check whether a ball pitched outside leg for an lbw but not have the benefit of the predictive path to see if it would have hit the stumps?

Or - and I'm about to suggest something a bit controversial here so bear with me -  how about simply finding competent umpires? I don't know if you've ever noticed, but nobody ever complains when the umpires get stuff right, it's only when they get it wrong. So the answer, it seems to me, would be to get new umpires, or improve the ones we have, until they get the decisions right. And, lets face it, if 20,000+ pissed up half naked lunatics can tell if a foot's behind the line or not, why can't the sober, extensively trained and experienced umpire watching in high definition at close quarters in the comfort of a van, brew at hand? How hard would it have been to check that second stump angle for Jos Buttler's run out? How difficult would it be to give more benefit of the doubt to the fielder, to use balance of probability rather than working out if the batsman has a straw to clutch at?

Overall I'm a fan of using the technology. It's a constant source of exasperation to me when the most lucrative sport on the planet (i.e. football) refuses to use simple technology not to get more decisions right (and in football, there are no foots-on-the-line. Decisions are far more obvious and work over much wider margins, with the possible exception of tight offsides). But it's far easier for the idiots at FIFA to dig their heals when they can point to these issues as evidence that the tech doesn't work. My point is, the tech DOES work. The people don't, and the ICC should really be doing something about that. So far, their response has been to chuck more reviews at the captains, which simply does not address the root of the problem.


In other news...
England, as I write, are 37-4 chasing 134 against the Netherlands. Speaking as someone who has said, for a while, that I don't think Ashley Giles is the man for the coaching job and that the likes of Moeen Ali and Jos Buttler shouldn't be considered for test selection, I face a moral dilemma as to whether I want England to win or not. 

6 Nations Round-Up

I appreciate I'm a little late on the uptake here, and that there certainly has been more than enough reaction, post-reaction, analysis and verdict giving to render this totally pointless. But by George, I started so I'll finish. I can only offer my not getting back from Rome until early Tuesday morning, and then taking the Wednesday to recover from the most nerve-racking taxi journey of my life, as explanation. Rather than reviewing the games, I'll run through the teams one by one and do my upmost to avoid the blindingly obvious. In ascending order:

Italy

Unlucky not to pick up a win somewhere, the Italians will be disappointed. While it is heartening to see them play with more ambition, the side is clearly a work in early progress, although potential is there. The two new centres showed glimpses, but they did not help themselves with indecision as to their best half-back combination. They need to settle on a 9 and a 10 and then stick by them.

Meanwhile, I can report that the Italians love Sherlock Holmes, do some astonishing pistachio ice cream and would be served very well by banning the selling of flowers by bloody-minded miscreants who don't know the meaning of the word 'no'.

Scotland

New coach Vern Cotter can't come quick enough. There are only so many amusing interviews you can paper over gaping chasms with, and this was the tournament when Scott Johnson's metaphorical platitudes finally stopped washing. Muddled and misguided selections went a long way to helping that happen, with decisions to leave out Kelly Brown, Dave Denton and Richie Gray akin to hunting polar bears with a zippo and a pointy stick when you could have been using a semi-automatic. Otherwise, Scotland simply lacked attacking zeal and have strikingly similar issues at half-back to Italy, which just goes to prove how crucial those two positions are.

Winners of the Alan Titchmarsh award for Soggiest Cabbage Patch.

Wales

Mixed bag for the reigning champions. Anyone who says the Lions tour didn't take a toll is deluded, but that should not excuse some pretty clueless performances against Ireland and England. Tactically, Wales were comprehensively out-thought in Dublin and Rhys Priestland was then given a kicking lesson at Twickenham by Owen Farrell. Sorry to bang on about this, but now that I think about it, the only two teams with a settled first choice 9 and 10 were the two teams that finished top. Neither Priestland nor Biggar is completely convincing and, for whatever reason, Gatland does not seem to like James Hook.

The challenge now is to re-build and refresh. Wales are still a very good side but there is a sense that maybe they have been found out slightly, and Adam Jones and Gethin Jenkins won't be around forever.

France

No one knows how they finished 3rd. France were lucky against England in the first game (and ultimately cost Lancaster's side a Grand Slam) and then failed spectacularly to kick on. The thick fog of denial that prompted Nicholas Mas to storm out of his press conference was to recall certain French football teams of the past, and most observers' surprise at how badly they were playing was equalled only by their surprise that France went into the last game with a shot at the title. As it was, they nearly did England a favour, but then the chronic anti-rugby they have been playing reared it's head and some nutcase chucked it forwards.

With such as the case, the most satisfying aspect for the French will be denying the English the title not once but twice: one by beating them in the first game, and again when they failed to beat Ireland. He did it on purpose.

England

Indisputably one of the two form teams of the championship, although they will face sterner tests next year when they have to play both Wales and Ireland away instead of at Twickenham. The pack is now a bona fide force to be reckoned with and the backs produced the best attacking rugby seen from white shirts in years.

For an England fan, now is the time to start being critical. The side has shown vast improvement since Lancaster took over and has now finished 2nd for 3 years running. Next year, they need to win the 6 Nations, but there is opportunity to set down an even more telling marker. If you can beat the All Blacks in New Zealand, you can beat anyone anywhere. Any sort of victory in the summer will make the world sit up and recognise England as genuine World Cup contenders.

Ireland

No one who knows anything about rugby begrudges Ireland this win, because O'Driscoll deserves it and that is that. Filling his shoes will not be easy, which is a bit of a pain when you consider his knack for unlocking stubborn defences in this tournament. In Joe Schmidt, though, they also have a coach who could make a game plan out of ashes and thin air: he'll come up with something. And Ireland remain a very talented side with players to come back, Sean O'Brien, for example.

With all due respect to Argentina, the Irish may now wish they were going to one of the big three the summer before a World Cup year but, with a relatively easy fixture list you'd back them to at least make the semis. Where they may well play England.

Overall, the best thing about the tournament was it's unpredictability, with 4 teams in it after 3 games. The standard may be better down south, but they'd kill for the 6N history and drama. Probably.

Worst Game: Wales vs France
Scrums were a mess and France played like a club team. At least Italy v Scotland had last-ditch drop-goal drama.

Best Game: England vs Ireland
A non-stop roller coaster of a game that swung one way then the other, with some brilliant rugby played by both sides. What the 6 Nations is all about.

Round 4 Preview

It's been a brilliantly close 6 Nations so far, with 4 teams level on 4 points after 3 games. After this weekend, that 4 will (probably) have been whittled down to at least 3 and possibly 2, depending on how useless the French continue to be (maybe). In a year that has perpetually defied the sagest of predictions it seems almost churlish to carry on, but here we go anyway.

Italy v Ireland

A potentially title-deciding tie if the Irish have their try-scoring hats on, it's very hard to see Joe Schmidts mean slipping up against Italy in Dublin, where they saw off Wales so impressively. While they will have been disappointed not to beat England it's not as if they played badly, and with points difference looking like it might be crucial expect the Irish to come out with all pints of Guinness blazing. Johnny Sexton has been confirmed as fit and starting, which is obviously a boost, and if Peter O'Mahony's absence will be felt at least it's at blindside, not opensi... Sean O'Brien's still injured, is he? Well the breakdowns might be interesting, then. Especially seeing as Parisse always seems to be in several places at once on rugby fields. He's like some sort of bald Michael J Fox.

Italy have been pretty good and extremely unlucky in all their games, especially against Scotland, where a Wilkinson-esque drop-goal in red dead time from Duncan Weir denied them a win that everyone had backed them to get. Though they've not been exactly setting the world alight, they have definitely displayed a greater sense of cohesion amongst the backs and were displaying far more ambition and attacking acumen than Scotland until the two met in Rome. Will their incessant pluckiness be enough to get a result in Dublin? Probably not. Especially with Ireland chasing the title on potential points difference. Did I mention that last bit?

Prediction: Ireland by 14, probably more.

Scotland v France

I could literally write entire blogs on the respective coaches of these two teams, if I a) had the time and b) was a psychologist of some description. I'm not, though, so it would be silly to try and second guess the inner thought processes of two guys who have had far more experience of international rugby than me and have so far exhibited all the selectorial and tactical competence of a knife-wielding baboon being presented with the original manuscript of War and Peace and the pitch for TOWIE before being asked to make a decision. Scott Johnson has, to date, sacked his captain, accused the replacement debutant of naivety, dropped his best ball-carrying forward, left out one of the few world-class players at his disposal, recalled his captain, claimed that black is white, cried wolf, mused on the merits or otherwise of bikinis and replaced the Murrayfield pitch with what appears to be Kendle Mint Cake. I have no idea what Scotland's game plan will be and can not for the life of me muster a prediction as to form, because he's changed a load of his team.

Phillipe St Andre, meanwhile, has thus far played his best player out of position for three years, stuck by a 10 with the game management qualities of a drunk goldfish, complained about the attitude of the French clubs, complained about the attitude of his No. 8, dropped his No. 8, flown in the face of decades of French rugby playing tradition, picked wingers on the basis of their Grandads being a bit handy and replaced the Stade Francais pitch with something that looks suspiciously like Brie. Watching the French last week was like watching a bunch of kids with only a dim grasp of the rules having a bash with blindfolds on. They can't possibly be that bad again, can they? No idea, because he's changed - literally - more than half his team.

Prediction: You're having a laugh, right?

England v Wales

Now we get to it. If we accept - and I am doing - that Ireland are almost certainly going to beat Italy and that the French points tally/being-a-bit-crap all but rules them out, then these two are battling it out for the right to challenge for the Championship. After the leek-handed mauling England suffered last year, they will be out there aiming to choke a few daffodils on a rose bush on their home patch and, if the Ireland game is anything to go by, it will be edge-of-the-seat, finger-chewing stuff. Under Stuart Lancaster, England have gone from absolutely nowhere after the last world cup, to being damn difficult to beat, to suddenly being a force to be reckoned with. The backline looks the most threatening it has since the days of the Wilkinson-Greenwood axis, with Tuilagi still to come back and Owen Farrell continuing to improve.

Wales, on the other hand, started the tournament looking like they'd rather be back in Australia. On the beach. Having a lie down. Cows with tetanus have been observed in more energetic fits of ball-playing. Maybe. Anyway, they were definitely better against France (although they would have done bloody well to lose against that lot) and having Jonathan Davies back means they have a potential right-foot/left-foot midfield kicking option to try and wrong-foot the so-far imperious Mike Brown with. As with Ireland, they travel to Twickenham with a team chock full of experience and game-playing nous attempting to shoot down Englands young guns. With Roiman Poite set to ref Wales will fancy their chances at the scrum, an area England got away with against Ireland by dint of losing the ones they lost deep in Irish territory. They still lost too many.

England will be looking to go out and prove that their pack is far tougher in the loose these days, after the pounding they took in Cardiff. Expect it to be ferocious up front. Actually, England could do worse than watch the Ireland game and maul them into the ground - even Ireland didn't fancy taking on the English at that game. When was the last time you saw a team defend a maul by stepping off? (As a side note: that definitely happened. I tried to find it on a replay of the game but failed and I couldn't be fussed watching the whole thing. The idea is to step everyone back from the maul at the setting up point when the line-out hits the floor - instead of piling defenders in - causing the attacking side to collapse under their own shove against thin air, looking a bit silly in the process. The reason you don't see it is because it's against to so-called 'spirit of the game'. In the incident in question, England kept their shape, walked forward and pulled Ireland into the maul anyway. Trust me.)

Prediction: Reverse mockers worked last time: Wales by 5.