The umpire strikes out
Sunday Star Times
Relevant offers
Opinion
Who would possibly want to be a cricket umpire these days? If you're covered by the game's new provisions you invite humiliation from a multi-million dollar video replay machine; if you operate under the old rules you leave yourself open to widespread public ridicule. Unsafe working environment? It's a wonder the Occupational Health and Safety folk haven't become involved.
Take the case of Indian umpire Amiesh Saheba, who began standing in his debut test at Dunedin last Thursday. Under the new referral rules, he was obliged to make the bulk of his decisions on the basis of solely what he could see or hear. That is, he wasn't allowed to call for third umpire assistance; only the players were extended that privilege. If they disagreed with any of his decisions, they could request a technological review. Talk about hanging a bloke out to dry.
Saheba's low point duly arrived on the first day after he turned down an lbw appeal from Chris Gayle against Daniel Flynn. The decision was challenged and, after a raft of slow-motion replays from all angles and an earnest conversation between third-umpire Rudi Koertzen and Saheba, reversed. A triumph for the game, perhaps, but just another slap in the face for the umpires. It can't be long before we start digitally transposing "kick me" signs on their pants, and dunces' hats on their heads.
Not that there's any fault with the new referral system. If anything, the concept of offering the players some input into the decision-making process has already proved its mettle, prompting glowing reports during India's tour of Sri Lanka earlier in the year. As a last resort in preventing the absurdity of recent decades (in which anyone with a television set would find themselves at a distinct advantage to the standing umpire) the venture has been long overdue.
Trouble is, as long as the bowlers' end umpire is still expected to adjudicate on the basis of his human limitations first, without the benefit of any technological assistance, the referral system is likely to be used less as a last resort and more as a first port of call. There will be challenges for Africa. The square-leg umpire is entitled to request immediate third-party help for run-out or stumping decisions, but his partner is forced to guess about lbws and caught-behinds first and, often, swallow his pride second.
The biggest anomaly? That would have to be the fact that, although Flynn was shown to be out last week on the evidence of video-replays, umpire Saheba was utterly correct to extend him the benefit of the doubt on the basis that he wasn't certain. Such a ruling is one of the fundamental planks of the game, after all. If there is doubt, it must go to the batsman.
Saheba wasn't allowed to consult the third umpire; he was clearly in doubt, therefore he made the right call.
It doesn't take much head- scratching to realise that, if cricket chiefs really want to reintroduce an element of credibility to officiating, it would make much more sense to simply allow the bowlers' end umpires to call for video assistance whenever they felt the need. In an environment in which the benefit of the doubt has now been replaced by a forensic audit, the umpires at least deserve the opportunity to refer the close-calls upstairs themselves. Forcing them to guess first is simply perverse.
As for protests that this would lead to interminable stoppages and slow the game down, who are these people trying to kid? This is cricket, after all. Robin Williams described it as "baseball on Valium". Groucho Marx once watched a match for two days before asking when it was scheduled to start. To most, the great game is just one big, long, stoppage, punctuated by some rare moments of activity. Few sports are as suited to technological scrutiny. And anyway, the idea that the challenge system will guarantee correct decision-making without flooding the game with technological inquiries is indeed as dubious as it sounds. During the first trial of the scheme in July, when Sri Lanka hosted India for three tests, there were 48 referrals. Given India succeeded with just one from 19, it's difficult to imagine that the standing umpires could be any more reckless with the privilege than the players have been already.
Another contradiction surrounds the three-strikes-and-you're-out regulation, which removes from a team the right to challenge an umpire's decision after a trio of unsuccessful referrals in any one innings. That is, once a side has lost that right, we all revert back to the bad ol' days where umpires will still be prohibited from using video replays, players will not be allowed to request reviews, and almost certainly, incorrect decisions will be allowed to stand. For an initiative that's all about improving accuracy, this makes little sense.
For all that, the referral system is still a clear and welcomed step in the right direction. If anyone doubts this they should catch up with the latest story on New Zealand umpire Billy Bowden, at present standing in the first test between India and England at Chennai. The Auckland official, who incorrectly judged Paul Collingwood had been caught off his bat and pad in the first innings, has been accused of everything from negligence to incompetence. Anyone with access to a television has been able to have a laugh at his expense.
The opportunity for Collingwood to challenge the decision would at least have righted an obvious wrong. The game wouldn't have looked so preposterous, and neither would have our Billy. Or maybe that's going too far. Whatever the case, the need to provide the bowlers' end umpires with full access to technology has never seemed as obvious, or as pressing. It's time for cricket chiefs to accept that the referral system is a safety net; nothing more, nothing less.
The more it needs to be employed, the bigger the indictment of the overall process.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Football is currently going through a similar technology argument. One of the concerns is that it will create a two-tier system. Who gets to use the technology? Just international teams? What about Namibia v Nepal in WC Qualifying? Would it also be available for Otago v ND at Alexandra? What about Burnside v Sydenham?
I'm not saying it's bad, just that there are lots of issues to work through.
I'm with Wayne and Scott on this one - I think the referral system strikes a pretty good balance between allowing decisions to be made and play to continue while still providing the chance to correct decisions that are obviously wrong. While from time to time you see an umpire that has a real shocker of a match and makes a number of mistakes the umpires who are standing at test level get it right most of the time. It will often be the "benefit of the doubt" decisions that the fielding side will challenge and I think we'll find over time that these will go about 50/50. As previous posts have said, this is no reflection on the umpire - it's just a recognition that they are humans and make mistakes.
It makes sense that the umpires are allowed to call for help on run-outs and stumpings - because there is a line involved these are (usually)pretty clear cut and I can tell you from having been an umprire for a couple of seasons, the close ones are not easy when you've only get to see it once at full speed! Some of the other calls, especially LBW require the umpire to use judgement. Really the only thing the technology does is give the third umpire a few extra looks at a slower speed - at the end of the day it will often still come down to a judgement call.
The one change I would like to see is some retention of the "benefit of the doubt" concept. I understand that the NFL have a policy that any replay must be sufficiently conclusive to warrant changing the ruling made on the field. Translating this to cricket, if the third umpire can't make a clear decision based on seeing a couple of different angles a maximum of, say, a couple of times each, then it's "benefit of the doubt" time and the decision is "not out"
I would say that both Wayne and Scott are the only commenters here who have actually played the game.
The solution is easy - open the ICC coffers and pay umpires more, and invest more money (perhaps the millions of US dollars sent to Zimbabwe) in training efficient umpires. Rotate your umpires each session. You have three, so why not give one a rest in the third umpire box each session? That will prevent fatigue which is the major cause of poor decisions.
Also, lets dispose of the "neutral umpires" system. Go back to one local and one visiting umpire. The local guy has local knowledge about pitch bounce and other traits that will help the other guys make correct decisions.
Cricket is a great game made up of mistakes. Bowlers can make a mistake by bowling a wide or a no ball or not bowling to their field. A batsman can make a mistake by playing the wrong line, or misjudging a single. A fielder can make a mistake by misjudging a skier.
An umpire however, apparently, cannot. The great umpires of the past did very well thanks without the technology (as I have recently seen on some old Australia Cricket re-runs) and got the majority of the decisions adequatley correct.
I just don't get it when players/captains come out against the use of technology, such as this. I agree the process must be sped up, but to leave the "human" element in the game in this day and age is patently absurd.
For example, how many inside edges are missed on LBW decisions?
Surely, surely, surely the main aim must be to get it right!
you know this referral system is a good thing for the game of cricket, it is going to strike a true balance between teams in the cricketing world,not the kind of vague balance that the ICC puts on a points system that makes Australia believe that even if they are beaten by SA that they should still be the number one team in the world.At least what it should do is give us some sound decisions and a more true result to International games.
#4 posted by David Austin-7:32 pm / Monday, 15 December 2008.
I agree with Wayne and disagree with Richard. I think umpires have a very difficult job. They only get to look at it once while everyone else has the benefit of endless replays and other technologies such as snicko. The umpires do not look bad. They are doing their best in very difficult situations. I would like our newspaper reporters, in any sport, to support the umpires and referees. I find the anti-authority, anti-umpire bias of many journalists to be very tiresome and ultimately bad for the game.
Hi Richard,
Sorry to say I disagree with pretty much everything you have written. My reasoning can be seen by reflecting on the answer to a simple question - how often do umpires rule on run outs without referring the decision? My answer is that they do not even bother watching any more, they just refer any instance where the bails come off to the TV umpire.
Giving umpires 'easy mode' encourages poor officiating. If they have the facility, then the benefit of the doubt shifts to the umpire. Rather than saying 'I'm not 100% certain you are out, so you stay in' the statement is 'If I get this wrong there is no excuse so I am referring it'. This can already be seen in rugby where most tries are referred and the video ref rules broken in an effort to avoid any responsibility.
Rather than Daniel Flynn's dismissal being the low point of Saheba's debut, it should be regarded as the high point. He got the ruling on a very tough appeal dead right. You view the umpire as being right or wrong where I see him doing his job or not. He did his job well, irrespective of the result - no miscarriage of justice would have occurred had Flynn not been dismissed.
Finally, I agree with the 3 strikes policy. Pointing out that India were hopeless with their appeals reinforced my agreement. If they misuse the system, they leave themselves open to poor decision later on. Without it, every batsman would appeal every decision. Clean bowled? Better make sure it wasn't a no ball, or that there weren't 12 fielders etc etc.
I like the system and hope it stays.
For the past few seasons the NFL has been using the challenge system where a coach can throw their red flag and an onfield decision is reviewed. This season they've extended that system whereby any 50/50 decision is automatically reviewed in the final 2 minutes of a half. If ever there was a sport that didn't need more stoppages, American football is it, however, the system works well and everyone is satisfied as it removes the doubt, the 'what-ifs' and the controversy of poor decisions. Now you might argue that this is what makes sport so appealing, especially if you are a sports reporter, but in the words of John McEnroe, "If you have the tecnology, why not use it?" LBW decisions are still subjective, but when you have hawkeye, the knick-o-meter, the 15 camera angles etc, use it! Let the umpire give their benefit of the doubt and if they are proven wrong, so be it. It isn't a reflection of their ability but a reflection of their limitations as human beings, and this is how we should view it, just like the NFL and rugby league do.
Triple treat cashes up ailing NZRU
All Whites squad to divvy up $4m
Caddie Steve Williams confident of luring Tiger
Fans warned over 2010 ticket ripoffs
Kicking off World Cup campaign
'Mad Dog' after another All Blacks scalp
All Blacks wary of loading English gun
World Cup party's over for Phoenix
European football match-fixing ring exposed
Bitter MP seeks reconciliation
Police dob in drink driver to Air NZ
Lawyer backs down over drink-drive website
Triple treat cashes up ailing NZRU
Sleepwalker found not guilty of wife's death
World Cup party's over for Phoenix
Oprah says ending show 'feels right'
Police officer killed as floods devastate UK
Miley Cyrus tour bus overturns, one dead
European football match-fixing ring exposed
I don't even understand why we have umpires any more. All they represent is an opportunity for the wrong decision to be made. Have someone out in the middle, but he should hjust be there to monitor sledgind and hold the bowler's hat while 3 umpires sit in the tv room making all the calls. So we lose 2 overs a day... would rather do that and have Steve Waugh back in the paviolion than watching him bat on for another 3 hours when he should have clearly been given.
Get the decisions right. These are players getting paid thousand and thousands of dollars, sponsors paying mega bucks to get their brand recognised and tv networks bidding millions for viewing rights... and after a match where you know the result was not a fair representation of how the teams performed it feels like a kcik int he guts.. not to mention a waste of 5 days. It's not about the time it might take, but about the fact that we absolutley can have the correct decision being made every time.
No more expectations of walking/not walking, no more double centuries that should have ended on 4, no more NB's being missed (especially important in the one day game where every run counts).
It should have happened 10 years ago, and need to happen as soon as possible. But you like the human element, becasue it is part of the beauty of the game right? There is nothing beautiful about being given out caught behind when you missed it by 6 inches. Go to the shopping centres and people-watch if the human element is your passion.