The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Why we need a new umpiring slogan

Usman Khawaja's contentious dismissal in the 2013 Ashes series was a prime example of the pitfalls of the DRS.
Roar Guru
28th June, 2016
16

“The man in white is always right.” No he’s not, he’s never right.

Or he’s only sometimes right. Or he’s only mostly right. But he’s never always right.

So why not abandon the slogan? For all intents and purposes we removed it with the DRS. We need a new slogan.

My preferred slogan is, “it is right that the decision is the umpire’s.”

On July 15th 1945, in the far more important context of bombs dropped on Berlin and perhaps the atomic bombs, American President Harry Truman mused, “I fear that machines are ahead of the morals by some centuries.”

I fear that the machines outpace the morals by a considerable distance on the DRS in cricket as well. But because it is about a much less important topic, my fear is the sort of fear you voice to your mates while sober or half cut, as you talk about what are, in the broader context of the world, lesser problems than what you imagine them to be.

However considering this is the proper forum for such issues, I have no real issue with talking about them.

The DRS, as currently constituted, unnaturally holds up the narrative of the game. It’s like having to read two pages of uninteresting dialogue in a good novel on the basis that it is natural product of the subediting that is needed to make a good novel.

Advertisement

I don’t like it. Yet I understand why it is happening.

Indeed, who couldn’t understand why it is happening? I can’t blame the authorities or umpires for wanting to avoid errors, and if increased reliance on the umpires is the best way to avoid that, then I can understand why they might think, “so be it.” Why allow a glaring error to stand? But there’s a price.

Hands up anyone who likes the spectacle of seeing various replays for up to five minutes of a line ball decision?

Well, since I can’t actually see anyone else, I’ll speak only for myself. My hand definitely isn’t up.

Such delays are bad for the game. And if a decision isn’t so bad that the flaw can’t be seen within a couple of replays, then surely we can live with the original umpire’s decision?

Without overlooking that, the predictive element of the DRS process is cause for concern. Not because I have a problem with the technology, or the people who made it. However, if we are going to keep the idea of the decision of the on-field umpire being paramount, why do we try and provide certainty with the predictive element?

The predictive element was born as a TV gimmick. It has been improved. It will continue to improve. But it will never provide certainty. Only an umpiring artificial intelligence could provide certainty. And no umpiring AI could replicate the character of Ian Gould.

Advertisement

Of course, to provide more Ian Goulds it might be an idea to advance human umpiring. Human umpiring is bolstered every time humans make a decision that is not based on a ball bouncing as though it is a bouncy ball (which has happened a couple of times off Nathan Lyon’s bowling), or makes an LBW decision based on the principle that they could not be sure the ball was hitting the stumps.

It is not bolstered by the support of a decision in which only 49 per cent (or under the new laws 24 per cent) of the ball could be guaranteed to hit the stumps.

It is also not bolstered by a system that encourages players to be something they are not – umpires! I don’t like the idea of Test series being decided by which captain is better at umpiring than other captains.

Michael Clarke and Brendon McCullum often got decisions wrong with the DRS. But I never cared, because they were not the umpires of whatever match they were playing in.

Surely it can be that hard for the third umpire to have an instant replay or two to determine that the umpire has not made an obvious mistake, and leave the players out of it?

The game of cricket has always left the players an option to be de facto umpires of the game, through walking whenever they knew they hit the ball. But the DRS is in a different league, because a player knows if he doesn’t use it when necessary, his team may be disadvantaged.

Since the DRS, what evidence has there been to suggest players are better umpires than the people who are actually paid to be the umpires?

Advertisement

I can’t really think of any. The comments section is a way for people to tell me that I am wrong. Certainly, it does lead to the overturning of some erroneous decisions. But surely the third umpire, rather than a player, can highlight a glaring error.

It is why I earlier proposed my new slogan of, “It is right that the decision is the umpire’s.”

It doesn’t imply umpiring perfection. But it does imply that we respect cricket umpires and respect the fact the decisions should remain within their purview.

close