Whenever you go to a party or social gathering in summer, the topic of cricket invariably crops up. Not so much the wonderful batting, deadly bowling or spectacular catching, but umpiring controversies.
“Did you see Matthew Hayden was given out wrongly during the Bangluru Test?”, an Aussie supporter laments. “And Sourav Ganguly was clearly stumped at 29, but given not out and he went on to score a century in the Mohali Test.”
“Ha,” contradicts an India-lover. “But did you see that Rahul Dravid was distinctly not out and given out while Ricky Ponting was out and the umpire remained silent?”
Being middle of the road – born in India, but having lived longer in Australia – I try to convince the warring group as to how difficult it is for the umpires to give a decision within seconds.
The commentators see the replay more than ten times and criticise the umpires.
Sometimes, they contradict each other, and even themselves.
At times even Snick-o-metre and Hawke-eye don’t see eye-to-eye. And the viewers believe what they want to believe: Ponting given wrongly out if you are an Australian supporter, Ponting declared wrongly not-out if you come from the opposing country.
That said, here are some rules I want to see changed:
1. Umpires should be allowed to get more help from technology. Never mind if it slows down the game.
2. Until the umpires are able to use Snicko-metre, hawk-eye and replays, the commentators should not be allowed to use these aids.
3. If bowlers and fielders can appeal, why can’t the batsman if he is sure he has been given out wrongly? However, like challenges in major tennis tournaments, there should be limits to appeals by a batsman.
4. No runs should be given for leg-byes. Face it, the batsman was beaten. Why should his team be rewarded for it and the wicket-keeper penalised?
5. Imagine this scenario. A fielder stops a ball brilliantly and throws in one action, breaking the stumps from a long distance. The batsman is just in. But the throw ricochets and batsmen run for the overthrow. Nice way to award a fielder for his brilliance!! No runs after a ricochet, I say.
6. As we know, a ball pitched outside the leg stump – even fractionally – means that the batsman cannot be given out lbw. The commentators can easily tell because electronically the area from off stump to off-stump on both ends and the area from leg stump to leg stump on both ends are shaded in brown for replays. Umpires have no such facility. Why can’t such areas be actually coloured light brown on the pitch for the umpires to visualize and thus give spot on decisions.
Until such aids are given to the umpires, I’ll never criticise an umpire.
But the ICC should periodically test international umpires for their eye-sight, hearing, knowledge of the rules and for their mental faculties.
Just as a sportsman who performs poorly consistently is dropped, so should an umpire who gives howlers.
sheek
Guest
Isn't the time delay in bowling overs due to TV ads between overs?!?!?!?!?!
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Pleased that my story evoked so much response. The thrust of my story was that commentators get aids (replays galore, snicko, hawk-eye etc) which the umpires don't. The commentators go on and on with these and the umpires are made to look silly. It's unfair. If the umps don't get these aids, perhaps a pocket TV -- too futuristic?? -- or right to refer to the third umpire, commentators should not be allowed to use these aids more than once. The appreciation of cricket suffers. As I wrote in the beginning of my story, TV viewers hardly discuss a good shot / innings / a well-disguised wrong'un /a diving catch but go on and on about "Did you see Ponting was given out wrongly" or "Ganguly was given not out when out" or "Dravid was not out but given out wrongly by the same umpire again." Every TV viewer has become an expert these days and the umpires are made to look fools at best and villains at worst. But they know more about rules than all the viewers put together. Howzzatt?
Rowdy
Guest
Spiro, a couple of decades ago, WI were bowling 12-13 overs an hour, so slow over rates are nothing new. An extra hour may work in Australia, but might be tricky in England, where an earlier start means encountering possibly soaking dew and finishing later menas hitting bad light (and no, floodlights wouldn't help, as they make no difference in our twilight). I agree with less time for lunch though - now that Mike Gatting's retired there's no need for 40 minutes break. I can see your point wrt allowing LBW where there is bat contact, but this then gives no credit to the batsman for attempting to play the ball. Maybe we need some ELVs to drag our game into the 21st century where entertainment and frenetic action mean a better game - one-hand, one-bounce catches ? Limit bowlers' run-ups ? Make the stumps bigger ?
Spiro Zavos
Expert
All of Kersi's suggestions make sense to me. There was a terrible decision, for instance, in the Bangladesh-NZ Test where a batsman (McCallum) lwas given out when the ball was clearly pitched outside the leg-stump. There has to be some mechanism to redress this type of mistake, aside from banishing the umpire from Test cricket. Kersi's suggestions go a long way to doing this. I would also allow for LBW if the ball hits the bat and then hits the pads in line. The logic of this change can't be denied and it would help umpires in those tricky decisions when they have to decide whether there was a slight edge before the ball cannoned into the stumps. The lost time with adjudications would be made up by preventing batsmen from having mid-wicket chats between overs. These chats are the single most important reason why the over rates in Tests are now below 90 overs a day when a couple of decades ago they were at 120 overs a day. Also the Test day could be lengthened with an extra hour to get in overs not bowled by having only 20 minutes for lunch. So that there would be two breaks in the day of 20 minutes only. I know this is straying a bit from Kersi's original posting but it is part of the overall concept of making cricket a fairer game by ensuring more play and greater clarity with the decision-making of the umpires.
dasilva
Roar Guru
an addition to my comments- remove referrals to 3rd umpires with exception of run outs as it slow down the game. Just give 3rd umpire the power to overrule the umpire on the pitch after 2 replays of delivery or 30 seconds after delivery limit. If the umpire can't decide a decision by that time then the decision is marginal and wouldn't have created an uproar.
dasilva
Roar Guru
umpiring suggestion THe 3rd umpire can overrule the standing umpire for obvious errors using video replay 30 seconds of the ball being delivered or 2 replays of the ball. It is pretty farcical that players walk off the pitch - seeing the replays on the big screen and seeing an obvious error. This ensures that technology doesn’t slow the game down. Although it will not solve any 50:50 marginal decision. It will still get rid of awful umpiring mistakes that the stadium would have saw correctly live. I don’t see this as undermining referee authoirty as the decision is made by other referees and also I see refereeing as a team and a collective process. Have the 3rd umpire a more involve role isn’t a bad thing and unlike the challenge system doesn’t encourage players to question the referee decision. An alternatives is that when a player is given out or not out and when the replays is on the big screen. THe umpire has an obligation to reverse the decision if it is grossly incorrect (it has been done before as well in a few ODI where referee saw the replay and reverse the decision so there is precedent. It just that most umpires don't do it enough) The thing is - people don’t watch sports to enjoy refereeing decisions no matter how good their decision making process is. They are not the attraction of the game and are not the source of entertainment
sheek
Guest
Kersi/Guys, I would actually wind back the clock, go back to yesteryear. The problem is not technology, but humans. We've all experienced chinese whispers about how a story told by the first person to the second person, is barely the same story when it gets back to the initiator. Everyone else puts their own spin on things. It's the same with replays. Despite the fact that 20 people, or 20 million people, might be watching exactly the same thing right before their eyes, they will arrive at different conclusions based on their belief system, upbringing, life experience, etc. So let's go back to basics. 1. Adjudicators trained to make split second decisions based on knowledge & accumulated experience. On the vast majority of occasions, they will get it right. Correct basic training, knowledge & accumulated game time is essential. 2. Players & fans accepting the adjudicators decision as final, & getting on with life. Some times they will draw the short straw, but mostly they can satisfy themselves the adjudicator usually gets it right. 3. Get rid of replays on TV. Okay, only joking about point 3 - that won't ever happen! Now can someone tell me if there was ever a time when points 1 & 2 actually happened!!!!!
Brett McKay
Expert
Kersi, JohnB I'm with you both to a degree, and wrote as much in an artcile two weeks back: http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/10/13/some-of-this-technology-might-be-what-it%e2%80%99s-cracked-up-to-be/ In short, the only viabale and accurate technology for mine is Hotspot, which unlike Sncko and Hawkeye, is both exact AND instant. Hotspot could easily be used for bat-pad catches, LBWs (where bat may or may not be involved), even close catches. While I concede the shading of stump-to-stump areas would assist in determining where a ball pitches and if it hits in line, Hawkeye still seems too innacurate for my liking.
old goalie
Guest
it's always amusing to hear the slow the game down argument in Yesy match cricket - it goes for 5 days!! There should be no runs for leg byes but there should be for ricochets off the stumps (back up!)
JohnB
Guest
While I don't agree with all your suggestions, I do think there should be more use of technology where the technology works well. One way that could be done would be for the umpires to have the ability to go to the third umpire on LBW and close catch appeals which they intend to give out, and ask whether anything in the replays would stop them giving that decision (a bit like rugby referees asking the TMO if there's any reason they shouldn't award a try). If the replay shows the ball has missed the edge, gone from bat to pad, or pitched outside leg (or that the bowler has bowled a no-ball), that would be a reason not to give the decision and all of those factors are things that replays do show up (they don't show other aspects of LBW so well, and as we know they don't show catches close to the ground well). I don't know that there is currently an acceptance that things like Hawkeye and the snickometer are sufficiently accurate to be used to make decision. I think there would have to be a solid consensus on that before you could use them.