“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.
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.
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?
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.
Johnno
Guest
Paul D, umpires sometimes do rip in back at players, go back to Mike Gatting and Pakistani umpires in the 80’s. I have no objection if the umpires fire back, plenty do in soccer and rugby league and basketball. Other umpires in cricket do fire up, Dickie Bird never took a backward step either, and did fire up on players silly appealing and time wasting etc. No complaints if they do. Pottsy, you make some points but seem to condradict yourself. You push ripping in, but some sort of unoffical code of conduct, as opposed to a formal code of conduct.
Johnno
Guest
Paul D, umpires sometimes do rip in back at players, go back to Mike Gatting and Pakistani umpires in the 80's. I have no objection if the umpires fire back, plenty do in soccer and rugby league and basketball. Other umpires in cricket do fire up, Dickie Bird never took a backward step either, and did fire up on players silly appealing and time wasting etc. No complaints if they do. Pottsy, you make some points but seem to condradict yourself. You push ripping in, but some sort of unoffical code of conduct, as opposed to a formal code of conduct.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
An interesting proposal...
Paul D
Roar Guru
I'm all for that Johnno if I can rip into you for a crap LBW shout and call you an absolute flog for wasting my time for a ball clearly pitching outside leg stump.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
A few points in response to your rant: “It is right that the decision is the umpire’s.” How does adopting that slogan prevent criticism of the umpires? "Cricket is a game full of hostile fans who bag the umpires, you clearly don’t want fans like that in the game." How would you know? Did you ask me? I only ask because in the whole article, I did not address the issue of how I thank fans should treat umpires, primarily because I do not think umpires should have immunity from scrutiny. To grant that immunity would be no more mistaken than the immunity you seem to have granted yourself from critical thinking when you (and I use the term loosely) read my article. "Your basically saying cricket fans should be respectful of the umpire and respect the spirit of cricket and behave like gentleman,." Actually, what I am basically saying is that umpiring should be a job for umpires! Again, where have I mandated a code of conduct for fans? When I said, "But it does imply that we respect cricket umpires and respect the fact the decisions should remain within their purview," the emphasis is on my opinion that decisions should remain within their purview. I have criticized umpires before, just like players. I am no saint. I wouldn't want to be. As for, "soft weak attitude", if you don't own a mirror, try using the screen of your phone.
Johnno
Guest
Your basically saying cricket fans should be respectful of the umpire and respect the spirit of cricket and behave like gentleman,. Seriously, that's a soft weak attitude, you the umpire make decision expect heat, it's not a job for the weak or faint hearted and there is nothing wrong with ripping and getting stuck in and being insulting to the umpire, that's what there for, canon fodder deal with it, if you don't like the umpires call you should be aggressive to them and hostile and let them know what you think of them, stop being soft Pottsy, get over this wimpy gentlemanly stuff. Cricket is a game full of hostile fans who bag the umpires, you clearly don't want fans like that in the game.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
I understand your point of view, but the accepting of every decision as being correct even if it isn't just isn't palatable for those who run international cricket any more. Not enough people hold that view for it prevail at the highest level. But even when everyone supposedly believed in the slogan, there have been debates about the decisions that umpires make.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
I think that you missed the point on the "The man in white is always right.” slogan It doesn't mean that every decision he makes is correct, it means that we accept every decision as being correct even when it isn't. To me, this slogan is still correct and if everyone took this same point of view then we wouldn't need the technology and wouldn't waste time discussing the decisions or the merits of the technology
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Yeah the genie won't be put back in the bottle, as much as the predictive element is problematic. There could come a time when the onfield umpire role is a symbolic hark to the days before television and really only serves to hold a player's cap or teddy bear, and make flamboyant signals that make Billy Bowden positively stale. But even if that happens, I still think umpiring should be kept in the hands of umpires.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Have to admit I've often wondered why that isn't done first. Maybe its because it takes to set up the computerised ball tracker, but I think it needs to be rethought.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Except in that scenario the fielding captain is not taking an action to benefit his or her own side - the DRS is an action taken to benefit your own side.
Craig Swanson
Guest
There were several instances in the Windies tri series where because the WICB did not use any technology- namely the Australian-developed Hot Spot and Snicko, we had to wait at interminable time for a line ball decision. Also on several occasions the decision tutrned out to be the wrong one. One of my pet hates about the DRS is when an LBW decision is reviewed and we have to wait while a host of technologcal wizzardry is viewed before we finally get the computerised ball tracker. It is common knowledge that if the ball is not pitching in line or is outside the leg stump then it is NOT OUT. So going thru this whole other show before finally viewing the ball tracker surely is superfluous. Or am I missing something?
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think the first priority, as you said in the comment above, is to get a better no-ball system. That is what destroys the theatre of cricket, when a batsman is clean bowled and we have to stand around for a minute or two while the umpire goes and winds the footage back and forth for a bit to judge whether it’s a legal delivery or not. Either change the way the no-ball is adjudicated or get an instantaneous system a la the Cyclops method you mentioned above, which tennis has used for some time. Personally I’d like to see the ball predictive element dumped altogether, leave DRS to judge on what has actually occurred (pitched in line, hit in line, was there bat contact) – however dumping the predictive ball tracking element poses problems, in that an umpire might say not out to an LBW because he believes there was bat involved. If DRS shows there was no bat, you’d have to have the umpire explaining, well, apart from that I thought it was going on to hit the stumps so its out. And it doesn’t stop the original problem, which is broadcasters running Hawkeye footage that the umpire can’t use. Probably a bit late to put that genie back in the bottle, I guess we’re just going to have keep refining the ball predictive element and hope it can get better at eliminating those anomalies it throws up. That footage where hawkeye showed a ball going over the stumps that had just bowled De Villiers was a very bad look.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
It is good that the pace of cricket allows for analysis and for fans to dip in and out of matches. As for the howler, my argument is that if it is a terrible call, surely it can't be that hard for a third umpire, looking at an instant replay or two, to overturn a decision and not a player. A DRS delay feels unnatural, though there are times when it is to the benefit of the match and on those occasions I don't mind it. Your suggestion over using it every wicket has some merit. As you probably predict, I don't personally crack open the champagne when hearing it, but it would be consistent with "it is right that the decision is the umpire's". I would want the first readjustment for cricket to develop a Cyclops system which does the no balls. If that isn't possible, then look at moving that decision upstairs to have every no ball called. With the first slipper comment I suppose your comment is accurate enough, though it's sad that we can't have players trusting other players word on it.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I disagree with the premise of this, cricket has always been different to most other sport in that the umpire is there to adjudicate on disputes between players more so than controlling the game, hence the need to appeal and the player to be able to walk without the umpire making the decision. The DRS doesn't really change the implied authority of the umpire in my opinion in the same way that the fielding captain calling a player back (withdrawing an appeal) would.
Anthony Condon
Roar Pro
"Hands up anyone who likes the spectacle of seeing various replays for up to five minutes of a line ball decision?" *Hand up* My favourite thing about the pace of cricket is that it gives you time to analyse and dissect whilst the game is going. A 5 minute DRS replay has on many occasions been the most interesting occurrence on day 3 of a test. It draws out the drama, gives you something to talk about, and most importantly (even if it is flawed) it means you don't sit there for the next few hours with the bitter pill that a day's play has been ruined (or damaged at least) by a howler of a call. I definitely think there is a place where *every* wicket gets reviewed (we already do the no ball call), hence removing the need to give the batting team any reviews, removing that call from the batsman's hands. But I much prefer that we can go to the third umpire to judge if a catch has bottomed rather than relying on the dubious honesty of a first slipper.