Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Justice for all In the search for a better decision-making process, officials must investigate the viability of "real" technology that will assist the umpires rather than enhance television coverage January 6, 2008 Changing the no-ball rule would give the umpires more time to focus on the business end of the pitch © AFP The decision making in the SCG Test reminded me of a wonderful cartoon which appeared during an Australia-New Zealand series in which the visitors suffered at the hands of the umpires. A wife walks into the lounge room where her husband is watching the match on television. "New Zealand is winning," he says. She responds, "What, aren't the umpires playing?" With poor umpiring decisions again a hot topic, I hope that in an attempt to find a solution, the administrators don't embrace a system that provides justice for some but not for all. The initial response isn't promising. Cricket Australia's CEO, James Sutherland, made a worrying start when he said; "I think there is a strong argument on the technological side ... in tennis it works where a player can make only two or three [incorrect] appeals in the course of a match. That may be something that makes people think twice about using the appeals at the right time." The problem is, the tennis challenge system applies solely to line decisions. Cricket umpires can already refer those to the third umpire. With all other decisions in cricket there is a distinct lack of conclusive evidence at times and therefore the video umpire either has to make an educated guess or rule in favour of the batsman on the benefit-of-the-doubt basis. There was a season in Australia where numerous catch decisions were referred and most of them were decided in favour of the batsmen for lack of conclusive evidence. In the end it became a farce: batsmen caught in far-flung regions like the covers and mid-on and then standing at the crease until the decision was referred. Sutherland's comments were echoed by Malcolm Speed, the CEO of the ICC, who intimated that a player-led referral system could be trialled at the next Champions Trophy tournament in Pakistan. Unfortunately in this debate, a couple of very important points are either forgotten or being ignored. Firstly, a lot of what is classed as "technology" involves a human hand. And secondly, television is there to provide entertaining cricket coverage for the viewers, not to participate in the game. Not all players are rabid supporters of the "more technology" lobby. Normally Brett Lee dispenses thunderbolts but he opted for wisdom when joining the debate on umpiring in Test cricket. "It is important to keep the human element in, bowlers bowl bad balls, batsmen play false shots and sometimes umpires don't get it right," he said. In the search for a better decision-making process, officials must investigate the viability of "real" technology that will assist the umpires rather than enhance the television coverage. However, it's equally important cricket officials also seek ways to improve the standard of umpiring. It's ironic that umpires rely on their hearing and eyesight as much as players and yet the arbiters are generally the oldest people on the field. It's time for a concerted effort to recruit younger umpires and also allow those on the international panel to officiate in home Tests. This would mean umpires spend more time at home, which would perhaps act as an inducement to officials with a young family. Currently, the guys most likely to be attracted to the job are older umpires whose families are grown up. A change in the law to a back foot no-ball would also help. This would give umpires longer to focus on the decision making end of the pitch rather than spend time looking for a small misplacement of a sprinting fast bowler's front foot.     An important part of being a good umpire is making decisions and diluting that process can only have a detrimental effect on the standard of officiating   An important part of being a good umpire is making decisions and diluting that process can only have a detrimental effect on the standard of officiating. An umpire in the middle has only a fraction of a second to make up his mind about an appeal, and therefore he is more likely to judge in the manner that good umpires preach: first there's a line, then a ball, then a pitch, then a pad or a bat. In other words, the umpire first looks at the front line for a possible no-ball, then raises his gaze to the pitch in order to see where the ball lands, and then on to the pad and the bat. There is no consideration to who is batting but the video umpire has much more time to contemplate his decision and therefore the possibility arises that personalities will come into the decision-making process. And finally, the crooks who infiltrated the game in the nineties are still lurking, waiting for an opportunity to satisfy their greed. They have no principles and would be tempted to try and corrupt off-field officials if those are given a greater say in what course a match takes. It's frustrating when the course of a match is changed by poor umpiring. However, in trying to rectify the situation it's imperative to remember the overall objective in decision-making; to ensure the umpires don't "play", and to provide justice for all, not just for some. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (9)

	Email

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Posted by SafdarQuddus on January 06 2008, 05:55 AM GMT

Here are two ways: 1)Reward them for their good decisions and their mistakes. For instance, the poor umpiring also followed on the last day of this test(Dravid caught behind) which arguably turned the match, no team will want umpires to play the game. Only if these umpires know what they are doing they will stop doing mistakes. They might frequently(according to the situation) refer the third umpires for more accurate decisions(which is generally correct expect for what Mr.Oxenford could manage in this test). 2)Say if an umpire had an accurate appeal against him then also consider that into account while ordering them(umpires) according to their merits.

Posted by nk83 on January 06 2008, 05:20 AM GMT

Well I don't agree with Ian Chappell, technology needs to be used. This is 2008 not 1800's. Umpires are part of the game but they are there to make the right decisions not be a bigger part of the game by making wrong decisions. And there's nothing wrong with using the technology available to help make the right decisions. Don't be afraid of change, it could be for the better. Just like using the 3rd umpire for a run out appeal. I understand some of the technology isn't 100% well how about just video replays like in the NFL, that would fix a lot of the glaring but human mistakes. Both the fielding team and the batting team should have 3 appeals and decisions should be over turned when the video replays show conclusive evidence that the on field decisions were wrong just like in the NFL or NBA. Lbw's however should be down to the on field umpires unless it's a question the bat hitting it.

Posted by krish2008 on January 06 2008, 05:20 AM GMT

Australians are playing with the umpires. Good example is the 2nd test match at MCG on 5th day, the way Dravid given out, then Singh.. Same way they won against Sri Lanka in 2nd test (Nov 2007) when Sangakkara out due to umpires wrong decision.

Posted by Sudhir29 on January 06 2008, 05:17 AM GMT

Shocking to see Dravid been giving out again wrongly. I now understand why Clarke did not walk yesterday. Good chance the umpire would have given it not out. I suggest that if a certain umpire officiates in a match in India, the public boycotts the same. I don't pay Rs 2000 upwards to get a good seat and what Human Errors.

Posted by Karrthikk on January 06 2008, 04:43 AM GMT

I would like to say that Australian Captain always speaks big big words like "walk off if you are out" ..... He clearly nicked one behind to the wicket keeper and he did not walk off.. Australians set their own rules for the game and if any other country does like this then the match refree and ICC will chase that team... Their will be match fee deductions etc.... Who can forget Andrew Symonds.... Just because Australians were 6 down he did nnt want to walk out ..... If you see Symonds dismissal in past (LBW and Caught Behind ) he nickes or he doesnt he always gives a shocking look towards the umpire... He feels he should never be given out just because they are Australians.. The biggest mistake here is commited by the umpires and third umpires .... Aleem Daar said sorry to Sachin Tendulkar in final ODI of England Series in 2007... So he did a very good job by saying sorry. But now he is habitual of commiting mistakes. Steve Bucknor has a very bad history against India ... I t

Posted by Iftekhar_Hasan on January 06 2008, 04:24 AM GMT

Can't we have an optical or touch sensitive mechanism whic will automatically prompt the warning (through ear phone maybe...) to the on filed umpire that a no ball has been bowled?

Posted by eCric on January 06 2008, 04:03 AM GMT

I think no-ball rule SHOULD be changed. Third umpire should make that decision. It will sure help umpires a lot. I think referring LBWs to third umpire won't help much.

Posted by Saajid on January 06 2008, 03:58 AM GMT

The argument that video technology is not 100% accurate and therefore should not be used is not valid. Umpires are far less accurate than video technology. And suggesting that a video umpire is somehow easier to bribe than an on-field umpire is nonsensical rubbish. Umpiring errors have totally destroyed the current match and series between Australia and India as a contest and rendered it all but unwatchable, it is time something is done.

Posted by skrish2 on January 06 2008, 03:49 AM GMT

And there are apologists for denying the use of technology to make the right decisions. I wonder if Chappell/Aussies would have the same views if they were at the receiving end of some shocking decisions. What I dont understand is this:Boundary calls are referred to third umprires on the premise that a single run can come into the equation in a tight match. How about an important wicket or three? Ricky Ponting, Symonds (twice), Hussey (second innings; caught down the leg side) in this very match. The end result is a very different test match to one which would have been if an "informed" decision was taken. What would pressure have done to the Aussies if Symonds was out on 30 and India had a lead of 300 or so? Instead, we have a match where we have to fight on our hands just to draw it. Final comment: When Aussie batsmen dont walk when they are clearly out, Ponting's statement that one should trust the fielder's call is rubbish.

Top

Access live scores, news and more direct from your browser Cricinfo Toolbar     Watch our daily Cricinfo SportsCenter news round-ups Available on Cricinfo.tv     Live scores, news & ball-by-ball commentary on your phone Cricinfo Mobile