On-field umpires are in the spotlight again, with the ICC allowing a bigger role for the third umpire
AS a general rule, we accept almost everything shown on television. The remainder is the half-truth that relates entirely to umpiring decisions. However, this also allows teh viewers and the cricket commentators to criticize umpiring decisions freely, at times, unkindly.
I discovered the ‘truth’ about television replays when I happened to watch a slow-motion replay of a decision that I had given in a Test match earlier in the day. What I viewed, baffled me. It was not what had exactly happened in the field.
The reason for this misrepresentation was not far to seek! The camera was not in the same position as the umpire in the field. The camera was placed too high and out of alignment as compared to the umpire’s position.
It was in 1986, during the Asia Cup being played in Sri Lanka, that the topic of television replays came up for discussion in an informal gathering. The question asked was “What do you think about television replays?” I submitted that most of them were misleading. My plea raised quite a few eyebrows. But when I took pains in explaining my position, Omar Kureishi, who was present there, took the point well and elaborated it lucidly to the press on a later occasion. After that, the commentators’ sympathetic attitude towards umpires while criticizing their decisions, was noticeable.
My argument was that the camera has to be adjusted to a level where full view of the pitch is available without the bowler’s end umpire, interfering with it. This could be done if the camera was placed a little out of alignment of the line joining the centres of the two middle stumps. This is to say that if the camera was positioned to show the pitch in its entirety it had to be over the shoulder of the bowler’s end umpire.
This compromise was considered acceptable as it both retained the excitement of replays and a certain degree of accuracy as well.
But over-the-shoulder positioning of the camera created an angle which made the marginal delivery look like missing the leg stump of a right-handed batsman if the camera had been positioned over the umpire’s left shoulder. The same delivery when viewed from the camera positioned over the right shoulder of the umpire made it look like going into the wicket. It was on the basis of this dubious situation that umpiring decisions were frequently criticized, particularly LBW and caught behind the wicket decisions.
In 1992, a conference of Test Umpires from all the Test playing countries was organized in Coventry, England, to discuss among other things the use of technology in umpiring. Most of the participants, including myself were skeptical about the use of technology in umpiring.
I may admit, we were in fact afraid of it. Our apprehensions were founded on the following factors:
* It was thought that the role of the umpire was being taken over by technology, that is robots, which would leave the field umpire redundant.
* The time honoured law (27.6) that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman was being compromised. Doing away with this Law which derived its essence from the Civil Law maxim that benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant, was against natural justice.
* There was no provision in the laws of cricket either to seek consultation from or transfer jurisdiction to a person outside the field of play.
* Cricket being an agglomeration of errors made by bowlers, fielders, batsmen and captains depends for its excitement on errors made on the field. Why should then umpiring errors be treated differently?
Regardless of what we thought at the time, the visionary administrators of the game went on with their programme of enhancing the use of technology that had already been introduced on a limited scale.
First it were the line decisions, which could be referred to the third umpire. Line decisions included run-outs initially, followed by hit-wicket, stumping and boundary decisions. Subsequently in 1996, in the pre-World Cup briefing it was also agreed that in addition to the decisions that could be referred to the third umpire, the field umpire could also consult any other doubtful points with him to reach a correct decision. This meant that the use of technology in umpiring has widened. In the meantime, technology also progressed and considered advanced enough to experiment decisions like LBW.
On hindsight one feels that those participants of the 1992 Test Umpires Conference, who were skeptical about the use of technology in umpiring, sooner or later reconciled to its growing use when they noticed that their apprehensions, as mentioned above, proved unfounded as under:
Firstly, the notion that the use of technology would belittle the field umpires’ role, gave way, when it was realized that the use of technology in fact had highlighted their role as the sole judges of fair and unfair play. And it was their business to ensure that no side benefited from undue advantage or suffered from undue disadvantage. It was therefore in order that they sought to arrive at correct decision by consulting the third umpire or even by passing on their own jurisdiction to him.
Secondly, it was realized that the time-honoured maxim that tea benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman was still operative. Field umpires by referring decisions to the third umpire actually ensured that the incidence of doubt was reduced to the minimum; so that no undue advantage was passed on to the batsman merely because corroborating evidence was not accessible.
Thirdly, there was no provision in the laws of cricket to seek consultation from or transfer jurisdiction to some one outside the playing field. True, there was or there is still no such provision in the laws and the existing arrangement is operating under special playing conditions. Considering the provisions of Law 3.13 (Consultation between umpires) and Law 27.6 (Consultation by umpires), we find that both these laws require the umpires to consult each other whenever either of them is doubtful about any point that the other may have been in a better position to see. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall go in the batsman’s favour.
However, Law 27.6 puts one little restriction on consultation by umpires i.e. they can consult each other only on a point of fact. But special playing conditions take us a little farther than that. According to them in the case of field umpires being unable to decide a dispute themselves, individually or in consultation with each other, the jurisdiction is transferred to the third umpire irrespective of the consideration whether a point of fact was involved or a point of law. Practically satisfactory application of this provision of the playing conditions being seen as a precursor to the amendment in the laws, neither disparages the umpires’ position nor usurps a batsman’s right of receiving benefit of the doubt.
Finally, ‘to err is human’, may not be as leniently applicable in the case of umpires as in the case of players. We all make mistakes, but the umpires are expected to make rare mistakes. This expectation is just in keeping with an umpire’s own responsibilities as well as high stakes involved in the game. Therefore, in the present day context, umpiring decisions and players’ defaults are not to be treated alike. Players’ mistakes in the field produce excitement, while those of umpires’ cause upheaval.
Skepticism, which in 1992 had pervaded the Test Umpires’ Conference, gradually diminished finally giving way to a well-founded conclusion that full utilization of technology in umpiring, is the need of the day.
Over a period of time, television technology has improved greatly. It is now used, on the one hand to discover violation of Code of Discipline on the field, while on the other hand it helps umpires arrive at correct decisions in almost all situations, which would not have been possible otherwise.
However, technology has its own limitations and because of these limitations it is not being applied to its full potential in umpiring, as decisions like calling of no-ball and answer to appeal for LBW and caught behind are still outside its purview What is now needed is perfection of technology for:
* Calling a no-ball, where no-ball could be called with the aid of technology as is used in tennis for calling net-ball.
* Separation of sounds like bat-and-pad, bat-and-ball, ball-and-pad and ball-and-batsman, for purposes of identifying snick.
* Answering appeals for LBW. Graphics currently in use for depicting the line of a delivery after interception seem to be quite close to actuality and need to be perfected as is done in baseball to determine the parameters of a pitched ball.
With the amount of serious efforts being made globally to find solutions to the three difficult decisions mentioned above, one hopes that the day is not far off when umpiring errors would be minimized to the greatest possible extent. Perfection of technology will soon take us to an era when more and more reliance would be placed on TV umpire, who in view of his new and onerous responsibilities might claim seniority over field umpires. Despite that, the field umpire’s position shall not in any way be disparaged, as they would continue ‘to control the game as required by the laws, with absolute impartiality’.
In view of the above, the motion is supported for full utilization of whatever technology is available in umpiring at present. Let us also expedite its perfection so that the ultimate objective of error-free umpiring is achieved.
So far so good! But through television technology, we have come to see another aspect of umpiring, which I am afraid is not a pleasant one. In every human endeavour there are always some role-models who inspire the new entrants and motivate them to follow their footsteps. Unfortunately in modern cricket there are no role-models in umpiring. What we see of umpires on television is that they are more given to showmanship than umpiring. Instead of strictly following the laws, or applying an improved technique, they have invented their own ways of handling situations. For example, what we see on television screens is a mockery of clause 3.14 of the Laws of Cricket, which pertains to signals.
Since 1744, when the Laws of Cricket were first codified, the Code of Signals has not been mutilated so mercilessly as we see today! A situation, no student of umpiring agrees with.
As we know that the word ‘umpire’ literally means ‘Man Above All’. Therefore his appearance and conduct in the field has to be, always in keeping with his high office. But instead what we see is an umpire’s shabby appearance, floppy headgear, ill-fitted dress and sluggish movement — often in the wrong place. And when it comes to giving decision, we see that it is preceded by unwarranted gesticulation, shaking of heads and long intervals, instead of little pauses.
Why this situation has been highlighted is because at the ACC, in our Umpire Development programmes, we train hard our umpires to follow the book. And when they ask “Which book?” We have no answer to that.
With umpires assuming so much importance that a whole technology has been developed and almost perfected to ease their work, what is now required is to enhance perception of their image. And they themselves can do better than anyone else. Others can help them only if they are interested in improving their skills.
As a student of umpiring I have been emphasising the need for role-models in umpiring at international level at every available forum. The last and the most appropriate of such a forum was the ICC Board Umpire Managers’ Conference when it was unanimously agreed that the umpires were not conducting themselves appropriately enough.
It may be pointed out here that what has been discussed above is not umpires’ decision-making, for which there is a sound system of their assessment. What in fact has been discussed is their appearance, conduct and field technique. It is not the decision-making alone that goes to make a complete umpire; it’s much beyond that.
On-field umpires are in the spotlight again, with the ICC allowing a bigger role for the third umpire
