I MUST confess that I watched the recently concluded first Test between Pakistan and South Africa with mixed emotions. The end result was highly satisfying from the viewpoint of a former Pakistan cricketer but the sight of the National Stadium, one of the great venues of international cricket, looking so empty and silent, filled me with sadness.

On a very different day, way back in 1964, I made by debut on this ground against Australia and I remember it looked so different on that day, heaving with 30,000 people and barely room to stand anywhere, where anything and everything would lead to an almighty roar. By comparison, this was almost a non-event, but the reasons for it are clear to understand. The dreaded coronavirus has impacted almost every facet of life and therefore it is not surprising that it should have affected cricket as well. The authorities deserve praise for managing to keep cricket alive on the international stage although with all the restrictions in place, it sometimes feels like a shadow of its former self.

Pakistan won, thanks to a couple of outstanding performances by two thirty somethings. Fawad Alam’s magnificent knock of 109 and debutant Nuaman Ali’s superb effort with the ball, took Pakistan to what in the end turned out to be a comfortable victory. But here we are not going to discuss the match itself. What interested me was the controversy that seems to have arisen in some quarters around one umpiring decision when Azhar Ali was adjudged not out by the on field umpire Ahsan Raza on an lbw appeal where the umpire thought bat was involved. The South Africans asked for a review and in spite of repeated replays, the third umpire was unable to make out whether it was bat first or pad. Watching it on television, I too thought that both impacts appear to have been made simultaneously. The third umpire therefore, rightly decided to stay with the decision of the on field umpire because there was not enough evidence to overturn his decision and the South Africans lost the review. The issue raised was whether on a margin as slim as that, the South Africans should have lost their review or had it restored.

I cannot see how under the rules there could have been a different decision. The original decision of the umpire was upheld, albeit not on positive evidence but because the evidence was inconclusive. It is not the first time that has happened and although it may be a bit harsh, the rules as they stand do not allow for a review to be retained under these circumstances. There may be a case for the authorities to look at this and allow such reviews, where the original decision cannot be overturned due to either lack of evidence or inconclusive evidence, to be restored to the side seeking the review, but that is something for the future. As things stand, if the on field umpire had ruled Azhar out, and he had asked for a review, the on field umpire’s decision would have stood and Pakistan would have lost the review.

On the subject of reviews I am again at variance with the authorities. We have three reviews per side now in the Covid era because only home umpires are officiating, a subject on which I shall something to say shortly. But the entire idea of restricting reviews to the minimum possible as otherwise it would impact adversely on the authority of the on field umpire, is something that is suggestive of the baggage of a long bygone era in history. In fact, the authority of the field umpire has already been restricted to an extent with the decision to call no-balls having been handed to the third umpire. This has impacted the game in so far as now the batsman in a Test match does not get an opportunity to take advantage of a no ball; in the white ball game he gets that advantage to an extent through the free hit.

The importance given to the authority of the umpire is a carry on from colonial times when the concept had a political connotation to it and since cricket had more colonial connections than any other sport, it has carried on to this day. Authorities have to realise that the sport today is part of the entertainment industry and as such anything that increases its spectacle value is to be welcomed. Reviews do that, especially for the TV audience who watch such replays on reviews with great excitement and expectation. So instead of two let’s have four — and in any case, even with the review, the final authority is with an umpire who is watching the replays. The trouble is that the game is seldom seen from the point of view of the paying spectator and perhaps the spectator contributing most to cricket’s finances today is the TV spectator.

To be concluded

Published in Dawn, February 1st, 2021