Tony BeccaTHE game of cricket remains basically the same as it was 100 years ago. It is still a contest between bat and ball - one in which batsmen try to score runs and bowlers try to dismiss them.
In one area, however, the game has certainly changed.
Once upon a time, even though there was always talk about home town decisions, no one questioned the umpire. Today, that is the order of the day - so much so that despite the introduction of a system which sees one home town umpire and one visiting umpire in every Test match, almost every Test series is followed by cries of bad decisions from the losers.
Ask any West Indian fan, and he will tell you that the West Indies suffered in Australia recently; ask any of the Pakistani cricketers who toured the West Indies last year, and he will tell you that they would have won the series but for the umpiring decisions which went against them; and you can go the rounds and it will be the same story. The vanquished, or their fans, always complain.
And it does not happen only at the Test level. It happens also at the first class level - as was the case in the recently concluded Busta Series when a number of teams complained about their misfortunes playing away from home even though, like Test matches, one of the two umpires is always from a territory not involved in the match.
Right now, in the Test series between England and Sri Lanka, there are complaints from both sides of bad umpiring - really bad umpiring.
According to England, everything went against them in the first Test which Sri Lanka won, and according to Sri Lanka, everything went against them in the second Test which England won.
Why are players and fans now questioning umpires decision so often? With so many of the bad decisions being made by the "neutral" umpire, it could be, as many believe it is, because umpires today are generally not as good as those of days gone by, and in the era of professionalism and nationalism, it could be because performance and winning have become so important.
It could, however, also be because of technology - because every decision by the umpire is now put under the microscope, fully examined in slow motion and from different angles, and exposed on television.
In the old days there was nothing like that, nothing to confirm that the umpire had made a mistake one way or the other, and although the umpires of today may be no worse than they were in those days, may be that is why the umpires of yesterday were not questioned - at least not as openly as they are today.
Today, however, because of television cameras, umpires are put on the spot for every catch, every run-out, and every leg before wicket decision, and with the cameras showing that mistakes are being made, and so many at that, their decisions will always be questioned.
Are the umpires of today worse than those of yesterday? May be not. May be it looks so because they are now being exposed.
Should the players and the fans continue to question mistakes? May be not. The umpire's decision should be final, and in a game where things usually balance off, it should be accepted.
The facts, however, are that too many mistakes are being made. In this age of technology, television will continue to expose them, and with winning now so important, players and fans will continue to complain - particularly when those mistakes go against them and their team.
Short of making it mandatory that umpires check the third umpire before making any decision, there is only one way to stop the players and the fans questioning the umpire's decision.
The one way is to train umpires properly and test them regularly.
