Tony Becca
THE RECENT Test series between the West Indies and Australia was marred by poor umpiring decisions and many of them were against the West Indies, to the extent that cricket fans around the region are still hopping mad.
The poor decisions also influenced the West Indies Board to lodge a complaint to the International Cricket Conference.
Umpiring mistakes, however, are nothing new in cricket. Throughout the history of the game, it has been happening, and despite the present situation which sees members of an elite panel of umpires and not home town umpires officiating in Test matches, it happened in the recent Ashes series between England and Australia and it is happening in the current series between Australia and South Africa.
INTENTIONS
Even with the best intentions, such is the nature of the game that it will continue to happen as long as the game is played.
The question, however, is this: Can umpiring mistakes be reduced?
The answer is yes, it can be reduced - and it can be done through the use of technology.
The next question, therefore, is this: Why has it not been used?
According to those against its use, technology would reduce the importance of umpires and it would also slow down the action.
While that may be true, however, what is important in this day of professional cricket, what should be important at a time when so much money is involved and when careers are at stake, is getting it right.
As the body charged with the development of the game, the ICC should leave no stone unturned in its effort to reduce the number of umpiring mistakes.
DECISIONS
Right now, technology is used for the line decisions - for stumpings and run-outs, and while it cannot and should not be used for all decisions, while it would be difficult to use it for all decisions, it certainly can be used and also should be used for things like no-balls - as far as stepping over the line is concerned, for catches, and for leg before wicket decisions.
While technology should not be used to determine whether or not the ball would have hit the stumps, while that should be left to the judgement of the umpire, based on the law which says that a batsman cannot be out if the ball pitches outside the legstump and if it hits the batsman outside the line of the stumps, technology should be used to determine whether the ball pitched outside the line of the legstump or whether it hit the batsman outside the line of the stumps.
For those against the use of technology, the importance of the umpires is secondary to getting the decision right and remembering that it only takes a few seconds to produce a replay, so too the time taken to do that.
SIMPLE
On top of that, the system can be a simple one. It can be one that empowers the third umpire, the television umpire, to correct an umpire's decision, and with limitations on the number of times he can do so, with a penalty if he loses it, it can be one that gives the batsman or the bowler a chance to immediately appeal a decision against him.
It is strange that in this day and age of professional sports, in this day of technology, batsmen are given out when, according to the rules, they are not out. It is also strange that bowlers who are also denied a wicket when they have got a wicket, are awarded a wicket when they have not got a wicket, and regardless of the objections of the umpires, regardless of those who believe that cricket is a game in which no one should question the decision of the umpires, something must be done about it.
Like American football, which allows appeals, and like tennis, which is preparing to use technology for line calls, cricket, like soccer, needs to face the facts - and the facts are that their rules, the important rules that states when a batsman is out and when he is not out, when, for example, a goal is scored, are becoming meaningless because of blunders by the umpires.
