Kill the Umpire?

Faisal Shariff

On a September afternoon in Colombo, during the ICC Champions Trophy, I was waiting in the hotel lobby when umpire David Shepherd walked up and, rather sheepishly, asked for some help with his mobile phone.

He was, it appeared, unable to get new messages on his cell phone. I ended up teaching him a few simple tricks -- including the very obvious one of deleting earlier messages.

"These new technological gadgets are so confusing," Shepherd said, thanking me so profusely, you would imagine I had cracked the trick for solving the tricky question of adjudicating LBWs.

"Mr Shepherd," I said, seizing that moment of gratitude to get some feedback, "did you read Dickie Bird's recent column on extending the use of the third umpire? It seems he is somewhat saddened by the diminishing use of the third umpire."

"Did he say that?" asked an alarmed Shepherd.

Shepherd, one of the eight members of the International Cricket Council's elite panel, seemed more concerned -- and philosophical -- about the decreasing role of the umpire in the middle.

"Life goes on," he shrugged. "Technology is here to stay. If it were not for technology we would have not recognized human error. And if it improves the game, why not?"

Shepherd, however, admitted that he was personally saddened by the diminishing role of the umpire in the middle. Tangentially, he is somewhat sad too that he will never again get to stand in a game at Lord's, thanks to an ICC rule that prevents umpires from officiating in games involving their home countries.

"I think there will be a day when there will be no umpires at all, just technology," he said. But, as swiftly, Shepherd added that with so much of money at stake, it is imperative to accept the use of technology in the sport to ensure that the right decisions were made.

Umpire Steve Bucknor, another member of the elite panel and now the world record holder for most number of Tests officiated in, seconds that thought.

The use of technology, he points out, has already helped on-field umpires get their line calls right, in the case of run-out decisions. Extending the use of technology will mean that the man in the middle can consult with the third umpire for leg before wicket decisions, where he can get feedback on whether the ball pitched in line, and if the height of the strike was right.

Overall, the response to the increased use of technology to aid umpires in course of the Champions Trophy received mixed reviews. Such technology will not, however, be in use for the World Cup in South Africa next year because of `many questions remaining unanswered for it to be used at other events'.

The ICC report on increased use of technology identified several areas of concern, including changes in the role of the three umpires for each successive game, the inclusion of television producers in the decision-making process, the costs associated with its introduction and the training and development needed to make it effective.

Before the start of the Colombo event, Australia skipper Ricky Ponting had his reservations, mainly centering on the extra time constant references to the third umpire would consume. "We anyway struggle to get through our fifty overs within the stipulated time. My main concern is that we should not waste too much time and force crowds away from the grounds," Ponting said.

South Africa skipper Shaun Pollock shared the fear. "As long as it does not slow the game down, I don't see any reason why we should not use it."

Teammate Jacques Kallis was more forthright."What is the point in having an umpire then? Something should be left to the umpire. I am okay with the line calls and stumping decisions but beyond that, I believe the human touch is essential to the game."

West Indies skipper Carl Hooper also believes that umpires have an important job to do on the field and that it would be inappropriate to totally rely on technology.

"It is unfair to take the livelihood away from the umpires. Let's accept that we don't live in a perfect world. Besides that, I feel that it will slow down the game a lot."

Another supporter of that view is Sri Lanka skipper Sanath Jayasuriya, who pointed out that a meeting of international cricket captains in London earlier this year vetoed the excessive use of television technology.

"But the ICC wanted it. I am not sure if it will work, besides slowing down the game."

Pakistan skipper Waqar Younis believes technology could actually result in more dodgy decisions, not less. And Younis believes, further, that the time factor needs to be reckoned with. "We have four fast bowlers and the time it will consume will affect us more than any others."

Arguing the contrary brief is English skipper Nasser Hussain, a huge fan of technology. He argued that technology should be used full scale during an English summer, to give it a good go.

"Let's use it for everything and after 2-3 months, let's get a feedback on its implementation from the players, the officials, the media and the administrators."

Zimbabwea skipper Heath Streak agrees, arguing that technology will result in fairer decisions and take the element of uncertainty out of the game.

Former South Africa Test player and match referee Mike Procter believes the ICC's decision to implement the use of the television umpire has been very good for the game.

Arguing against the prevalent belief that technology belittles the on-field umpire, Procter said, "I reckon power has been handed back to the umpires in the middle. When Rudi Koertzen asked for the decision against Shoaib Malik in the opening game, he asked third umpire asked, 'Did the ball pitch on line?' "

The umpires, he pointed out, do not ask whether the batsman is out, when referring LBWs to the third umpire. Instead, they merely ask if the height was good and the ball pitched in line -- two factors easier to determine with television than with the naked eye.

"Ninety-nine per cent of the line decisions have been in favour of the fielding sides while 95 per cent of the catches have been in favour of the batsmen. There is something to be understood here," explained Procter.

"The element of uncertainty will never go from the game despite the use of technology. So you give the umpires in the middle a chance to get a second opinion and to make an informed decision."

Why then did the ICC not use Hawk Eye, the magnifying glass, and the snickometer?

"How accurate is Hawk-Eye technology? How many missiles miss their targets? The technology is not 100 per cent right. The technology believes that the ball always travels in a straight line like a ray of light. Swing in the air and seam movement off the pitch are completely discounted for."

Procter, however, argues that the captains' concern that it will take more time is unfounded.

"In the past few games, have there been any delays? The rule is pretty clear. The umpire has to decide quickly whether to check if the ball ball pitched in line or not."

Procter gives an example to explain how technology still has a long way to go.

In a game between West Indies and Zimbabwe, Heath Streak shaped to pull Carl Hooper. Streak played the shot early, and the ball flew to point. According to the super slow-motion technology that has 75 frames per second as compared to the normal 25 frames per second, the ball never seemed to touch the bat.

"How does one account for that?" he asks.

India's Srinivas Venkataraghavan was most vocal in expressing his displeasure at the extended use of the third umpire.

Which decisions shud be referred to the third umpire? Run out Leg before wicket Caught behind Low Catches   View results

"I am not so sure how long the experiment will last," said Venkataraghavan.

Questioning the use of technology for LBW decisions, he asked what if the ball pitches on the edge of the bar.

"Technology in cricket is in a nascent stage. There are a lot of gray areas. The close catches visuals are also not decisive," he adds.

Venkataraghavan admits that catches being referred to the third umpire was, in fact, started by him when, three years ago, then Australian opener Greg Blewett edged the ball to Nasser Hussain of England in the slips. Even though Venkat was sure it was out, he referred the decision to the third umpire -- who ruled in favour of the batsman.

"I think we should go back to the pre-1949 rule, where the wrists (of the catcher) should be kept above the ground. I wonder why it was abolished in the 1960s -- it was the best way to get the right result when honesty seems to have gone out of fashion."

Venkat recounts an incident when Aussie batsman Doug Walters flicked Prasanna to Venkat himself, for a low catch at leg slip. Doug turned towards him, Venkat nodded, and the batsman walked.

"I know when a fielder is lying. It is a blend of gut feeling and his past track record that comes into the reckoning. Fielders at silly point and short leg know what the right decision is. I wish they were more honest. Trust is very important. It is the reason we play the game," he added.

"It hurts when batsmen get a thin edge and refuse to walk. Where has cricket come down to? We have lost our principles and morals."

Given that honesty -- by fielders and batsmen alike -- is as dead as the dodo, the debate remains centered around whether more technology should be used to get fair decisions.

Unfortunately, even after experimenting with enhanced use of tech during the Champions Trophy, the jury remains out -- unable to decide one way or the other.