August 8, 2013

Bring back host-country umpires

Dave Hawksworth
Peter Willey (right) was among the top-drawer umpires who gave up because of the toll the incessant travel took  © Getty Images

Life as an international umpire used to be a lot easier. Turn up early in the morning, try to look interested at the toss, and don't give yourself indigestion by eating too many cakes during the tea break - simple. What's the worst that could happen? Sure, you could make an incorrect decision on the pitch, but at least you had the remainder of the session before you found out television commentators used an eighth slow-motion replay to prove you wrong, prompting effigy burning in India, or a British tabloid to devote their entire back page to a photoshopped image of you being led around by a guide dog.

Okay, perhaps it wasn't quite so easy back then.

But it was a damn sight better than the current situation. Because now we have the DRS. Technology designed to eliminate blatant umpiring mistakes that instead introduces a new layer of decision-making susceptible to human error. It's a system intended to help umpires minimise embarrassment, but one that actually drags out the process of proving them wrong. There you go mate, you just stand in the middle while we show the world and his wife your incompetence from every possible angle, then you can use that new signal to let everyone in the ground know you've messed up.

And there's been a lot of messing up over the last few weeks. From umpires on the field, umpires off the field and a Hot Spot camera that we now know doesn't always detect the thinnest of edges. The DRS system, specifically the way it's being used, is having a shocking Ashes. It's kind of the technological equivalent of Jonny Bairstow. Everything's there for them to be a success, but a combination of bad decision-making and technical errors are gradually eroding your confidence in them both.

The DRS issue might be complicated by the players' clueless use of reviews throughout the current series, but the real problems lie with the system's use by the third umpire. On-field officials have the excuse that their decision has to be made on a single viewing and that the broadcaster's cameras can't replicate their exact viewpoint. But the third umpire sees the same images as the viewer at home, and in the same timeframe. The watching public can measure their judgement against his, and all too often during this series the officials have come up short. The review footage shown of Usman Khawaja's dismissal during the Old Trafford Test didn't just reveal a gap between bat and ball, but a gap between the third umpire's opinion and a credible use of the available technology.

Yet I can't see a groundswell of opinion developing to dump the DRS. For a start that would involve everybody who's not the BCCI having to admit that on this issue the Indian board just might have a point. It would also mean technology staying solely in the hands of the broadcasters, and being used to highlight errors to everyone but the officials capable of correcting them. For all the problems being experienced with the DRS, that's got to be a backward step.

Instead the cricket world needs to concentrate on the more fundamental question of the quality of international umpiring. The ICC Elite Panel should contain the best umpires in the world, but in reality its ranks are limited to those willing to make the sacrifices needed to spend large parts of the year taking their suitcase on a grand tour of the world's airports.

The best men available often never officiate at the highest level because the ruling on neutral umpires only offers them the chance to stand in overseas matches, with the accompanying relentless grind of international travel. That's a situation that has to change. We need to revert to having the option of using on-field umpires from the host country; they're the ones most familiar with ground conditions. Neutral officials can, and should, remain as the third umpire and match referee.

Pay the officials better; give them the chance to set a limit on the amount of overseas matches they want to cover, in order to persuade those reluctant to travel. Give promising young umpires the opportunity and financial support needed for them to officiate at first-class level around the world. Recognise that it's just as important for the ICC to invest in its up-and-coming talent as it is for individual boards to send development squads abroad.

We can tweak the DRS as much as we like, but ultimately the final decision is always made by a human. Until we have the best possible officials out in the middle and in the TV umpires' chair, cricket will never get the best use out of the technology available.

Dave Hawksworth has never sat in a press box or charged a match programme to expenses

RSS Feeds: Dave Hawksworth

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 18:20 GMT)

A very good analysis. Whether host umpires should be allowed or not totally depend on the ethics of a umpire, and its near to impossible to read once mind. Regarding encouraging young umpires in overseas first class matches would increase the efficiency and numbers also. I will agree that at last only humans make a decision not a machine.

Posted by ColSmith on (August 9, 2013, 12:58 GMT)

Why all the bashing of the third umpire? his job is to relay what he sees not to give decisions, its field umpire that make the final call, if the third umpire was given the authority for DRS then the decision will be be put on the giant screen. ICC should also explain in detail about how this system work.

Posted by Archerthom on (August 9, 2013, 11:56 GMT)

Does no one remember the state of umpiring that led to having neutral umpires in the first place? There were persistent claims that umpires favoured one side over another. In some cases these were plausible, in all cases such claims were bad for the sport.

We need more transparency and consistency, not more ICC cronyism and incompetence.

Posted by Thegimp on (August 9, 2013, 7:20 GMT)

@Stup1d.....I think he is trying to say that 1. Umpires are not staying in the game long due to constant travel therefore we may be losing a talent before their time. and 2. When the panel is stacked with umpires from two countries and those two countries meet in a series is there a watering down of talent?

I agree with your point though, let's assume that the panel is elite, the umpires that are left should be elite. Unfortunately they haven't lived up to that title in this series. I think test umpires are getting too lost in DRS as would be human nature to do so. They make decisions based on the right of appeal. Billy Bowden used to weigh up which team still had appeals and make a decision knowing that if the team still had an appeal left they could do it.

Posted by Thegimp on (August 9, 2013, 4:28 GMT)

I don't think it's a bad idea and time, elite panels and higher scrutiny has decreased the likelyhood of bias. I think we all know why neutral umpires were introduced in the first place and it wasn't due to concerns in touring Eng Aus WI SA or NZ (unless you are Murily and spent a test career chucking the ball at batsmen, admittedly he wasn't meaning to but his action should never have been allowed to get to test level, and remember Darryl Hair no-balled him prior to the rule change that legitimised his action so therefore Daryl was, in fact, correct in his decision).

I think competing test teams should be able to agree on the make-up of umpiring just like they have to agree on the use of DRS. If one team disagrees then get in neutral umpires.

Posted by   on (August 9, 2013, 1:56 GMT)

heck no what Bull crap .. This is an idea to get more Aussies in . period

Posted by countjimmoriarty on (August 8, 2013, 11:05 GMT)

Good, valid point. Let's just have the best umpires, regardless of nationality. In conjunction with DRS, the biased umpiring of the old days (eg Australia 1970-71, where no Australian batsman was adjudged LBW in the entire series, Javed Miandad never given out LBW in a home test) will not be a problem - obviously still need neutral umpires for India! Shame that the article was spoiled by an unnecessary and irrelevant dig at Jonny Bairstow though.

Posted by   on (August 8, 2013, 10:34 GMT)

Brilliant point - well made. Technology is useless is the people wielding aren't up to scratch

Posted by legend_963 on (August 8, 2013, 9:56 GMT)

Finally someone says it umpiring standards are becoming more and more horrible

Posted by sudokusudoku6 on (August 8, 2013, 9:48 GMT)

The Old Trafford test is an excellent reason why we shouldn't have home umpires. There would have been dark mutterings from Australia if one or both of the umpires had been English and they had taken the players from the field for bad light, as Hill and Erasmus did. DRS cannot overturn decisions regarding the fitness of light and ground conditions, and so we don't need to add a home bias element to the "controversial" nature of weak umpiring re bad light.

Also, let's look at the 8 umpires on the panel from AUS and ENG. Davis has been awful for a good few years now and should be pensioned off. I don't recall Oxenford being applauded for giving Ian Bell out stumped in the Champions Trophy Final with technology at hand. Llong is nothing special, Illingworth and Reiffel too new to properly judge. That leaves Tucker, Gould, Kettleborough, all in my opinion good, but not significantly better than the Gang of Four we've seen so far.

Stay neutral, but sack the incompetent ones. Simples!

Posted by TheCricketEmpireStrikesBack on (August 8, 2013, 9:27 GMT)

Good analysis. Wrong conclusion, IMHO.

Agree that DRS is here to stay since it increasess correct decisions. Also agree that the problem is with the human sitting in the third umpire's chair not the technology. However the solution is not going back to host-country umpires - this is a backwards step and will just increase the inevitable claims of bias. Also, it does not address the poor performance of third umpires.

The solution may lie in more training for third umpires before they are placed in the "hot seat". On field umpires go through years of training, experience and scrutiny before they are put in that position in a Test match. How much practice and scrutiny do third umpires have with the technology before sitting in a Test match? Perhaps specialist third umpires may solve the problem.

Comments have now been closed for this article


Dave Hawksworth
Dave Hawksworth has been in a relationship with cricket for over 30 years. During that time he's seen Ken Rutherford score 300 before tea, Geoff Boycott hit the first ball of the day for a boundary, and drunk a lot of beer. He's never sat in a press box or charged a match programme to expenses.

All articles by this writer