April 2, 2014

Why do we over-react when changing cricket's rules?

Instead of helping umpires react instinctively to situations, we have burdened them with misleading technology that has turned them into second-class citizens

Last week I made a comment about Steve Davis, the veteran Australian umpire, that he was past it, over the hill, washed up as an international umpire. It was a poor comment. It was a cold, insensitive call.

Like many, I have become frustrated with the whole umpiring landscape. The shoddy DRS and its use; weather rulings; the frequent, often contradictory, changes in playing rules and regulations; and fair if not close catches being turned down as soon as the third umpire becomes involved.

The decision to give Mahela Jayawardene not out first ball, after he was caught by Michael Lumb at point - a decision made by Davis, the acting third umpire - was incorrect. It was caught, and any cricketer who has played the game knows that catch was genuine - Lumb's fingers were under the ball, and on impact he closed the hands to secure the catch.

There will always be a 2D television angle to disprove a catch taken low down, centimetres off the ground. It has happened for a while now, and we know that technology is not helping this aspect of the game. Yet we constantly, almost compulsively, head upstairs and put the television hat on. It has become irresponsible to the spirit of the game.

Apparently on the replay Davis was given an angle from square leg looking towards point, with the batsman in the foreground and the fielder in the background, that was different to any angle seen by the viewer. This is a dangerous precedent.

When the outcry came from all over the world, the ICC, typically, went into defence mode, and tweeted a new angle not seen by the masses, apart from by Davis himself. Apparently. In between the game and the new evidence released, all hell broke loose on social media, and my own frustration played a part.

As far as my comment was concerned, I should have known better. Davis is a long-serving official. He has done fine work. While he isn't a top-ranking umpire on the Elite panel, like Aleem Dar is, or Simon Taufel was, Davis has done the hard yards all over the world, giving his best in often difficult circumstances. He has been a solid umpire for a decade. Instead of reacting to one mistake with an insensitivity that I would have been upset to hear if it was directed at myself, I should have seen the system and not the umpire as the problem. Steve, I apologise.

The problem is, there is no integrity left. All batsmen now know that if a catch is close, they may have a 50-50 chance of getting away with it. No one is exempt from believing this, and no blame is pointed at Jayawardene for standing his ground. That's where the game has got to.

The ICC and its makers have deemed that television is way more accurate and reliable than the humans who are selected to stand and adjudicate for their superior expertise. The umpires are chosen for their years of performance to be in the middle at the highest level, yet they are now considered second-rate citizens to the technology that is meant to assist them.

Cricket has shot itself in the foot over this, more than any other sport. Due to the game's complex nature, intense scrutiny and long-winded duration, instinctive umpiring has slowly become a forgotten art. There was never this negativity when the likes of Tony Crafter, Dickie Bird and David Shepherd were in control. Life for these fine men was an enjoyable one. Simon Taufel followed in their footsteps and became the best umpire in the world. Then the DRS came along and he disappeared.

Instead of reacting to one mistake with an insensitivity that I would have been upset to hear if it was directed at myself, I should have seen the system and not the umpire as the problem. Steve, I apologise

The point is that we have reacted to the exception and not the rule. Just like the stupid front-foot no-ball rule was a reaction to the rare bowler who dragged and therefore gained a perceived advantage. The back-foot rule was the correct rule, because the front-foot rule encourages the fast bowler to get closer to the batsman in an attempt to reduce reaction time, leading to overstepping. This in turn distracts the umpire from his main role, which is to adjudicate on what happens down the other end. The rule should never have been changed. No-balls have increased manifold since the introduction of the front-foot rule. It is a hideous distraction to the game.

Consider the bizarre 15-degree rule, which came in as a reaction to a rare bowler like Muttiah Muralitharan, who captured our hearts with his joy for the game and his country. We all took time to understand the imperfections of his arm, but it did not mean the whole bowling rule should have changed. Murali was an exception to the rule and the umpires were dealing with it the best they could by questioning what was happening with his action, as had been done for generations when any exceptions came along. An indoor laboratory is the not the place to determine what is right and what is wrong with cricket.

We have reacted emotionally and irrationally, and it has changed the nature and integrity of the game for good. Now we see dozens of bowlers at the top level, and thousands at the grass roots, attempting to become international performers by trying to take advantage of the 15-degree rule. Where will it stop? In ten years' time, you will see a marked trend in the game and it won't be pretty.

The same applies to the technology used. It is wrong to embrace it all. It is not foolproof. It's slow. It's killing the flow of the game. And it's there because we all reacted to a few howlers by a few honest souls who have devoted their life to standing in the middle. Yet the root cause of the howlers was in moving to neutral umpires all over the world, the pressures placed on those umpires by the constant travel, and by the scrutiny they were put under because of the use of entertainment innovations like the predictive path. Hawk-Eye was not set up to officiate, it was created to entertain. The umpires are now pawns in a system that renders them almost unworthy.

And then I come along and spew rubbish because I am so frustrated. My over-reaction to the reaction was just as bad. And so it goes on. None of it is good for the game.

Davis deserves a good farewell at some point. He doesn't want to give it up yet, I am sure. And I don't want to see his umpiring slowly deteriorate either. I would like to remember him as a cool customer who gave good service. He must decide when the time is right to hang up the coat. And I apologise for seeming to pre-empt when that should be.

For goodness' sake, can we take a long, hard look at what we have done with this over-emphasis on technology and television, and remove the reliance on it? Instead we ought to restore and revitalise the umpire's ability to react naturally to what he sees at close quarters. Before they all disappear.

Martin Crowe, one of the leading batsmen of the late '80s and early '90s, played 77 Tests for New Zealand

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Android on April 3, 2014, 20:27 GMT

    i disagree completely with the article. DRS is a must have in the modern game due to the dollars on the line. its the interpretation of it that is killing it. it has reduced howlers but the rules of interpretation appear to be set by the wrong people. just like snicko .. where the spectrum is easily used to determine what caused a noise (wood/plastic/pad), this isn't used because the umpires aren't fluent in accoustics and when faint feather causes a change in ball rotation but no deflection, easily viewable on slo mo this also escapes consideration. the evidence is there. the wrong people are writing the rules of interpretation.

  • Dummy4 on April 3, 2014, 18:49 GMT

    Martin, some good thoughts from a respectable cricketer. I have always maintained that there should be some basic rules in cricket - 1. Game should continue with 2 teams & 2 umpires. 2. When the fielding side thinks they have a wicket, they appeal. If the batsman is out under the rules of cricket, he walks. Umpires adjudicate when there is a difference of opinion. 3. No 3rd umpire - Both sides have the option of looking at replays to help their members decide on whether to withdraw an appeal OR walk off as out. 4. If there are TV replays to prove that one side benefitted from an umpiring error, there should be a severe penalty, options - one of the options being - player who benefitted from the umpire's error would be forcibly selected AND banned from participation in the next match between those 2 sides (effectively, player banned for cheating AND his team mates penalised by having to play 1 short in the next match) ...Force the players to be gentlemen in a gentleman's game !

  • Owais on April 3, 2014, 18:15 GMT

    This is Martin Crowe's opinion however I believe technology should be used to have fair play as the ends is not to make Umpires some sort of quasi god on ground, the ends is to have a result that is fair. Even if it mean having no umpires I have no problem.

  • Yogesh on April 3, 2014, 7:30 GMT

    Excellent article, Martin. And kudos for being up front and apologizing about your reaction towards Davis, which at that time seemed justified. Your writing is like your cricket was - excellent, honest, and enjoyable by your many fans around the world. Congrats, and keep it up!

    I wonder if giving up certain forms of technology (e.g. Hawkeye) and going back to the word of the umpires will work, or if that genie is now firmly out of the bottle. It might - but only if they stop showing the replays on the big screens on the ground as well as in broadcasts.

  • Biso on April 3, 2014, 6:28 GMT

    "Varied form of DRS works brilliantly in tennis,..." Yes it has been successful in those sports simply because it does not do any predictions and merely does a real time tracking. DRS in cricket attempts to use Hawk Eye on predictive mode ( with limitations and statistical confidence levels off course ) which is yet to be proven through field tests. The figures of "percentage of better decisions" being rattled out can barely stand scientific scrutiny.

  • Biso on April 3, 2014, 5:05 GMT

    @flowersintherain: You are spot on. Muralitharan being no bowled by Hair even when he was bowling leg breaks was the trigger that finally led to bio-mechanics being used to survey bowling actions. Any orthopaedician or a bio-mechanist will tell you that is it IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to bowl without some degree of flex in the elbow. It is a moot point whether it could be visible to the naked eye to you or to an umpire. You can debate about the quantum of degree to be permitted. The DRS as it stands today is a half baked system which was not put to extensive field tests before being introduced at the highest level. To put it straight, it was introduced in the most un-scientific manner possible. And systems which are introduced in such a shabby and shoddy manner become controversial and that is exactly what has happened to DRS. Also, it is true that the so called great umpires of the yester years did get away with a lot of in correct decisions due to lack of scrutiny.

  • Dummy4 on April 3, 2014, 4:58 GMT

    Varied form of DRS works brilliantly in tennis, rugby,Basketball,NFL,hockey and now in soccer in epl with hawk eye providing real time goal line technology which by all counts has been succesful. Hawk Eye comes from a high pedigree consortium essentially a defence contractor with large portfolios including tracking devices for drones.Science has improved quite a bit over 13 years since hawk eye was first conceptualized.Most of the sticking points have in DRS has been with personel ,Train them right and make sure they adhere to protocols, the argument will resolve itself. Bitterness of decision today is multiplied many times over and its better that we have every aid available to the umpire.But then some countries like to boycott DRS and then hound umpires into retirement which BCCI did with Harper, do you think its fair Martin?And last time I checked ,India had 0 umpires on elite panel,just S Venkatraghvan was on it till he retired in 04.

  • C on April 3, 2014, 4:07 GMT

    Several points need to be made. We need to acknowledge that back in the heyday of Dickie Bird or David Shepard, umpires made mistakes on a regular basis. They simply weren't subjected to the scrutiny of repeated slow motion replays, hotspot and hawk eye, so they got away with it. The studies leading to the 15 degree elbow flex may have been triggered by Muralitharan, but they revealed that a significant number of bowlers, including many pacemen, flexed their elbows by up to that amount. That was the rationale for choosing 15 degrees as the allowable flex. I agree that the back foot no-ball rule should be reinstated for all the reasons that Crowe gives. And umpires should be calling no balls when they are bowled. Not merely checking for them if a batsman is out. Finally, any physicist will tell you that the margin of error in the predictive path is too large for close calls, when adjudicating LBW decisions. But it is used because it gives an illusion of certainty.

  • Andrew on April 3, 2014, 2:25 GMT

    Outstanding article Martin. Kudos for admitting a mistake (many would not), but additionally you are spot on about the way the game has over-reacted to the exceptions in making the rules. We too often tie ourselves in knots to find a way to prevent whatever the last mistake/oddity occurring again and have made a mess in doing so. Everyone will have differing views on the "right solution" but the overall thinking is out of kilter. For me, I HATE the referrals to decide whether catches were carried or not - I think it about the ugliest thing in the game at the moment. 99 times out of 100 I am convinced the catches should stand. Take the fielder's word and get off the field. If the replays later show he dropped it, let him live with that stain on his record (none of the kiwis I know have forgotten Greg Dyer).