A need for the ICC to review theTV umpires role
If we are to believe that old cliche that the camera never lies, there should be no problem in accepting the theory that the third (TV) man system is infallible and the image of umpires carrying a white stick, wearing dark glasses and guide dog is
Trevor Chesterfield
29-Sep-1999
If we are to believe that old cliche that the camera never lies, there
should be no problem in accepting the theory that the third (TV) man
system is infallible and the image of umpires carrying a white stick,
wearing dark glasses and guide dog is also a myth.
Which may be all right for those who want to replace umpire with
robots who at the push of a button give a batsman either "in" or "out"
depending on what they are programmed to see.
Having spent many years being grilled by the sun in the pursuit of
making honest and fair decisions at club and provincial level, it was
easy enough to understand how the use of camera work should make
marginal line decisions that much easier.
Sure, we did not always get it right, but most of the time we did and
that was the view of the players. Yet when you have a split second to
make a decision it needed a touch of instinct, knowledge of the game's
laws and the intricacies of 1000 and 1 situations, to try an get it
right.
Now there is a demand by some alleged "expert commentators" who waffle
on about how the lbw and the "bat-pad" or "pad-bat" catch decisions
should also be handed over to the umpiring gazing at the monitor
without giving the matter the sort of thought such comments need. It
shows a lack of understanding of the law, camera angle and who should
fulfil such a role.
More than once during the World Cup, as well as the Aiwa Cup in Sri
Lanka and assorted tournaments in Toronto, Hong Kong and now the LG
Cup in Nairobi, we have seen the third man getting it wrong. There
have been some notable examples as well: the most blatant were in the
World Cup and in Sri Lanka where a batsman (Australian Adam Gilchrist)
was ruled "out" although the wicketkeeper Romesh Kaluwitharana dropped
the ball and later in the series two other local umpires got it wrong,
as did Ken Palmer in Northampton during South Africa's game against
Sri Lanka and those involving New Zealand and Pakistan.
What needs to be asked, and which our "experts" have as yet failed to
answer, is if the umpire looking at the TV monitor gets it wrong with
basic law when making a simple (run out) decision, how can they be
trusted when it comes to more intricate matters as lbw decisions and
the "tricky" catches? Perhaps the International Cricket Council
should investigate the question a little further to find the right
answer to a problem which is becoming an embarrassment and questioning
the accuracy of the TV monitoring system.
About the most reliable answer is for the ICC to appoint a group of
retired ICC test panel umpires to the role of "ICC TV monitor
adjudicators" as a way of rooting out erratic decision making and
eliminate controversies. It is one way of eliminating the "hometown"
decision claims. Test and limited-overs international players are
professionals and deserve a professional approach, not a tardy
response from those in control.