Berry S: Role of The Third Umpire (23Aug1993)

Restricted Role of Third Umpire is a Myth Article by Scyld Berry (Aug 1993) Like many cultures, the ancient Greeks preferred to blame a woman when they came to formulate a myth about their origins. It was Pandora, they said, who made our earth imperfect by opening her box and releasing all the troubles of the world. On this occasion, neither Pandora nor Eve, nor any other woman, is at fault. Men have only introduced into cricket the third umpire equipped with the box that is television, thereby releasing a series of troubles of which we have only seen the start. Already at Lord's, where the system was inaugurated for the recent second Test, we had a hint of what is in store. Television replays are to be used for some decisions --the so-called "line decisions of run out, stumping and hit wicket--but not for others, in accordance with some arbitrary division. Officialdom wants to open the box thus far and no further, and we don't need Greek myth to remind us that life does not work so neatly. Yet the TCCB powers-that-be are elated: "We think it worked pretty well," said one power-that-is. "We remain convinced that what we are doing is absolutely right." Well, there you go: most people see exactly what they want to see. Spectator's at Lord's, assessing the new system more objectively, did not seem quite impressed. The pause while the third umpire consults his screen is meant to be a dramatic moment. But if it was akin to drama when Meryvn Kitchen called for assistance, it was like when a leading actor forgets his lines and his offstage prompt is embarrassingly slow in giving him the cue. And, sure enough, we had trouble, an eventuality unforeseen when the box was opened. Mike Atherton hit a ball against the boundary rope, before it was returned to the wicket-keeper, and the shot was signalled as three runs not four. As a consequence, the TCCB have been discussing with the Australian management about extending the parameters of the third umpire to include such incidents in future, and catches which may or may not have been made inside the boundary. Of course, it won't end there. Hit wicket, for a start, is not a "line" decision, so the existing definition is specious and arbitrary. The powers-that-be say the third umpire can be consulted --and can intervene--on "line" decisions because they are matters of fact: but that everything else, like LBWs and catches, will be left to the two in the middle because they are matters of opinions. Baloney. Nothing creates bad blood, apart from beamers, like a catch scooped up on the half-volley. What happens if an Australian fielder, in the final possible over at Trent Bridge, scoops up and claims such a "catch" to dismiss England's last man. That is not a matter of opinion, and justice will demand that the replay be consulted because Pandora knows that if you are using for one thing, you will have to use it for everything. Suppose then, the television is consulted for such an eventuality: what happens if it is like that disputed catch at Edgbaston in 1985 involving Wayne Phillips? The series stood 1-1, Australia were batting out the last afternoon and the ball bounced up off a close fielder's heel. A critical decision, yet TV was inconclusive. Is a crowd meant to wait 10 minutes before the third umpire says "no comment"? Of course, there is an answer--to have the best umpires. Players and everyone else will surely accept an element of human error so long as it is kept to the minimum. Indeed, one could argue that a game requires this element of human fallability to be interesting, not robotic. The real problem is that the TCCB do not always appoint the best umpires for each home Test, thus making TV attractive as a remedy for their deficiencies. Eight umpires officiated in last summer's series and eight again this year, an unprecedented amount in England this century. Are we really asked to believe that all eight are the very best? Instead of having the eighth best umpire in England standing, why not use two of the best half dozen in the world? If that had been the case at Lord's, the stumping decisions involving Robin Smith and Neil Foster and the TV replay might well have been made correctly in nine cases out of 10, without any need for technology. In addition, the two close-to-the-wicket dismissals of Foster and the LBW against Mike Gatting might not have been made by two of the world's best umpires. Then England might not have had the worse of the umpiring, as they often do at home, and would have come closer to a draw. An autonomous body of six or seven umpires, to officiate all Test matches, would be far more worthwhile than these experiments of TV replays, third umpires, and ICC match referees. After all, if cricket is truly the game of "fair play", it should have nothing to fear by introducing that fundamental human right, an independent judiciary.