Nicholas on umpiring: Beware the thin end of a deeply divisive wedge (20 Aug 1998)

20 August 1998

Beware the thin end of a deeply divisive wedge

By Mark Nicholas

THERE was the brightest told-you-so smile on Hansie Cronje's face when South Africa completed their comfy win over England on Tuesday. It was as if this outstanding ambassador for his country, gagged by cricket's law-lords from voicing his real opinion of the umpiring of the Test series, was saying: "See, give us a level playing field and we'll give you a thrashing."

Well, Cronje has a point but only up to a point, for although the imbalance in umpiring decisions was enough in England's favour to make a difference, the truth is that South Africa had England squealing for mercy at Old Trafford but failed to finish the job. This was long before the umpires became major players in the high stakes at Trent Bridge and Headingley.

It may be that history remembers this excellent Test series more for its controversial end than for its cricket throughout and, because of it, for the moment umpiring by videotape became the only way to go. Indeed, yesterday Jagmohan Dalmiya, the president of the International Cricket Council, suggested that the third umpire could soon be used to settle bat-pad decisions, though these claims were yesterday denied.

Oh dear, it should not have to be so. Embracing technology is to invite the release of a pit-full of cricketing vipers which have been hissing away since 1992, when South Africa played India in Durban and cameras were used for the first time in judgment of run-outs and stumpings.

This was the thin end of a mighty thick wedge though the innovative Ali Bacher wouldn't have it at the time, saying that the naked eye would always rule on issues other than the available fact of a line decision.

He was wrong. Many a line decision has been disputed - partly because of the angle at which the cameras have been positioned and partly because there are not always enough cameras for all the necessary angles - and in the future masses of technology-driven decisions will be disputed too.

The implications are ghastly. Think of the appealing as it is, excessive and aggressive, and imagine what is to come. "Well I'll shout for that," thinks the bowler. "He probably did/didn't nick it but you never know, the camera may prove me wrong. Howzat ump?" "Umm" thinks the umpire, "that can't possibly be out . . . or can it? . . . crikey . . . I don't want those TV replays to make a goon of me . . . better refer to my mate with the monitor up in the pavilion." Yawn, more delays. Run-outs, stumpings, and bat-pads today; half-volley claims and catches at the wicket tomorrow. Lbws lie in waiting.

They do, we're only part of the journey up that wedge because virtual reality is on the way. Already in South Africa and Australia technology is being developed to rule on lbw shouts, based on numerous camera angles making a three-dimensional matrix which establishes the present and ultimate - as if the pad were not there - path of the ball, like the routing of a defence missile.

But cricket balls are not delivered by computers and do not always do as they are told - witness the swing after the ball has passed the bat which so often confuses wicketkeepers - so the system is not foolproof.

Almost as bad, it cannot be immediate. Think of the time while the path of the ball is tracked and the third umpire reviews the replays before coming to his decision. Yawn, more delays.

There is more. Where is the optimum point from which any decision is made? Is it at the eye level of the umpire, in which case he must have a camera on the bridge of his nose, or is it from the assimilation of some cameras in the stumps and some 70 yards or more away?

Or will consistency insist that all decisions will be made with technology and render the umpire irrelevant for anything other than ball-counting and for the refereeing of sledging. God forbid. Adjudication in sport can never be an exact science - they got rid of television rulings in American football once they saw the complications - and cricket itself is no science. Batsmen play hopeless shots, bowlers propel useless balls, umpires make cock-ups. It was ever thus, but it is the umpires who get it in the neck.

Actually it is the players' fault, for they bend the rules and indulge in the fine line that is sharp practice as against cheating. Not today's players specifically, but players almost always, only these days television catches everyone out. During my own time of playing, respect for umpires as wise men diminished at the same time as their job became difficult.

There had always been good and bad umpires but there had not always been this cynical method of exposing their flaws through blatant non-walking, ongoing pressure appealing and the shows of disgust when appeals are refused. True, it is the weak umpires are unnerved by this humiliation. It is the law of the jungle, but this does not make it right. If cricket reflects life in any way then the idea that the umpire's decision is final is worth pursuing.

The key is to get the right umpires and to back them unconditionally with strong referees. The political correctness of selecting two umpires from each country is nonsensical for it does not comprise an international panel of the very best.

Allow new boys to gain experience in the English professional game and, most important of all, remind all of them in no uncertain manner of the unwritten law about the benefit of the doubt going with the batsmen. This is common sense and has nothing to do with technology.

Technology has a place in cricket with line decisions so long as four cameras are locked-off exactly square to both sides of both wickets. It should not however, not at present anyway, usurp common sense or replace the role of umpires, who are best placed to take overall control.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)