T Dexter: Television's probing eye erodes umpires' standing (26 Aug 1998)

26 August 1998

Television's probing eye erodes umpires' standing

By Ted Dexter

WE now know for certain what we only suspected a fortnight ago. The job of umpiring Test cricket with honour and personal dignity has become an impossibility.

Why the sea change at a time when sales of the Dickie Bird autobiography are breaking sporting barriers? How did a diminutive and distinctly oddball Yorkshireman survive so many thousands of Howzats with his reputation for accuracy not only intact but elevated to an almost mythical level?

Obviously a strong personality and an ability to communicate in cricketing language with players and spectators must be at the heart of the legend. This is a kind of folklore which the unfortunate Javed Akhtar can never aspire to after the Headingley Test.

The advent of the super slow-motion video replay coupled to the magnification of the ball at critical moments has provided virtually foolproof evidence of the ball hitting or not hitting the bat. The umpire says "out" and just seconds later the whole world, including himself, knows that he has made a mistake with the immediate consequence of reduced trust and diminished authority. This is the end of good, honest umpiring as we used to understand it.

For some years there have been television commentators who have claimed some sort of second sight which convinced few people other than themselves. Ordinary slow motion replays showed one blurred object passing in proximity to another on a two-dimensional screen giving a minimum of accurate information. Nevertheless, there were those who claimed to know better, presumably with a view to expanding their reputations as expert observers. Now there is little room for doubt, even for the home viewer.

But for the replay, it would never have occurred to anyone that the Mark Boucher catch low down off Mark Ramprakash had actually brushed the ground on its way into his gloves. Whether the keeper himself had an inkling, it would be diplomatic to give him the benefit of any doubt.

Of the three snicks on to the pad which were all given out, the most extraordinary was Mike Atherton's. Each time it was played in normal time, the bat appeared to be miles away and yet it was a clear snick under the microscope.

So the umpire is made to look, at best, foolish and, at worst, dishonest, which is all very well for the professional backed up by a professional colleague on the field with a third umpire in the wings and the supporting authority of a referee to see fair play.

The real damage is done to all those selfless people who put on white coats from the goodness of their hearts and walk out to umpire school and club games every week of the year. Their decisions will be questioned as never before only because human fallibility in giving accurate decisions, mostly at a distance of 20 yards, has been proved on television to be greater than we had ever suspected.

That is my reason for encouraging the Test-playing countries to hurriedly embrace the new technology and give umpires access to as much accurate information as possible.

There is a school of thought which would ban slow motion replays altogether and it might be theoretically possible to conclude agreements with television companies to that effect. Then there would be the dilemma of how to get footage of the decisions which we do like to have, such as stumpings, run-outs and the like.

I remember when the first murmurings were heard in support of the third umpire and the winning argument was simply that it was in everyone's interest to have accurate decisions. The principle applies now.

My personal experience of umpiring can hardly be said to affect my ideas on the subject. I think I got more than my fair share of decisions which gave me the benefit of the doubt as a batsman. It was also a huge tribute to a particular generation of umpires when the ever-sprightly Ken Suttle, still the record-holder for most consecutive championship matches played, told me that he remembered only two wrong decisions against him in well over 1,000 innings.

As for umpiring myself, I have an appalling record of eight-ball overs and other general inattention. When standing in a pre-season practice at Hove, I confidently gave Richard Langridge not out for a lifting ball on the leg-side which brushed nothing but his thigh on its way through to the keeper.

It was later in the day that he admitted hitting the cover off the ball. As a result he said he had resolved to never "walk" again even if he hit a dolly to cover but, being of the more thoughtful school of professional cricketer, I rather doubt that he actually carried out the threat.

That club umpiring remains charmingly idiosyncratic was revealed at Ealing CC during the recent match between St Matthews Church and the local Rotarians. When the church team captain complained of 12 fielders, it was time for the septuagenarian umpire to reveal himself feeling safer at deep second slip than at square-leg.

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