Umpiring reforms are overdue

Most things in this world go through some kind of regular transition. Usually this evolution process is essential for the improved health of all things. And the same is true of cricket. Since the true advent of professionalism in cricket, brought about by Kerry Packer in the late 1970s, our sport is in a continual reformation process.

International cricket is all about playing hard to win, which in turn enhances the good name of your country (and, eventually, yourself). In order to achieve this, though, the traditional decent principles of this gentlemen's game should not be violated.

One of the keys in achieving fair play is proficient umpiring. It's an area which has undergone a few changes. Over the years, several new rules and regulations have been introduced for the umpires to implement. The traditional two onfield umpires are now augmented by a third umpire watching the game on TV. And the ancient concept - which started with Test cricket in 1877 - of umpires from the home country has now been updated so that we have two officials from a third country standing as neutral umpires in Test matches (and one third-country and one home umpire in ODIs).

Recent advancements in television technology have resulted in almost any incident that happens on the cricket field being visible in close-up detail on screen. This technology ais useful for the third umpire, but has put immense pressure on the umpires out in the field, who are already having to cope with today's hectic schedules.

When you invest in something, you should look at three salient areas: "Time"; "Money being spent"; and, most important, "Results".

Cricket authorities and TV companies the world over have spent a lot of "Time" and "Money" in equipping all the main stadiums with the latest technology necessary to implement the idea of the TV umpire. Nowadays, almost any angle the TV umpire might need is available. And the research-and-development process in this area is also ongoing.

It's time to evaluate the "Results", by canvassing players, managers, coaches and viewers to see how well the system is working. If we were to go back and review, say, the archived statements of the captains, managers, coaches and ardent followers of the game after each series of the last two years, we would come across several negative comments about the standard of umpiring the world over.

So the standard of umpiring seems not to be improving, despite a lot of resources being spent on it. Why is this happening? One of the reasons is the TV action-replay technology itself, which puts immense pressure on the onfield umpires, who fear any mistakes being shown up. Another reason, as mentioned before, is that there is too much international cricket. Once you get past the halfway point of a Test - towards the end of the third day and beyond - the umpires' concentration begins to slacken. It's a natural thing. Then in one-day games, they have to keep an eye on too many other things: the clock, wides, no-balls, batsmen backing up too far as a bowler bowls, quick singles and so on. All this - and, again, the excess of matches - takes its toll on the umpires. They begin to miss no-balls, and sometimes give lbws when the ball has taken the edge (this one keeps happening).

I don't mean that anyone ever deliberately makes bad decisions - everyone is basically honest and tries their best. But the umpires are only human: the pressure of TV replays and the frequency of matches takes its toll, and they make honest mistakes as their attention wanders.

Do I have any antidotes? Yes, use some common-sense. First, go back to the traditional two umpires in Tests and ODIs. But we should have one umpire at the bowler's end, and the second in the pavilion watching the TV screen. The square-leg umpire should be removed altogether.

Almost unnoticed, these days the responsibilities of the square-leg umpire are all executed by the TV umpire - so why not eliminate this position? Actually you would still have three umpires at the ground, but the third one could be putting his feet up and having a rest before taking his turn either on the field or in the TV box.

On any day in a Test, the onfield umpire could stay at the bowling end during for the first two hours before lunch. Then he goes off to the dressing-room, while the man who had the first session off can go out on the field till tea. For the evening session, the umpires could do an hour or so on the field apiece, again while one of them has a rest. For ODIs you could work the rota on the basis of 25-over sessions. This way all the umpires will be more relaxed and able to maintain the necessary level of concentration.

Another change in the Laws of Cricket should be that the batsman should have the right to appeal against lbw decisions made against him by the onfield umpire. Everyone knows that the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the batsman, since he has only one chance at the crease per innings, while a bowler has more opportunities to perform. As I said before, many of the controversial decisions of the recent past have been lbws - especially inside-edges onto the pads - given out, often by tired umpires. I suspect that around 90% of poor umpiring decisions are these sort of lbw decisions - and they could be eliminated if the batsman had the right of appeal. That would then be referred for final adjudication to the TV umpire, who has the most reliable technology to do the job.

So there are two ideas to improve the overall standard of umpiring - food for thought, I hope, to generate some healthy discussion.