Stuck in the Dark Ages?

The Indian tour of England which got over just about an hour ago had one defining characteristic.. the pathetic umpiring all through. In my memory, the state of umpiring has never seemed so bad.. and that of course is made worse by the fact that the powers that be refuse to embrace technology which is very readily available to make amends. Cricket is governed by a group of people who are more interested in promoting it for pure commercialism (Twenty20 in sleeveless shirts?!!) than doing something about what the game is descending into..

Of course, keeping the ICC aside, this is one game which also has its share of followers who've been brainwashed with "oh, it's a gentlemen's game".. "the romance of cricket".. "the human element".. "the glorious uncertainties".. and all that jazz. I guess with only a handful of countries in the world embracing it, and with all the colonial connotations to it, cricket had to develop a self-proclaimed sense of elevated royalty to find its place in the world.

But then, I love the game too.. so all those who don't care about it.. well, they don't know what they're missing!

But to get to the point in hand.. Umpires will always make mistakes.. am sure they always have, and quite possibly the average error rate right now is no worse than what it was 20 years ago.. even Dicky Bird must have made some, we just don't have high resolution images from his era to prove it. But a game, any game, should be about the genius and error of the players, and not the officials.. the role of the officials is to give as clean a field as possible and errors on their part are blemishes which need to be removed so that the game can be properly played. The 'hand of God' for me isn't some great soccer folklore, it's a disgrace that forever puts a question mark on the legitimacy of Argentina's victory. So when people start giving the "it won't be the same game anymore" excuse as an argument against using technology to aid umpires, I just feel it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Of course, it won't be the same game.. it will be better!!

All these incorrect decisions are ruining the game, if you've got technology, use it!! It won't reduce the glorious uncertainties, the romance of the game.. whether the umpire will make a mistake or not shouldn't be a part of the romance and the uncertainty anyways! Those wonderful elements of cricket are in the ball that just misses the stumps, the times when it trickles on and the bails don't come off.. when the ball just falls short of the fielder.. when a direct hit on the stumps finds the batsmen just short.. when that impossible catch is taken.. that contest between a class bowler and a champion batsmen on a lively pitch.. that some grounds are huge while others are small.. that some have a heavy slope.. that the pitch may or may not turn.. that the weather might suddenly get cloudy.. that the ball might reverse swing.. the thick outside edge to thirdman boundary when 3 runs are required off the last ball.. those are what make the game fun.. that Sachin Tendulkar had to walk off during his last innings at Lords because Alim Dar made a mistake is not glorious, it's blasphemy against the game we all so love.. nothing but an unwanted bad aftertaste in the mouth.. one that could have been avoided so very easily.. with one square painted in the air by the umpire..

I really don't get what the big deal is.. why tech can't be used.. I do agree that tech probably doesn't meet all the needs of cricket.. it's probably the only game where crucial decisions are based on the umpires ability to judge what might have been. One argument is that hawkeye it seems doesn't take the wind speed into account.. seriously, unless there's a cyclone on, how much is the wind really gonna affect the ball in the 4 feet it has to travel.. and no one's talking about giving the batsmen out when the ball's just clipping the outside of the stump.. it's the obvious errors that can at least be avoided.. another argument is that the hawkeye doesn't take into accout pitch conditions.. helloooo, don't use the hawkeye for a fulltoss.. but if it's already bounced, the affect of the pitch have already been taken into account! The snickometer on the other hand picks up other sounds too.. umm, doesn't the umpire's ear?! And the way they superimpose snicko with the replay, it gives a pretty good idea of when the sound occurred..

But ok.. so there are areas where tech can't be used.. but then there are others where it can.. a replay will almost always tell you if a ball pitched in line.. a replay will most times reveal a big nick.. so why can't an umpire refer for those aspects to the third umpire. And let the tech overrule the onfield umpire of the evidence is conclusive? Or at least why can't a foot no ball just be based on a cricket based cyclops?!! Why in this day and age do umpires still have to look down and judge the no ball instead of keeping all their attention to what Chappel calls the business end.

It is upto the ICC to make things as close to 'what-is-right' as possible. If other games can do it, what's so special about cricket.. except the usual inertia.. Wimbledon is to tennis at least what Lords is to cricket, if not more.. and yet, it was one of the first tournaments in tennis to embrace cyclops. Every game has tradition, it's rituals, it's idiosyncrasies.. At Wimbledon, Kipling's lines will always be etched on the entrance to centre court.. players will always have to play in a predominant white.. it will always be played on grass though the surface is so outdated.. it will always rain.. and strawberries with cream will always be served.. that's what makes the tourney special, not the fact that the linesmen make mistakes calling the ball. Till tech came in, questionable calls were an unfortunate truth that had to be accepted.. when the opportunity came along to improve things, it was taken.. won't Mcenroe have loved to play now..

I believe the same applies to cricket.. or at least it should.. umpires have a tough job in any game, in cricket it's probably the toughest.. let's give them some help to make our great game better.. let's not remain stuck in the dark ages.. we have a horrific situation at hand.. every incorrect decision is echoed on the big screen and everyone in the stadium knows it within 20 seconds.. umpires are booed throughout the game... if that doesn't undermine the authority of the umpires, I don't know what does.. if Sachin Tendulkar is given out wrongly in the Indian subcontinent and it shows up on the big screen, you can expect fireworks.. and why not?! I'd throw some stones too.. though mine won't be aimed at the players or the umpires.. but at the ICC. There's a school of thought where replays won't be shown on the big screen to avoid problems.. sounds like an ostrich burying its head in the sand, doesn't it?! I made a mistake, I won't correct it.. I just won't look at it!

Forget snickometer.. forget the hawkeye.. some think they're not reliable, so let's forget them. Let's just stick to the replay.. did that ball pitch in line.. did it hit in line.. did he nick it.. all these are questions that need to be answered while giving LBW decisions.. and replays can in most cases conclusivly give an answer.. let the nick be based on a visible deflection.. these are questions that can be answered.. and then let the umpire decide on the basis of the third-umpire inputs.. there's nothing wrong with the umpire admitting he's not sure.. we know it's a tough job.. and we've got enough dissent rules against players if they try and bully an umpire into making his decision.. let's enforce those on a standardized basis.. of course, ICC has never been able to standardize anything.. but they've gotta start doing that..

Or we can go the tennis way.. give each batsmen 1 challenge against the umpire decision.. give the fielding captain 3 challenges per inning.. and on each challenge, the 3rd umpire can overrule the on-field umpire's decision only if the evidence is conclusive.. and let him only refer to the replay, not the snickometer or the hawkeye if you really feel there are problems.. it will be interesting, there are multiple possibilities.. how sure is the fielding captain that the umpire's got it wrong.. does he waste a challenge on a not-so-great player? Some might say that it'll undermine the authority of the umpire.. that's just crap, everyone knows the umpire's word is final.. and if the challenge proves him wrong, the umpire should have no qualms in admitting he made a mistake.. if my manager makes a judgement error which is later proved wrong and corrected, his authority doesn't get undermined.. what's so special about this umpire?!

The key is to start thinking about these things.. we need to adapt.. to innovate.. to think up creative solutions.. ones that don't compromise on the values we love while making the game better.. in my book, umpire error isn't a quality I'd like to keep.. we can work on getting umpire quality up as well.. but there's nothing wrong in letting them use a replay.. it's already there in run-outs where I think it added a cool new dimension to the game.. introducing something like 20-20 which basically kills the art of bowling is a marketing gimmick that ruins the game.. using tech to get to the right decisions is one that adds to its value.. ICC needs to get its act straightened out.. but then, we've known that for a really long time..