To err is human

Last week the new SLC chief Arjuna Ranatunga airing his personal views on the current controversies on umpiring came out with an interesting point. His views on the matter were to give more accent to home grown umpires in the respective Test playing countries and the members of the elite umpires panel should be only present in a consultative capacity only to point out their decisions when it’s called for.

He pointed out that this way the umpiring standards in each Test playing nation would develop to international standards.

His argument was that as even the members of the ICC elite panel keep making some elementary mistakes that any other umpire would make, but their presence there in the middle was to eliminate all forms of bias. However he pointed out if the ICC makes a team out of the match referee and the elite umpire to oversee the proceedings and even go to the extent of reporting the local umpire to the ICC if they feel that he had an element of bias, the game of cricket will only benefit from it. The local umpires officiating could in turn seek the assistance of the elite duo and refer any uncertain decisions so that the game would be more error free.

On that interesting note we here at the Musings thought of what would a cross section of the local cricketing elite think on the same matter.

The first among the lot was the man who led the Sri Lanka team on to the field for the first time as a Test playing nation-- Bandula Warnapura who calls himself a traditionalist. He says that cricket itself is a game that is based upon human errors. In spite of the plusses and minuses that comes along with the game, he feels that everyone who has indulged in cricket has faced situations where he was ruled out when he felt that it was a wrongful decision and at the same time the umpires decisions may have been kind towards him when he felt that he was out, but he did not have the heart to walk out.

However his theory on the whole issue was a very interesting one. He says “I feel that the traditional game of Test cricket should be kept above board. It is the very base of cricket and it is traditional. Players in white going through the match with a red ball with umpires wearing black and white are all traditional. So let’s keep it that way.

“However to keep all the controversies that are springing up like mushrooms where umpires are blamed and some times sidelined we must not show any re-plays on TV for the public and have lengthy jibes about them”.

Warnapura was posed with the question how on Tuesday when the Indian master batsman Sachin Tendulkar was batting beautifully taming the mighty Australian attack and looked an easy candidate for his thirty-ninth Test century when he was ruled out by umpire Azad Rauf off the bowling of Brett Lee to a ball that would have not hit the wicket at all. To this question Warnapura’s reaction was “Cricket is a game that is based on human error. That is the beauty of this game. Right through the history of this game there have been wrong decisions made by umpires and that is the very human element of the game, everyone who has played cricket knows that at some point of his career either he has been a gainer or a loser because of an umpiring decision. However at the end of it when you think back the scales are at level.

“No umpire who is worth his salt is willingly going to make a wrong decision. At the same time they have to make their mind up in a split second. I am against umpires using technology in Test cricket even in given sections. I feel it should be totally technology free and traditional.”

He also feels that there is an area in cricket where technology can come. He elaborated “In retrospect I feel that both shortened versions of the game – One-day Internationals and the 20-Twenty, which were especially designed strictly for spectator and TV interests could be given a full blast of technology. These two versions of the game are played in a carnival atmosphere, with white balls, black sight-screens and players in coloured clothing, so these two versions can be technologised, but I feel the traditional game should not be tampered with”.

Another person who personally feels that technology must be there, but in a more confined manner is the current selector Jayantha Seneviratne. He said “I feel that technology in cricket is good, and it aids the umpires to be correct in most of their decisions. But, what I am against is that the screens that are installed at the venues. Well I also believe that umpires are only human and they are also prone to error. But, at an international match with about ten to fifteen thousand people present at the venue, if an umpire gets it wrong it is quickly projected on the screen that he has gone wrong. Then just imagine the pressure that engulfs that person at that moment. From that point onwards he may be in such a lot of pressure he may not be able to concentrate in a proper manner for the rest of the day. I feel first and foremost the giant screens must be removed from the Test match venues. If an umpire goes wrong, the match referee could call upon him and tell him that he has made a mistake during the day’s play. Then the umpire has about ten to fifteen hours to recover from that initial shock and get back to his place behind the stumps the next day in a proper frame of mind.

In short technology must be there, but it should be used in a progressive manner so that it would help improve the game, but not in a regressive manner so that it will have ill effects on the game”.