rom Tournaments, to Selectors and now to Umpires! The most feared and the criticized lot! The evolvement of the game which has helped the players has made life tougher and more challenging for the people who are in white shirts! (No more in white coats now) It is once again one of the most difficult trades in cricket!
 |
In the past before the advent of technology, the Umpire’s word was law! The game was governed by the Umpire with no outside interference! He was supreme in the middle and no player ever dared to question him or even challenge his decision! But how different is cricket today?
The role of the umpire in my opinion has been diluted and down graded. To begin with Match referees have taken over. (I am in no way trying to argue the merits of the appointments of Referees). The umpire is no more supreme, his decision can be challenged after all by the players themselves! The Umpire’s ability to make split second judgments seem to be a slightly different with the advent of the 3rd Umpire too.I know lots of people will argue that technology is good and needed for the game to survive, for the players to do better. Whilst it definitely has its supporters I believe it has taken away the very character and the excitement of the game. But the argument will never end! It will go on. Technology may take over the game fully and even eliminate field umpires. One never knows.
Whilst all these factors have its pro’s and also cons, one of the issues I would wish to discuss today is TV slow motion replays on decisions. I feel this is one area most Umpires are subjected to an unfair test! When a decision is made by an Umpire the viewing public is given the opportunity to judge and criticize the Umpire from the comfort of their living rooms whilst TV and Radio Commentators plus the rest of the Media are still able to do the same thing with the available evidence in the form of TV slow motion replays!
Now my question is, are we fair by the Umpire who is subject to immense pressure not just from the players, but from spectators, media and millions of TV viewers? Whilst the Umpire has the opportunity of witnessing the situation he has to decide on just once, whilst the rest has countless replays from all angles. This is extremely unfair and some time even questions the honesty and the ability of the man. I know that this question has been discussed many times over. But how do we help the Umpire here and how can he over come this? How do we do justice to him and above all make his life as an Umpire more enjoyable? I am about to suggest a controversial theory which may not be everybody’s choice. But I am sure it will show the logic of my thinking! Let me back it with an example I could remember though there could be countless number of situations and examples one might be able to pick up to support it.
This incident occurred during the first full tour of England and it was the 3rd test match in Kandy.
The batsman was Graham Hick of England and the Bowler was the Sri Lankan off spinner turned International Umpire Kumar Dharmasena. The Sri Lankans went up for a bat pad and from the position of the head umpire it didn’t look to be out. Slow motions from that position too were inconclusive. So the unfortunate Sri Lankan Umpire (it was just one neutral umpire then) rightly said not out for all hell to break loose. Now I told you that it didn’t look conclusive even on the replay from the Head Umpires position. But the TV then went to the square leg camera which showed a nick on to Hick’s pad and then caught by the short leg! Alas the reason for the problem. And nobody needed a second invitation to pass their opinion on the umpire concern and his ability to stand in the middle!
 |
The question is, has the conclusion of all and sundry on the respective umpire, made on proper evaluation or was it simply a TV replay that caused it? Hasn’t the TV replay from an angle not available to the Umpire caused him an unfair situation? Now my view here is, had the TV cameras just shown the replay from where the Umpire was, do you possibly believe that there would have been a huge hue and cry?
Or even any questions asked? Very likely NO! But the thing that caused all the uproar was the square leg camera which angle the Umpire doesn’t have. So, my question here is, is it fair to judge umpires or even criticize them for decisions they make on the evidence available to them? Which of course has been the method of Umpiring up to now. I think it’s big NO! It will not just be the Umpires Union who will join me in their support but everybody else too with logical thinking.
No one can ever derive any enjoyment by subjecting a person to pressure especially in a sport. But isn’t it what we do here? Think about it! It is actually what happens at the end. Enjoying the criticism leveled at an Umpire for mistake that he has possibly made though it may not have been the case if not for TV replays.
Now for a TV commentator these visuals are important to colour the picture and for the viewer it enhances the entertainment. So there could be an argument to support its very existence. But isn’t it better if the entertainment doesn’t subject a fellow human being to embarrassment? Can’t we look at presenting the picture slightly differently? Say show only what the Umpire could see first and then may be show different angles later on? And dwell on the possibilities? This way we can as commentators tell the viewing public the real situation rather than letting everybody have a go at the poor man in the middle. The entertainment value can still be maintained. And more importantly the life of another man will be a bit better. One never knows whether such ideas and views will ever be acceptable to the powers that be. But surely this is food for thought for the people who matter. Once again my fingers are crossed!
Roshan Abeysinghe is a leading cricket promoter and an international cricket commentator |
E-mail