The dreaded finger

Umpire Steve Davis agrees with the fielders and points the finger up. Pic by Sanka Vidanagama

Intriguingly Paranavithana’s last Test inning was an interesting one. He had passed the worst period. He had seen the shine off the new ball and looked set for the good long innings which has eluded him so far. But, a sudden injustice of fate deprived him from achieving that feat. He attempted a sweep down the leg side off New Zealand skipper Daniel Vettori’s and missed the ball by inches. But, yet that dreaded finger of umpire Darryl Harper was struck upwards while there was broad daylight between the bat and the ball. Tharanga had to take the lonely walk back to the dressing room judged guilty of a crime that he did not commit.

In a cricket match at any level a bad umpiring decision can have various repercussions. One is that a bad decision may prevent a certain result of a game being arrived at. The second is that as a result of a bad decision, a poor cricketer may have to hang up all his dreams that he carried in his life time and thus bring an end to his international (if it is that) cricket career. Yes, it can happen at any level of cricket, but, it is most dangerous when it happens at the highest level of the game.

Not that the custodians of the game who call themselves the International Cricket Council is ignorant of that fact. It is the very reason that they have taken so many far reaching decisions and done so many behind the curtain acts to keep the levels of international umpiring 95% right. To deliver it they have formulated the ICC Elite Panel of Umpires and the other lot of umpires who second their duties when the need arises. But, are they getting it right, one may ask?

Since watching both the Pakistan and the New Zealand series and being disillusioned by the status quo, I sought the opinion of a cross section of the cricketing community who opted to remain behind the curtain for obvious reasons. Nevertheless they all had one assumption. They all agreed that the standard of umpiring was well below par during the two series. One of them even pointed out that even the Ashes series was also pockmarked by some silly mistakes. Another prominent cricketing personality lamented that the performances of umpires Daryl Harper and Gamini Silva, sadly did not stand up to the required international norms.

Then the next question that comes to mind is why these umpires flounder? Is it the pressure of being forced to perform at peak levels on a constant basis without much breathing space? Or is it that some umpires vary in their interpretation of the law?

At present there are twelve umpires in the ICC Elite Panel and another thirty drawn up from the Test playing countries to assist them. But, yet the desired standards keep dipping.

To keep the ship on course the ICC have handed over the sails to one of New Zealand's leading umpires, Doug Cowie who officiated at first-class level for more than two decades, and on the international stage for ten years where he has stood in 22 Tests and 71 ODIs before joining the ICC where he was appointed as the ICC's Umpires and Referees Manager. There Cowie heads the Umpires Analyzing Wing who constantly keeps a tab on the performances of these interpreters of the cricket law.

But, how many of these umpires do perform at the required 95% level, and what steps do the ICC take to sustain the high level of umpiring intact that is a vital component of the modern game of today? At the same time if the ICC is on the ball, how is it that mediocre umpires like Harper has been surviving among the best of the best for this length of time?

Measuring from the same yardstick do the affiliated ICC members have a common policy when choosing ICC Umpiring nominees? For instance the Lankan policy of ICC nominations has more than it’s fair share of pot holes.

So much so there were huge rumbles within not so long ago about up grading the system of umpires in Sri Lanka where even the Sports Minister had to get involved. If at home, that is the prevailing situation, how could the ICC field a good team that could stand at games who fulfill the required standards?

There was a suggestion from one quarter that the ICC should convene a group of eminent past players and present players, eminent past umpires and present umpires from all Test playing nations to discuss on how to formalize the respective nominations from each Test playing country and at the same time try to work out a common strategy of interpreting the law with almost 0% variations.

At the moment if there is a system in common interpretation it is certainly not working.

There was also another view that the ICC should send in its own representative who would directly report to the ICC's Umpires and Referees Manager stationed in a particular Test playing nation analyzing the performances of a selected set of umpires during the domestic season and reporting back.

Then the ICC would only consider those umpires who have been recommended by their representative for international engagements.

At present the ICC Elite Panel is lopsided. Out of the twelve members in the Elite Panel three are from Australia, two from England, two from South Africa, two from Pakistan and one each from West Indies, New Zealand and Sri Lanka.

On the prevailing situation even the elite umpires keep making mistakes and once the DRS (Decision Review System) comes into force in another few days things may get worse. Just imagine one umpire’s decisions are overturned twice in an innings and it keeps occurring on a regular basis! Then could the ICC have a relegation and a promotion system and also cover the entire Test playing cross section officiating at the highest level so that there would be more balance in the system.