The Sunday Times has decided to dedicate this coloumn to its readers so that they can comment about contents in our sports columns and features and also write their own thoughts on various sports with letters to the editor.

The strange thing in cricket is that, a batsman is not ‘out’ merely because the ball hits his bat and is then caught by a fielder. He is ‘out’ only if the ball appears to hit the bat from the point of view of the umpire, and is then caught. This concept is applicable to any sport where the role of the umpire or referee is performed by a natural person with his own eyes. This position has remained unchanged from the time the game originated and, invariably, wrong decisions given by the umpires have become a part and parcel of this process. This leaves us with only one method to determine whether a particular decision is ‘bad’ - use the technology. The reason is quite simple – we want the correct decision to be made at all times. Therefore few would argue against the use of technology in cricket, by way of a referral system, with the noble objective of arriving at the correct decision.

As we understand, the objective of introducing the referral system in cricket was to remove the real howlers from the game - the one like the laughable ‘not out’ decision given in favour of Andrew Symonds in Sydney, in spite of the massive edge which was even heard by holidaymakers down Darling Harbour, but not by the man who mattered most - Steve Bucknor. Like the caught behind decision given by the same umpire against Rahul Dravid when there was clear daylight visible between bat and ball. Like the horrendous decision given by Rudy Koertzen against Kumar Sangakkara, cutting short a memorable innings in Hobart. The thing is that these umpires should not be allowed to get away making howler after howler, series after series. Hence the need for a referral system, to get things right. Fine.

But the real issue is how should the referral system be used in order to make the best use of the technology to obtain the greatest number of correct decisions? Should we embrace the technology in all possible ways, at all times? A careful study of the outcome of the referral system that was used by the ICC during the trial period would, perhaps, provide some answers to these questions.

The system was first used in 2008 during the three test series played between Sri Lanka and India. Thereafter it was used during three other test series in 2009. The system used during the trial period clearly demonstrated that the usage of technology could create as many problems as it solves. The technology is not perfect and, at times, it can be less accurate than the on-field umpires. It was proved that certain reviews could, in fact, turn out to be disruptive. On certain occasions the decision given after the referral defied common sense. Here are some examples:

During the Sri Lanka vs India test series, Sri Lanka challenged a ‘not out’ decision given by the umpire for an LBW appeal against Virendra Shewag off Muttiah Muralitharan. The ball was pitched marginally on the leg stump line and appeared to straighten a bit. The ball clearly clipped the inside of Shewag’s front pad, which was positioned around the leg stump line, and then hit his back pad in front of the stumps. For the batsman to be given out in this manner against a Murali delivery, it has to be a top spinner or a doosra. If it was the traditional off spinner, the decision should have been a clear ‘not out, since the ball hit the front pad first and it would have certainly missed the leg stump due to the predictable turn. However, during the review the virtual eye showed the path of the delivery as if the ball had directly hit the back pad, completely ignoring the deflection off the front pad. Purely based on the evidence of the virtual eye, which showed that the ball would hit the middle stump (since it disregarded the deflection), the decision of the umpire was reversed by Rudy Koertzen and Shewag was ruled out.

The manner in which the referral system was handled during the England vs West Indies series, especially by the Third umpire Daryl Harper, raised some serious concerns regarding the consistency of the system. Steve Harmison was adjudged LBW to a marginal decision in the 1st innings of the 1st Test. England asked for a review of the decision and from the replays there was enough doubt as to whether the ball would miss the leg stump. The Hawkeye suggested that the ball would clip the leg stump bail and the 3rd umpire Daryl Harper saw nothing wrong in overturning the initial decision.

But the real controversy took place later during the West Indies innings. Harmison rapped Ramanaresh Sarwan on the pads, just above the knee roll. The umpire gave the verdict against Sarwan who referred the decision, which looked marginal. However, Daryl Harper saw enough doubt in the original decision and overturned it. Harmison had plenty of reasons to complain here. He was dismissed earlier based on a marginal decision which was changed by the referral system.

These two reviews by Daryl Harper also illustrate a serious issue concerning the referral system in its present form. Two different decisions could be given by the 3rd umpire under two similar circumstances. This compels us to ask the question - is this what the ICC intended to achieve by introducing a referral system? Where is the consistency one expects to achieve by introducing a rule of this nature?

In the test series played between Sri Lanka and India, a referral was made relating to a caught behind decision given by the umpire against Tillakaratne Dilshan. The 3rd umpire, Rudy Koertzen, gave the benefit of the doubt to the batsman and changed the decision, as the TV replay did not catch the faint edge.

Interestingly, in the Sri Lanka - India series, over 80% of the reviews were relating to LBW decisions. Curiously, only three obvious incorrect decisions given by the on-field umpire were overturned after review. Almost all other decisions, which were reversed after review, involved marginal or borderline decisions given by the on-field umpire.

What was intended was to eliminate the obvious errors, but on the contrary, the referral system resulted in reversing marginal decisions given by the umpires. The actual purpose was lost.

Whilst there is controversy surrounding the referral system, the actual cause could well be the human factor which is involved in running the system. Even to use the technology you still need quality umpires who understand the rules and know how to enforce them. Whilst the Harpers and Koertzens messed up the concept, it must be noted that the Pakistani umpire Asad Rauf did handle the referrals in an admirable manner during South Africa’s home series against Australia. He treated the marginal decisions given by the on-field umpire precisely in that manner - marginal.

Another important aspect is that the technology to be used is dependent on a lot of human factors, such as the angles at which the cameras are aligned etc.

Technology in various forms, such as Hawk Eye, Virtual Eye, Snickometer, Hot Spot etc., should be used to correct the obvious errors in order to eliminate the doubt in marginal decisions. If there is doubt even after reviewing, the original decision mustprevail.

- Renuke Wijayawardhane