Are referrals the future of umpiring in international cricket?
The decisions taking by the on-field umpires are very crucial; one poor decision can influence the result of the entire match.
The umpires are pardoned when they make poor decisions and their mistakes are passed off as ‘human error.’ The umpires are not held accountable for their decisions and aren’t penalised for their mistakes either. So, they not only
get away with their mistakes, but they continue to remain in employment as well.
However, this so-called human error proves to be very costly for many teams who are forced to suffer defeats due to mistakes from umpires.
There should be some sort of justice in the system in the form of a carrot and stick approach, which should be imposed not only on the players, but also the umpires. For instance, if the umpires are rewarded when they made good
umpiring decisions, they should also be penalized for making poor decisions. Unfortunately, that is not the way it works in the cricket world of today, there is a carrot policy for sure, but there are no sticks whatsoever! Nothing is done when poor decisions
are taken by the umpires - in fact on many occasions the matter goes unnoticed.
It really gives the impression that umpires are independent, unquestionable entities, where decisions are solely based on their individual judgments. It also seems that the umpires are categorized in quality according to their
nationality; Australians and Brits are given preference over those of other nations. However, recently many umpires from Asia and http://www.senore.com/Cricket/South-Africa-c757 have been included in the international arena. The reputation of a country, in terms of cricket also plays a major
role in umpire selection. For instance most of the umpires are from test playing nations.
However, all of this has changed with umpiring reforms brought forth in 2009. The importance of the third umpire faded away when the International Cricket Council introduced the much-needed Umpire Decision Referral System into
the international cricket matches. Finally, the use of technology has been capitalized upon by having a fourth umpire who could be used by either the bowling side or the batting side if they are not satisfied with a decision given by the on-field umpire.
For instance, if the batsmen does not agree with the on-field umpire’s decision (which would, hypothetically speaking be ‘out’) he could refer it to the third umpire. The third umpire would then use the technology (replays, hawk-eye,
hot spot) to pass the final judgment. Based on the results of the used technology, the third umpire can then either uphold or overturn the original decision of the on-field umpire.
Similarly, the bowling side could make an appeal to the third umpire if they feel that the batsman is not out, and the same technologies would be used to review the decision.
‘Hawk eye’, which is a fairly recent technology introduced in the game of cricket, is used when reviewing LBW decisions. The ‘hawk eye’ shows the trajectory of the ball whether it would hit the stumps or not. ‘Hot spot’ is usually
used to review caught-behind decisions and shows whether the ball has hit the bat, gloves or the hip of the batsman. It is also used when reviewing LBW decisions as it shows if the ball has hit the pad first and then the bat or vice versa.
It is a relief to know that the players are finally allowed to challenge or appeal against the decisions made by the on-field umpires. With the use of referrals, cricket is now pestered with far less ‘unfair’ results as teams can
appeal to the third umpire whenever they feel a dodgy decision has been laid down by the on-field umpires.
However, the review systems so far have just been used in the test matches, and there are only 2 reviews given to each team per innings. If either of the team uses up their reviews, they would then have to adhere to the decisions
made by the on-field umpires regardless of whether they’re right or wrong.
Secondly, the review system has not been introduced in the one-day internationals and T20s; the two forms of the sport that requires a review system the most. Cricket pundits maintain that the review system must be been used within
limits so that the importance and regard of the on-field umpire doesn’t fade away. But to be honest, cricket lovers want to watch a fair game within the true spirit of cricket, where there is no margin for ‘human errors.’
Tags: