THE umpires in the second Test match between Pakistan and England were under heavy fire and Englishman David Shepherd was the main target. But because of his high standing, he was able to diffuse much of the criticism.
Would an umpire from the sub-continent have got away in that fashion? The answer is an emphatic NO. Whenever they make their share of mistakes, accusations of bias seem to come into the frame. This is very unfortunate as every umpire is aspiring to do his best and very definitely do not take sides and must be measured by the same yardstick. From the sub-continent, umpires S. Venkataraghavan of India and Asoka De Silva of Sri Lanka, both former Test cricketers, have earned very high ratings as international umpires.
As such it is logical that more and more umpires who have played cricket at the highest level must be encouraged and given the necessary incentives to take to the job. Sadiq Mohammad of Pakistan has also taken the plunge and so has Maninder Singh of India. These umpires need to be given more and more exposure by fast tracking them. Due to various reasons and also local cricket politics involved, Test cricketers too have to stand in line to be assigned Test matches, as umpires. This would be the wrong approach as giving them opportunity early will not only encourage them to don the white coat, but will also bring more respectability and prestige to the job, which is getting more and more difficult, with television focussing a lot on the umpires.
It is felt that someone who has played Test cricket and has a knack for umpiring could fill the role at the Test or one-day level in a period of about 18 months from the date he passes the various umpiring examinations.
Let us be honest. Are we not attempting to expect umpires to perform a task which is very nearly impossible? Concentrating on many aspects at the same time we all know is humanly not possible and this is what we are asking these men to do. They have to watch where the bowlers' back and front feet land, see where the ball pitches, as to whether the batsman played a shot or not, whether he touched it and many more. He has to interpret the laws in a flash.
Think about it? You have to be super human to do all this, and at the same time if a match is lost the first people to get the blame are the umpires.
While there will always be opposition to change, and excuses will more often than not be made to effect it, the answer to the problem lies in bringing about change not only by way of new technology but by also other ways of innovation.
Will not a third umpire on the field help? The television umpire could be used to stand on the field, judging no-balls, counting the deliveries and taking over functions of signalling the boundaries etc., while the umpire at the bowlers' end could handle the leg-before decisions and the catches. The line decisions, in any event, could be referred to the man in front of the television, who could even be the match referee. In the alternative the leg-umpires' position could be changed to judge the no-balls, etc.
The introduction of a third on-field umpire will not incur big costs. Additionally the three umpires in the middle could rotate their responsibilities. Some might ask, what is it that is so very difficult in judging no-balls? But when you have so much to do you will understand the difficulty that umpires face with bowlers like Wasim Akram, who have large frames. It is a nightmare while judging front foot no-balls, when they bowl over the wicket, from close to the stumps.
They at times completely obscure the umpire's view of where the front foot lands. So how could you blame the umpire, and a solution must be found to problems such as these.
In the case of no-balls, it has been suggested to introduce the 'cyclops' device like in tennis at Wimbledon, where a sound emanates when the ball touches the line. One has to be careful here, because it could create more confusion if a proper evaluation is not made.
When an umpire of Shepherd's stature errs everyone gets alarmed and look at ways and means of rectifying the problem. This is good for cricket, but it should be done as a continuous process of evaluation.
I am a firm believer that we should be looking to assist umpires not only through technology but also by way of other changes and I am sure since every problem has a solution, cricket administrators will be able to meet this challenge too, if they are receptive to change.
Comments
SHARE