The charm is dwindling

The review system put in place may well serve to either undermine the confidence of the umpires or make them extremely complacent.

The review system introduced to provide the players an option to challenge the umpires’ decision has been welcomed by the players with open arms. One of the major complaints over the years at all levels in cricket has been the inconsistent decision making of umpires and the review can probably serve to right the wrong as it were.

However, the players need not be necessarily on the button as it has been proved in the India-Sri Lanka series. The ICC has tried to provide the umpires enough back-up in order to minimise the mistakes that are made on the field.

The recent developments in technology has augmented the manner in which replays can be seen from several angles and at varying speeds. But the fact remains that technology cannot be relied upon as it is not foolproof as yet. Unless technology can gain the confidence of the players in terms of its accuracy, it will be impossible to fall back on technology alone.

The review enables the players to contest the decisions and this is where the ICC is constantly contradicting itself. There are strict measures to prevent the players from appealing excessively but now they have a provision for challenging a verdict!!!

Similarly the umpires are given as much help as possible but their ruling is scraped by the apex body as and when they deem fit. I am referring to the reversal of the result in the bygone Pakistan-England Test. Even with the review scenario one would presume the objective is to try and bring down the mistakes to almost nil but the restrictions posed on the number of reviews can be revised. Agreed that the players have something that was non-existent before and they have to be discreet in exercising the option, but the contradiction remains.

In order to achieve the objective, the players should be allowed to go for a review as many times as the on-field umpires can go for a referral. The on-field umpires refer with the third umpire when they are in doubt and ensure that they get it right and that being the case, why not allow the players to go for a review every time they think there is a reasonably strong case. Then, of course, the time factor and the likes of Harbhajan Singh who appeal constantly come in but if decisions are going to be accurate, then the time factor can be sorted out differently.

Alternatively, for the time that is lost due to reviews beyond the restricted number, heavy fines should be levied to discourage the players from turning the review into a farce. The other option is to make the captain responsible for the loss of time and treat it in a similar fashion as when a team is penalised for slow over rate.

It is all well to assist the umpires in as many ways as possible, but the main problem is the deteriorating standard of umpiring and hence the review of not the decisions in a match but the overall quality of umpiring needs to be restructured. The mistake that an umpire can and will commit is accepted by the players but some of the decisions in recent years does not induce any confidence in them. The advent of technology is not the cause for the pressure felt by the umpires today. Instead it is the re-runs of the matches on television, which ensures that the umpires get to see their mistakes, that puts pressure on them.

The umpires normally find it tough on turning tracks but with the pitches across the world being extremely batsman-friendly as there is hardly any deviation, it is difficult to understand the high percentage of mistakes that the umpires commit.

The ICC seems reluctant to do away with some umpires who are constantly messing up and the interesting point is to what extent the number of reviews will matter when the umpires are assessed.

It is time the ICC addressed the root of the problem. The colourful graphics and the Hawk-eyes are innovations that broadcasting companies throw in to make for interesting viewing, but the ICC cannot take decisions based on the emerging innovations and the pressure those production tools create on the umpires. It is worthwhile to mention here that the charm of cricket is that it is unpredictable, which is partly due to some umpiring mistakes.

With the adoption of technology more and more, the charm is dwindling. And the review system put in place recently may well serve to either undermine the confidence of the umpires or make them extremely complacent. At the end of the day, cricket is a game between two sides of XI players officiated by two gentlemen in white coats.

The game was a lot more charming, clean and bereft of protests and counter protests when the administrators did not stifle the players and umpires with too many regulations and stipulations.