Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Trial by gimmickry The ICC is barking up the wrong tree with its decision to experiment with umpiring referrals May 11, 2008 The referrals system was trialled in English county cricket in 2007 and was a dud by all accounts © Getty Images Following an occasionally spiteful Test series between Australia and India where much of the controversy arose due to the umpires having reduced control on the field, the solution proposed by the ICC is to further undermine the authority of the arbiters. The rationale behind the decision to trial the umpire referral system is supposedly to ensure the right decision is reached. However, if three referrals are deemed fruitless, under the recommendations of the proposal a team would then have no further opportunity to ask for assistance from the third umpire. Consequently, the biggest howler ever perpetrated could then enter the scorebook unhindered. This would be classic "justice for some but not for all". The ICC's decision is even more bewildering in light of the fact that a similar trial in county cricket was aborted on the grounds that not one disputed decision was overturned. The general feeling was the third umpire wasn't about to undermine his mate in the middle and this resulted in no result. The move to allow decisions to be referred to the video replay also goes against one of the strong foundations of the game: that players don't dispute umpires' decisions. The proposal appears to be trying to replicate the system used in tennis but this ignores a couple of important differences in the two games. In tennis singles the individual has control over the issuing of a challenge, while in cricket there is no allowance made for top-order batsmen who may conceivably use all the referrals and leave the players that follow with no chance to dispute a decision. Also, in tennis the decisions in dispute are line calls: a black-and-white situation. Appeals for lbw and caught in cricket are often anything but straightforward. For common sense, this decision by the ICC would rank alongside a move to make ash-trays on motorcycles compulsory. The ICC's cricket committee has also recommended that catches can once again be referred to the third umpire. This was trialled a few years ago and proved to be a white elephant. Most of the evidence was inconclusive and favoured the batsman, and there is ample proof that the system will also lead to incorrect decisions on occasion. A move in this direction could tip the scales in favour of the batsmen in the contest between bat and ball. Anything that is likely to lead to bigger scores in cricket should be treated with extreme caution. These moves by the ICC are more in the category of gimmickry rather than logically thought-out solutions to problems that exist in the game. There is nothing wrong with using technology, but it should result in improvement. Technology needs to produce a guaranteed correct result before it usurps the authority of umpires, who according to ICC reports, get more than 90% of their decisions right.     As much as possible Test cricket should retain the possibility of the element of human error. Any experiments with technology should first be trialled in the shorter versions of the game and once shown to be foolproof, adopted for use in Test matches   Perhaps the time has come to split the laws and playing conditions for cricket into two quite distinct groups; one set for Test matches and another for the limited-overs game. As much as possible Test cricket should retain the possibility of the element of human error. Any experiments with technology should first be trialled in the shorter versions of the game and once shown to be foolproof, adopted for use in Test matches. This distinction could be made on the basis that Test cricket is the version of the game that brings the most player satisfaction, while limited-overs matches satiate the crowds' urge for entertainment. As a combination, they complement each other because the shorter versions subsidise Test cricket in many parts of the world. For 30 years the two have been treated as slightly different versions of the same game. However, the successful arrival of Twenty20 has shown that limited-overs cricket has become the rock concert while Test matches remain the chess contest. We need to hear of ideas that are likely to improve the standard of umpiring, especially in Test cricket, rather than gimmicky suggestions put forward to satisfy a clamour for more use of technology. Encouraging good umpires by investing them with more authority would be a good starting point, rather than breeding coat minders who are comfortable with less. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (27)

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 27 comments

Posted by rnarayan on May 13 2008, 06:11 AM GMT

Following on from David Norman, the 90% that umpires get right is not the issue. What is relevant is the number they got wrong (about one per innings.) If technology can reduce that from 10% to say 2% (which could be inconclusive, even with the number of cameras available), surely it is worth it. I would, however, put the onus on the umpires (and not the batsman)to ask the 3rd umpire , specifically about where the ball pitched or whether it struck in line(for LBWs) and edges (which can genuinely be inaudible with a big crowd.).I don't think anybody would consider these referrals a poor reflection on the umpire)

Posted by yakka on May 12 2008, 21:43 PM GMT

At present (I believe) an umpire can freely refer a run out, but can refer a catch only if his view was somehow hindered. How about allowing an umpire to refer ANY decision. The third umpire could check if a batsman is clearly out (thereby rescuing his colleague from making an immortal howler) or giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt. This would protect umpires from inevitable momentary lapses in concentration etc, without undermining their authority.

Posted by SantoshSankar on May 12 2008, 17:19 PM GMT

I think the referral system could exist if it is designed such that the benefit of the doubt goes to the umpire instead of the batsman. That would mean that decisions are overturned only when there is conclusive evidence that the umpire got it wrong. Otherwise, the decision by the on-field umpire should stand. This system would get rid of problems with contentious catches which are difficult to judge on camera - so if it is clear to the umpires on the field that the batsmen is out and the cameras cannot prove otherwise the batsmen has to go. As for lbws, I think a decision has to made as to the accuracy of Hawk-eye before batsmen are allowed to ask for a referral. At the same time, inside edges can be pretty conclusively judged using the camera. That makes referring lbws potentially problematic. Overall, I think a lot of thought is required before the system is implemented.

Posted by AsherCA on May 12 2008, 12:29 PM GMT

I strongly support a referral system with a slight change - instead of limiting to 3 referrals per innings or something of the kind, there should be a penalty for every failed referral on the referring side.

Posted by Mike_Daniels on May 12 2008, 09:11 AM GMT

Full marks to Ian Chappell, again. The drive towards greater technology is good for tv, entertainment purposes, but cannot and should not replace umpires out in the middle. We've had nearly 150 years of Test Cricket which has been played by fallible human beings and umpired by fallible human beings. Accept it, fallibility is part of human existence and one of the great part of games is that they reflect the people playing the games. Games are not war and, like people, are not perfect. If you accept this and enjoy the great skill and effort on show at a game you will enjoy the experience much more and you will also get more out of it. I agree with Ian Chappell that the umpires are in need of greater backing by the authorities. If they aren't you won't have good umpires willing to do the job.

Posted by RaghuramanR on May 12 2008, 06:30 AM GMT

I think we can only hope for a 'better camera' in the future, in case we want to go this 'referrals' way. Most dismissals that we have seen even in camera (I mean 'catches' and not run-outs) are hardly 'compelling' reasons for the batman to be adjudged 'out'. We not only need good cameramen but also 'good cameras' and good 'third' umpires. More we have gone towards technology, more fallible has the human been, either in the form of on-field umpires or third umpires.

Posted by essel1 on May 11 2008, 20:36 PM GMT

I definitely don't agree with Mr. Chappell. First the umpires do make mistakes, and no a game won or lost due to human error (or worse) by an umpire should not be tolerated, but more importantly when the ICC reports that umpires get right decisions 90% of the time, they figure all those useless appeals which don't really need a genius to give correct. If you only include the decisions where its a hit or miss, umpires correctness would fall to about 70%. Cricket is big money these days, and wherever possible umpiring errors should be avoided. I don't think this 'referral system' will be the final solution, but its an improvement in the right direction. Cheers

Posted by Isah-CCC on May 11 2008, 11:52 AM GMT

It is rather a goosey feeling one gets when reading Chappell's rants. He writes as if he is this supremo on the game when he is nothing but riling sour grapes. WE can't be of such short memory as to already forget Chappells' dose of dumping 2020 IPL style, Gavaskar was right any international foray into the game that is not done by an English or Aussie initative is not good for the game ha ha. Oh! was Chappell not such an integral part of the successful Kerry Packer's brand which changed the game and paved the way for better pay for players. The methods of three referrals and more technology for line decisions, lbw, catches is an excelleent move by the ICC, the game must be cleaned up at all costs. It is useless to continue with the foolhardy process where a player is out and not given. Having looked at the ICL games where some of these innovations were in place, the time is long overdue for TEST and all forms of the game be allowed all technology to get the decisions RIGHT.

Posted by Naseer on May 11 2008, 10:30 AM GMT

Sorry Sir! I totally disagree with your thought on referal system, I think it should have been introduced as early as possible, because it is sort of assistance to the on-field umpires, improving communications, and getting the satisfyied result, game of cricket is contest between two teams and the umpire factor should not affect the outcome of a match at all, and if that happens it crashes the legacy of the game, there are a lot of examples of umpire's poor dicisions changing the fat of a match and even entire series, take the example of Pak Vs in Westindies in westindies, India vs Australia sydney, India vs England etc. This will also help in releassing the over-tightened players, players have no freedom at all in cricket, even if a players knows that there is inside edge in LBW decision he cannot express it!!!, To keep the gentlman game with gentle spirits, such innovative ideas should be welcomed on time to time basis to make the game flexible rather than fixed.

Posted by Gazzypops on May 11 2008, 10:27 AM GMT

I agree with JH. The umpire has a heck of a time: checking if the bowler has stepped and then, an eighth of a second later, whether the batsman was hit outside the line. It makes sense to remove that responsibility from the umpire where possible by automating this decision (with some technological magic that no doubt exists!). As for the three referrals idea - with technology now bringing us the so-called answers in TV replays (and, as much as I think the Hawkeyes and the Hotspots of this world are great ideas, just how much more reliable are they than the occasionally fallible human eye?) - mistakes will happen. But, instead of investing all the power of correction in the players, why not give a limited number of third-umpire referrals to the umpires themselves? It seems odd that the umpires should undergo trial by telly without the chance, on a few occasions, to double-check their decision. I think it works with run outs. Why not see if it would with other marginal decisions?

Add to del.icio.us | digg this | Stumble It What's this? If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content on cricket, you may use these buttons. When you add them to any of these sites, you "social bookmark" them for others to find and rate. More on del.icio.us>> More on digg>> More on stumbleupon>> Close

WI v Aus edition now live - Play now Cricinfo Cricket Quiz NEW fantasy cricket game - England v South Africa (starts July 10) Login and enter your team now Cricinfo on the go - our mobile services WAP and Mobicast