BOMBAY, 12 May 2006 — Leading batsmen have one common question thrown at them: Who is one bowler you fear the most. “Fear” is certainly not the word they would accept so easily. They would rather use the expression “respect.” No one would, however, dare to ask whether he would like to name an umpire he fears most. Even if asked, an answer would never come.
But there is one batsman, someone who has been on the top of the heap for so long, who will surely admit in private that he indeed has a nemesis among the umpires. The batsman is Sachin Tendulkar and the umpire he dreads is Steve Bucknor.
Never given to showing even the slightest hint of dissent of any decision, Tendulkar has unwittingly been a victim of most of the errors of judgment committed by the West Indian umpire, who is also a qualified international football referee. A couple of decisions that went against the Indian master-blaster were so blatant that the umpire himself later admitted his mistakes.
It would be scurrilous to cast aspersions on Bucknor who has otherwise earned the respect of cricketers the world over. But there is no denying the fact that he has a distaste for technology. He is known not to refer decisions to third umpire unless he is compelled by his own failing, like lack of concentration.
It was, therefore, only expected that Steve Bucknor would be the first to react adversely to the new experimental system of ICC to allow players to appeal against decisions given by the field umpire and have them referred to the third (television) umpire. Each team will be allowed only three appeals.
Bucknor stated in the Trinidad and Tobago Express that TV production companies have been deliberately fudging video replays, manipulating graphics and editing footage to mislead the officials and in short, the gullible public at large. He added that this was done so as to humiliate the umpires or to favor a particular batsman.
If one looks at Bucknor’s impeccable record of never rubbing authority on the wrong side, this submission must come as a real shocker. In fact, he has dropped a bombshell. A leading television production company immediately ridiculed these charges, contending that there was hardly any time to doctor the tapes, as the replays have to be displayed on screen instantly. It is just the beginning of a debate that is certainly going to hot up. If the very integrity of the television producers is going to be questioned and that too by one of the most experienced cricket umpire in the world, the game is in for another huge controversy.
This introduction of the new system of appeal by players, especially batsmen, is bound to give rise to the other very big question of discipline and the existing code of conduct for players, which takes a very severe stand on show of dissent.
And what happens if a field umpire, in all honesty and sincerity, gives a decision and it is overturned on an appeal by a batsman? There is no denying the fact that the umpire will feel humiliated. It is one thing for the umpire himself to refer a decision to the television umpire and quite another for one of the players to ask for it. To put it mildly, it would be tantamount to challenging the authority of the umpires.
