MUMBAI: Football is the only major world sport that has not succumbed to the patronage of technology in its on-field conduct. If anything, the faith and trust in the men who wield the whistle out there in the middle, has only strengthened further.
If proof of this was ever needed, it was provided on Monday night in Vienna, when Germany and hosts Austria were locked in a grim do-or-die battle for survival in Euro 2008. The referee, whose handling of the game was exemplary, went so far as to show the red card to the managers of both teams. The reason: They are into a fierce argument, while shouting instructions to their players from the sidelines. Both team officials had to leave the field and seek solace in their respective locker-room.
This is probably the first time that team managers were shown the red card by a match-referee. It stunned both teams and their supporters but the action also earned high respect for the match official, who was keeping a watchful eye not only on the proceedings on the field, but also on the teams’ support staff.
In stark contrast to soccer is the present plight of international cricket which is getting more and more enslaved to technology. Several potentially controversial decisions have been taken away from the sole purview of the field umpires and handed over to the third umpire, also known as the TV umpire.
The referral to the third umpire and television replays was so far at the discretion of the field umpires. The line-decisions, like run-out and stumping were voluntarily referred “upstairs,” as the commentators would like to say.
Now, even that discretionary power stands greatly diluted what with the International Cricket Council coming up with new recommendations that would give the batsmen at the crease, as also the fielding side captain the right of appeal against the field umpires’ decision.
Both sides will be allowed three unsuccessful appeals each during an innings of a Test match. If on an appeal by either batsman or the fielding captain, the decision of the field-umpire is overturned by the TV umpire, that appeal will not count as an “unsuccessful” appeal. So, the side will still have three to go.
Whether such constant dependence on technology is desirable is certainly a topic of a great debate. But as things are moving, and moving fast, a feeling is inescapable that the umpires on the field might not be reduced to mere robots. They will soon be reduced to just raising their finger or crossing their hands at the command of the third umpire, who has the comfort of an air-conditioned cabin, with replayed output of some 25 cameras at his finger-tips.
In all this, has the ICC thought of contemplating an ultimate solution, if the television umpire makes an error of judgment? With all the sophistication of technology, the final verdict will still depend on his own perception and study of the replays. Does that not bring us back to the human element?
