MUMBAI: Never mind its minute nuances, cricket is a simple game to follow. But its laws, more so their interpretation, are complex and left so much to the discretion of the umpires.
After years of unending controversies that had been kicked up over what had been considered doubtful decisions, the International Cricket Council, taking advantage of the advanced technology, introduced the concept of the third umpire. Sitting in a special box in the pavilion, the third umpire, after studying several television replays available to him, gives his ruling on issues referred to him by the field umpires. These, in the normal process, are limited to only line decisions (run-out or stumping) and, in rare cases, the legitimacy of a catch.
The strict proviso is that the third umpire can adjudicate only if an issue is referred to him by the umpires on the field and not on his own.
The utility of the third umpire, therefore, is not mandatory but optional. If the field umpires do not choose to refer the matter to the television umpire, the matter must end there itself. The element of dissatisfaction will thus continue to persist in the minds of players making the appeals.
Last May, the ICC, after careful consideration of the grouse of the genuinely aggrieved players and teams, recommended, on an experimental basis, a system whereby the teams and their members were granted a right of appeal directly to the third umpire to adjudicate on the on-field decisions.
This referral system was quickly brought into force during the Test series between India and Sri Lanka in June-July last. The experience obtained from its enforcement was none too happy either for the players or the field umpires. The reason for it was that the arbitration of the third umpire was not fool-proof despite having the benefit of several television replays before him. Somewhere the human element had to come in.
Then, the ultimate adverse opinion of the third umpire, especially on the leg-before decisions, appeared to belittle the field umpires, who have to give their decisions instantly, relying purely on their naked-eye perception.
Perhaps, it is the overall Sri Lanka outcome of the experiment that has made both India and Australia not to opt for this referral system during their forthcoming Test series. It may be mentioned that the recently concluded Test series between England an South Africa, which was played concurrently with the India-Lanka series, had also not accepted the referral system.
If this new referral system is not fully experimented by all, how can it be evaluated for its virtue or lack of it ? The ICC ought to have made at least the experiment compulsory. Whether to accept it or discard it could have been decided later. But now it appears that the referral system is as good as doomed even before it had begun in earnest.
