Solutions, someone

Written by Sreeram Ramachandran

Wednesday, 02 January 2008

Day 1 of the Sydney test has thrown up a comedy of errors that isn't funny at all.

It is broadly understood, at least as of now, that in professional sports the rub of the green is going to play some role. Bad umpiring decisions are bound to come along once in a while and you just chew it the way you would accept a half-fried chip in a bag of crisps. But every now and then you get a whole glut of bad decisions with impact of such magnitude that you have to wonder about and take another look at the pack of chips you are eating.

Umpiring decisions that have been more painful than the analogies being offered here have effectively put a stop to India's hopes of winning the Sydney test, and you have to wonder if that is about it for their hopes of conquering Australia in Australia on this tour. It is a curious coincidence (several grumpy Indians, in their usual dramatic manner, might chose to look at it as an evil conspiracy) that it was Steve Bucknor and his bad judgments that had denied India a series win in Australia in Sydney last time around in 2003-04.

There are a few interesting thoughts being thrown around which can prevent the occurrence of such unhappy situations in the future (aside from those involving Bucknor and retirement). The most exciting of these involves borrowing from Tennis and allowing the players three 'challenges'. Upto a maximum of three times in an innings, the batsmen or the fielding team could be allowed to challenge the umpire's decision and take it to the third umpire.

The idea is a beautiful way to draw out all that is good about technology while keeping away all the slow and tiresome bits. It is constructed on the same logic as the one that makes it mandatory for the fielding side to appeal for a wicket, working on the premise of how confident they are that they have got their man. It overrides the delays and insecurities associated with allowing umpires to refer everything to the third umpire. It tests the player’s judgments in how to use their limited ‘challenges’ effectively. And it gives, as any contest should, the maximum possible space for fair play to work.

There could be an argument that this would amount to demeaning the umpires, and questioning their competence. But surely, such sensitivities and manufactured problems can be taken on the chin in the larger interest of fair play. As for calls for holding on to the human element in the game to keep it natural, well, it seems quite natural that a bit of human brilliance in getting the ball to pitch just outside off and swing it away gently enough to induce an edge is rewarded with a wicket rather than a bad decision.

Of course, if that isn't enough, you still have the odd occasion where the third umpire, with numerous camera angles and other technology at his disposal, makes a dodgy call. You can do all you can to help the on field umpires get the decisions right, but when even the third umpire gets it wrong, well, there is nothing to do but to accept that you are having a miserable day, wait for your delivery to hit the stumps and watch the bails remain still.

Comments

Add New

RSS