Umpiring ain’t easy

Boria Majumdar

Now that he has rubbished reports of retirement, it could be that Sachin Tendulkar is still dreaming of adding to his collection a piece of silverware that has eluded him so far — the World Cup. Imagine the hype if such a possibility arises, and Tendulkar is playing for the last time at home in Mumbai in the final of the 2011 World Cup. How would the fans react if this fairy-tale script is spoiled by what umpire Aleem Dar did during the last one-dayer between India and England at Lord’s by wrongly giving Tendulkar out? One need not be a cricket pundit to suggest that there would be a riot at Wankhede.
Within minutes, in fact seconds, of a decision being given, the on-field umpire is made aware of his mistake by the series of replays visible on giant screens on many grounds. Volatile crowds having witnessed the blunder are almost sure to turn violent. More so because they are aware of the third umpire in the pavilion who can, and has in the past, reverse decisions.
For example, Kevin Pietersen was recalled in the recently-concluded Test series when the third umpire found a catch claimed by India as inconclusive. On the other hand, in case the verdict isn’t reversed, as was the case with Tendulkar at Lord’s, the field umpire immediately turns villain of the script while the batsman wrongly given out is a victim deprived of natural justice.
Half-baked use of technology, in vogue for almost a decade and a half, has only added ‘confusion’ to our inventory of commonly used cricketing expressions. Compounding fan misery, technology has made decision-making inconsistent seriously impacting the game’s fortunes. On occasions, the third umpire sees the replay and changes the on-field decisions and on others he lets a false decision go by because he hasn’t been called upon to adjudicate.
To add to the organisers’ woes, there isn’t much that the apex body can do to alter the scenario if they continue to rely on technology. For if they instruct the field umpires to resort to television at every available instant, the umpires become redundant. On the other hand, if they allow technology to continue as it is, matches may be ruined by incorrect umpiring decisions.
In such a catch-22 situation, a possible way forward is a return to the past. Remove the third umpire and free the sport from over-reliance on technology. Imagine a scenario in which technology is used only to adjudicate run-outs and nothing more. For leg before wicket or caught behind decisions, the field umpire will reign supreme and his mistake, even if revealed later, will be part of the game’s uncertainty. Spectators, as in the past, would be aware that such mistakes are essential to the game.
To retain the game’s charm and to pre-empt spectators from turning violent, administrators could think of instructing organisers to stop replays at grounds unless asked for by the on-field umpires. The Lord’s crowd, for example, if not made aware of Dar’s mistake courtesy the electronic scoreboards, would have continued to watch the game thinking it was an Andrew Flintoff special rather than a howler that got Tendulkar out. If this sense of order is restored in the future, prospects of fan violence will certainly diminish.
Yet another positive expected to come out of a return to the past is the prospect of increased respect for umpires. While Simon Taufel is possibly as good an umpire as Dickie Bird, the aura surrounding Bird is mythical. For example, while Bird is part of cricketing folklore, any contemporary discussion on Taufel is marred by the disastrous LBW verdict against Tendulkar in the second Test of the England series. With technology ceasing to be a factor, the leg before would just be one among many such dubious umpiring verdicts integral to the game’s ethos.
The question is to what extent should the cricket field be a site for fancy experimentation? Or should the game be left undisturbed by technology? The answer to these questions could have far-reaching consequences on how cricket is administered and viewed.
The writer is a sports historian.