A Proposed New Cricket Law

Mon, Aug 2, '04

by C. MALCOLM GRANT

Ancient laws remain in force long after the people have the power [and reasons] to change them ? Aristotle.

The ICC must view the current laws of cricket as a living document that must constantly evolve and be updated against the background of the best technological and non-technological transformations taking place across the cricketing globe.

A number of cricket's aficionados have eloquently argued that bad umpiring decisions "all evens out in the end". However, try explaining this to the die-hard supporters of one of the game's future immortals, Brian Lara; the supporters, along with Lara, have been made to wait, unnecessarily, for a few extra Test innings before their living hero achieves the rare feat of 10,000 runs in test cricket. Or even worse yet, try convincing West Indian fans that the umpires' abhorrent decisions, over the first two test matches, did not have a bearing on the outcome of these matches.

Admittedly, international cricket umpires are professionals who have one of the most important and difficult jobs in all of cricket. These professionals have been entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that all cricket matches are conducted within the boundaries of the prevailing laws of cricket.

The job of these omnipotent professionals is essentially an amalgamation of a judge's, juror's and executioner's. Be that as it may, cricketers, cricket aficionados and cricket administrators expect each umpire to consistently render impartial and resolute decisions that are as accurate as humanly possible.

While umpires are only human they must accept that their decisions, singularly and collectively, have the potential to transform cricket's history. Immediately below, I've annotated the plethora of negative possibilities, of an erroneous umpiring decision:

• May cost a team a victory.

• May cost a team a series and an accompanying trophy.

• May cost a team a world title.

• Can compromise a player's aggregate (runs/ wickets/ catches/ stumpings, run-outs) and average in international cricket.

• May cost a cricketer his place in the team.

• May cost a cricketer his career.

• May alter the history of the game of cricket.

• A player may be deprived of a cricketing milestone.

• A captain may lose his job.

• There are monetary consequences as a result of the above.

The current test series between England and the West Indies epitomizes the problem with bad, or is it more politically correct to say inaccurate, umpiring decisions. While these inaccurate decisions have ebbed and flowed and both the West Indies and England could site clear-cut examples where they have been hard done, however, as a West Indian it pains us to see that our only contemporary world class batter being at the receiving end of recurrent and somewhat blatant umpiring mistakes, specifically in the first innings at Lords and the second innings of the Edgebaston tests. A whopping 50% of the time, for this current test series, television replays have proven that Lara has been the subject of erroneous umpiring decisions.

I have two proposals that should go a long way in rectifying inept umpiring decisions:

1. Giving the batter the right to appeal: The existing laws of cricket need to be urgently revisited. In that a batter (and only the batter) should be given the right to immediately appeal what he may perceive to be a flawed umpiring decision. Within 15 seconds of the decision being rendered, and without consultation with anyone including the batting partner, a batter should be able to direct his appeal at the umpire issuing the alleged inaccurate decision.

While I can already anticipate some arguing that by allowing a batter such latitude there is a realistic possibility of holding up the progress of a match; however, I do believe that if this proposed new law, if tabled with the appropriate bylaws, this need not be the case.

In that if a batter was to appeal his decision and is found to be actually out (i.e. the umpire actually got it right in the first place), there should be a mandatory penalty or penalties, as pre-determined by the ICC, for the appealing batter and his team.

The fact that the batter who erroneously or dishonestly challenges any just umpiring decision can be penalized, should minimize the likelihood of a batter or any team using this new law to bring the game into disrepute. In other words, while this proposed law is designed to give a batter a chance to redress a fallacious decision that may have gone against him, at the same time the law should aim to minimize frivolous appeals, on the part of batter.

Forty-five (45) seconds should be allocated for the review of the umpire's original decision and if at the end of this time the result remains inconclusive then the batter should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the batter is found to be not out then he should be allowed to resume his innings.

In any given day of test or ODI cricket, anecdotal evidence has shown that in less than 2 to 4 instances the umpires get it wrong. The sum time allocated to reviewing such, in any given day, is likely to be less than 4 minutes. This is not too much time for the game to sacrifice in order to reduce the number of spurious umpiring decisions.

As a matter of fact, the ICC and the international cricketing community should welcome such a law because both the players and the public will no longer be able to blame the umpires if the batter did not exercise his option to appeal, a supposedly unfair decision.

2. The greater use of microphone and the slow motion camera: From all indications, reports and observations, the ICC has been moving cautiously and methodically in the direction of incorporating more and more technology in the immediate decision process. For more than four years run outs, stumpings and inconclusive boundaries have often been referred, for final adjudication, to third umpire and by extension the slow motion camera.

I think that it is high time for the ICC to go to the next step by giving the two umpires in the middle the option of referring equivocal (a) LBW decisions, (b) caught behind decisions and (c) bat/ pad/ glove decisions to the third umpire, whenever they deem necessary.

As previously stated, a maximum time limit of 45 seconds should be allocated to reviewing any single decision; if a final decision is not arrived at within such a time frame the batter must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The ICC can also use this referral process when assessing the competence of the individuals who constitute their panel of umpires, in that while the adjudicating umpire is expected to use the third umpire and camera in certain circumstances, this should only be used as a "fall back on" option. If on final analysis the ICC determines that an umpire is overusing this facility he should be summarily removed from the ICC?s ?elite? panel of umpires.

Unlike the laws of cricket that have been updated from time to time over the last 30 years ? e.g. front-foot no ball rule, limiting the number of bouncers per over and LBW rule changes ? the proposed cricket law change that has been suggested in this article is not meant to be directed at any one cricket nation nor is it designed to take away the advantage from one nation nor is it intended to pass on the advantage to another. The primary purpose of such a law is to keep human error, re cricket umpires, to a minimum. Essentially the proposed changes in the laws of cricket are likely to improve the credibility of the results of ALL games played in the international cricket arena.

Should this not be our ultimate goal?