Setting Standards for ICC Umpires

Mon, Apr 14, '03 by C. MALCOLM GRANT

International cricket umpires are professionals who have one of the most important 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. All the on-the-field decisions rendered by an umpire should be able to withstand the scrutiny of television reviews more often than not.

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 negative possibilities, which have readily come to mind, 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 compromises a player?s aggregate (runs/ wickets/ catches/ stumpings, run-outs) and average in international cricket.
May cost a cricketer a place in his team.
May cost a cricketer his career.
There are monetary consequences as a result of the above.
May alter the history of the game of Cricket.
The supporters of the team and or player that have been at the receiving end of a flawed decision, may become emotionally stressed.

The recently concluded first Tst match (West Indies vs. Australia at Bourda), has once again placed the contentious issue of poor umpiring on the front burner. Ashoka DeSilva, a member of the ICC's "elite panel" of umpires, seems to have made a faux pas regarding eight decisions in the first test match. Some have even speculated that DeSilva?s litany of umpiring blunders may have resulted in all of the aforementioned possibilities.

First and foremost, DeSilva's errors may have cost the West Indies the match. For argument sake, if Lara, Chanderpaul and Dillon were not erroneously dismissed in West Indies' first innings it is highly likely that West Indies would have gone on to make a far bigger first innings score than they actually made. The West Indies having lost the first test now makes it compulsory that they win a minimum of two of the remaining three test matches, while holding onto a draw in the other one; this is the only way that they can regain the Sir Frank Worrell trophy (This is awarded to the winner of any WI/ Australia test series).

Wavell Hinds' inappropriate dismissal in West Indies' second innings has now placed additional pressure on this West Indian opener to maintain his place in the West Indies starting 11 for the upcoming test matches of the Australia-West Indies 2003 test series. If Hinds is indeed dropped, as a result of his paltry second innings score of 7, he may find it near impossible ever to regain his place as an opener in West Indies' test or ODI teams ahead of Devon Smith, Darren Ganga or Chris Gayle.

Obviously each match won and or each triumphant test series results in the winning team being financially rewarded for their winning ways. Evidently, the opposite holds true for the losing team.

Most professionals are registered with a professional body, which in turn ensures that certain minimum standards are maintained within the respective profession. Amongst those professions that require professional accountability include the legal, medical, engineering, dental, insurance, accounting, veterinary and actuarial science professions, to only name a few. This system of accountability should be no different when it comes to professional cricket umpires.

From its configuration, I suspect that each test-playing nation is allowed a minimum of 2 nominees to the "elite panel" of umpires. However, if this is in fact the case this amounts to an unadulterated quota system. Unfortunately quota systems are often fraught with qualitative deficiencies; the inherent weakness in quotas, re cricket umpires, is the promotion of "poor" umpires and by extension the relegation of some of the "better" umpires, primarily because one may have originated from the "wrong side of the track".

In order to maintain a set of minimum standards, amongst the pool of umpires partaking in ICC sanctioned international cricket matches, there are certain minimum requirements that the ICC must insist on. Below I've attempted to set forth some basic requirements for the "elite panel".

1. Entry-level qualifications: The eligibility process that a potential international umpire must be subjected to before he is initially accepted on the "elite panel" should include:

He must umpire a basic minimum number of first class matches before being accepted on the ICC panel.
He must have full medical clearance from a panel of ICC recognised medical personnel; particular attention must be paid to his eyesight, hearing, reflexes, cardio-pulmonary system, musculoskeletal system, cognition, etc.
He must have attended an internationally recognised umpiring training program.
He must have passed the required examinations, having attained a minimally acceptable grade within a specified time frame.

2. Re-registration: The ICC should have a policy whereby all of their "elite" umpires are re-registered on a biannual basis. Prior to re-registration the following factors must be reviewed:

Reports from captains, team managers, match referees, cricket boards, etc. relative to the individual umpire must be taken into account.
A full medical/ fitness clearance is required.
Over the two-year period umpires will be required to make themselves available on a minimally stipulated number of occasions for alcohol and drug analysis.
He must be required to attend a specified number of hours of training re continuous umpiring education. Such courses will be available at stipulated ICC recognised facilities and would review updated cricket laws, more difficult aspects of umpiring, etc.

It should be possible to summarily suspend an ICC approved "elite" umpire's services, pending further review, for the following infractions:

1. Bringing the game into disrepute ? e.g. match fixing, gambling on cricket, etc.
2. Significant altercations with the laws of any country.
3. Any breach of the ICC rules of conduct as set out for umpires.
4. A set minimum number or erroneous decisions in a test/ ODI innings (e.g. 3 or more), during a match (e.g. 4 or more) or over a given series (e.g. an average of 3 or more than per test/ ODI match).
5. Following a member board's written request calling for an umpire's suspension.
6. At the sudden appearance of a potential health issue that is likely to compromise the umpire's decision-making abilities on the cricket field.

On a penultimate point, maybe this is as good a time as any for the ICC to determine the pace at which it intends to increasingly incorporate the use of the camera in the decision making process re the on-the-field dismissal of a cricketer.

While many may argue that the bad umpiring decisions "all evens out in the end", this is somehow difficult to explain to a youngster who has had his cricketing career sidetracked or ruined by an umpire who is chronically incompetent. As a service to the game of cricket, the ICC has to set and maintain certain minimum standards amongst their anointed panel of cricket umpires. The ICC's failure to police and regulate their "elite panel" will undermine the credibility of the results of ALL games played in the international cricket arena.