Ten Questions for Billy Doctrove

Earlier this week, Dominican umpire Billy 'Toshack' Doctrove celebrated a major promotion when he was picked to officiate in the upcoming ICC Champions Trophy in England.

As he prepares for his latest high-profile assignment, Umpire Doctrove found some time for a wide-ranging chat with CaribbeanCricket.com about ?hawkeye?, batsmen who ?walk? and questions about preserving the role of the traditional umpire?

This would have been an easy question to answer when I was a fulltime football referee. Back then, football was my first love and I would have chosen the football game over cricket. But, I've given up on that and I'm totally into the umpiring. I'd take the cricket match today because that's where my priorities are.

2. What was your first reaction to seeing 'hawkeye' on TV?

As a viewer, I thought it was something that could help to give a clear-cut decision on certain things. But, as an umpire, I had some immediate reservations. I am skeptical because some people assume it is 100 percent accurate. I don't believe 'hawkeye' should be treated as gospel and that's what commentators and some in the media do.

There are some times, when I look at 'hawkeye' and see how it tracks certain balls, from my umpiring experience, I can tell there is a possibility the ball would have done something else. That's my concern because 'hawkeye' can't accurately judge everything. It does not cater for variations in bounce from one end of the wicket to the other. It can't properly measure the bounce or the trajectory. So, of course I have reservations when people use 'hawkeye' to judge umpires.

3. Should there be three umpires rotating in a Test match to reduce the stress and cut down on mistakes?

No, I don't think that will help. I think two standing umpires are more than capable of handling a match. I think it could lead to some confusion even though the playing conditions and the laws and interpretations are standard. You might find a situation where the human element comes into it and they might have a different implementation of a law that might be advantageous/disadvantageous to some teams.

If two umpires are fit and concentrating at a high level, as they should be, they can last out a Test match. But, let me tell you, at the end of a day's play, you can be very, very, very tired so I understand why there would be proposals to ease the stress on umpires.

4. Should batsmen 'walk'?

Ideally, in a perfect world, if a batsman knows he's out, whether it's a catch at the wicket or a bat/pad catch, he should walk. But, the game has moved from a gentleman's game to a situation where there's so much at stake, players adopt a win-at-all-costs attitude.

Some players take the approach that the umps have a job to do and they let them make the decisions, whether they know the played the ball or not. As an umpire, I understand that thinking and I really don't have a problem with a player not 'walking'. When I played the game, I didn't 'walk' myself (laughs).

But, what I don't like to see is when an umpire gives a player out, whether rightfully or wrongfully, that player stands there and shakes his head or shows his bat. If you stay and put it in the umpire's hands and he gives you out, you should accept the decision like a pro.

I'll say this, it would help out a lot if more players walked when they know they're out. Sometimes, as an umpire you have genuine difficultly in being absolutely 100 percent sure that the batsman got an edge. If the player knows it and 'walks', it is a big help. There are certain times, I'm standing in a match and an appeal goes up but I'm not 100 percent sure the batsman has played the ball. If, in that split second that I'm trying to make the decision, I see him walking off, it relieves me of that burden. But, if they decide not to walk, I have no problem with that either.

5. What makes a great umpire?

First of all, a great umpire is decisive and he commands that respect from the players. He has to know the laws and he has to take pride in being accurate. He has to be in good physical condition. Good eyesight, good hearing and all the other physical things must be there to help him make those correct decisions.

A great umpire is able to concentrate for long, long periods, even in a dull game. Umpires make mistakes when they get tired. When you get a little tired, the first thing that goes is mental capacity and concentration levels. A great umpire has solid man-management skills. His deportment and his relationship with the players are top-shelf. Players do not like an aloof umpire that is bossy or confrontational. The great umpires have all those qualities.

6. Who is a great umpire in the game today?

Without question, Steve Bucknor. He has been my mentor the past few years and we've become very, very close. I guess it comes from our relationship as FIFA referees. He is always there to help and always calls to give advice or congratulate me on any appointments.

He has proven himself over the years as an excellent decision maker. He's the one umpire that I can pattern my career after. There are a lot of very good umpires around but Steve is the one that stands out for me.

7. Why are we seeing so many blatant umpiring errors these days?

I don't think that's a fair question at all. Umpiring errors have been there from day one. I think you are using the word 'blatant' because you are watching television coverage with all the new technology available. We are only seeing these mistakes on slow-motion replays, from four or five different angles. Then, the commentators on TV magnify certain incidents, especially if it's at a crucial stage of a match.

But, at normal speed, in real-time, you don't know it's an error. Without the replay, you take the umpire's decision at face-value. Errors have always been made and will continue to be made as long as you have a human being out there.

You are asking about blatant errors but, even with all the technology and all the replays from different angles, I've seen the commentators disagree among themselves about certain decision. Even with the technology, some decisions are inconclusive.

8. Should more decisions be referred to the third umpire?

I think we can send a few more decisions to the TV umpire. For one, the pad/pad catch is very hard to see sometimes. You are not totally sure when the bat is tucked behind the pad and sometimes the glove is right there in the mix. But, on the TV replay, it becomes clear-cut. That is one I'd like to see sent to the third umpire because, more than anything else, it is our responsibility to get it right. The bottom line is trying to get 100 percent accuracy.

There are certain times, a caught-behind decision isn't so clear-cut in real-time out there but, on replay, it's clear-cut. Why not have the TV ump take a look and make the right decision? We have the situation now where we are allowed to refer to the third umpire to determine a clean catch but he can only decide on the catch and not whether the ball was played. That, to me, is a half-way approach to getting it right.

Sometimes, you see it's a clean catch but the replay shows the batsman didn't play the ball. To me, it's morally wrong to give a batsman out when you know and you can see he didn't play the ball. Right now, the rules only allow us to decide on the catch and that's something that can and should be changed.

9. If we keep sending more and more decisions to the TV, doesn't that undermine the traditional role of the umpire?

It's nice to want to maintain the tradition and purity of the game, I understand that. But, the bottom line is to get the decisions right. In the old days, we didn't have the technology, it was the umpire and the umpire alone. But, the game has changed and we have to keep pace. It is not fair to the game when I give a decision to the best of my ability when there is a replay there that shows the whole world that I made an error. To me, that undermines the purity of the game.

If I had the opportunity to refer that decision to the TV umpire and get it right, there's no question in my mind that that's the right thing to do. There will always be the need for the umpires in the middle. Umpires will never become extinct, I don't believe that will ever happen.

We have situations now where batsmen are given out to balls from fast bowlers that pitches outside the leg stump. When you are out there giving that decision and the ball is travelling at 90 miles-per-hour, you can blunder there because you honestly can't see that. A simple referral would correct that and to me that's more important than anything else.

10. Are umpires in the West Indies paid enough?

No, and it's not even close. When I compare umpiring fees in the region to first-class leagues in other countries, we are getting peanuts. We're not investing in umpiring and we're not developing good umpires. When we talk about fixing the structure of cricket in the region, we have to include an investment in umpires.

On the high end, an umpire in the West Indies makes about US$180 for a day's play and, on the lower end of the scare, US$100. We are underpaid and we are not attracting anyone to the profession. The WICB is supposed to be contracting umpires on the international panel (not those on the 'elite panel) on a full-time basis but they say they don't have the money and that's that.

We only have a few first-class games every year in the West Indies every year so there are very few opportunities to develop umpires. And, it shows with the quality of umpiring. We have spoken to the WICB numerous times about this and we make our case over and over but they are never addressed satisfactorily. The umpires always get the short end of the stick. When they want to cut expenses, umpires are the first to get cut.

I don't believe that helps cricket in the region. You can't have development of cricket without the corresponding development in umpiring. It has to be hand in hand.