To refer or not to refer
commentary by GANESH VENKATIf there was any reason that ICC should prompt the use of technology to the fullest extent in cricket, it was abundantly evident at the concluded 4th test between West Indies and England at Bridgetown, Barbados. Daryl Harper, the TV umpire from Australia was at the hot seat for a period of play on the final session of the third day when he gave two absolutely shocking decisions which baffled one and all that prompted the West Indian coach John Dyson to storm out of the dressing room and have a “chat” with the third umpire and the match referee. Before letting our anger on the system itself for this chaos, it's the ICC and its “elite umpires” who are the root cause of all this evil. If at all any one has to be blamed it is the ICC and it's “elite umpires.” Any experiment that the ICC started in the recent times has either been done away or was lacking even a semblance of common sense. The recently abandoned super-sub rule in the ODI's is a glaring example. The 2007 ICC World Cup final highlighted the incompetence of the “elite umpires “to the whole world.
The referral system is being put on trial to eliminate obvious howlers like overturning an LBW when a batsmen inside edges the ball on to his pads or to declare a batsman out when the umpire fails to catch the inside edge. But the system is severely abused by the ICC officials who do not quite understand the system. The knowledge or the lack thereof is quiet amusing. The system clearly states that the TV umpire can give advice to the on field umpire to overturn his decision when there is 100% compelling evidence. In the case of Shiv Chanderpaul there was 100% compelling evidence that the ball would have passed over the stumps. In the case of Brendan Nash there was no compelling evidence to overturn Aleem Dar's initial decision of not giving the batsman out. Daryl Harper got it absolutely wrong on both Instances.
Another thing that is hard to comprehend is if technology was going to be used why not use it to the maximum? What we are seeing is a half-baked approach where for LBW decisions the TV umpire will only see the ball till the point of impact and not the complete projected path which does not make sense. Effectively that renders the TV umpire second guessing his partner in the middle. Wonder what the smart alecks in ICC must have been thinking when they came up with this bizarre approach. The explanation given is that technology is not 100% accurate, but at least we can be sure that with technology there is no second guessing involved.
The best solution to eradicate the obvious errors on the field is to take the referral power from the players and give it to the umpires. If the standing umpire is in any doubt for any decisions he should consult the TV umpire. The TV umpire with the aid of technology to the fullest extent available should relay his opinion and make the decision in concurrence with the standing umpire. If a referral takes more than two minutes the initial decision should stand. In the instance of the standing umpire making an obvious error the TV umpire should immediately call the standing umpire and inform him of the mistake and the decision should be reversed.
The argument about the referrals taking a long time and slowing down the game does not hold when a decision to validate a boundary ball takes eons. If it takes a long time so be it. A player should not be deprived of a chance to entertain the paying spectator because of the old stale argument “Umpires are humans and they make mistakes”. This is a common sense approach that the ICC should try. But as Michael Holding rightly put it in perspective when he mentioned in his commentary stint “common sense isn't so common” and when it comes to the ICC it certainly holds true.