The ICC’s mandate to the on-field umpires during the 2005 Super Series ODI’s to refer anything they like to the 3rd umpire was not the most effective way of improving the accuracy of umpiring decisions. In fact it looked to cause more confusion in the decision making process of the men in the middle.

Give a child a tenner and tell him he can go into the shop and buy anything he likes and he’ll come out with a stack of junk so high that it will rot his teeth. Give the on-field umpires the jurisdiction to refer any decision they like to the third umpire and the result will be similar. A mixed bag of referrals that leave a sour taste in the mouth.

Giving the umpires in the middle this blanket authority, has served only to protect the ICC from any backlash that may have presented itself following a more specific introduction of the extended rules. The ICC have dipped their toe in the water, but left the on-field umpires to swim with the sharks.

If the ICC is serious about increasing the role of the third umpire (and I suspect player pressure means it is) then clear and distinct guidelines need to be given to maximise the usefulness of this feature.

Both Aleem Dar and Darryl Hair looked uncertain of what to refer in the last ODI and who can blame them? They are the guinea pigs in the ICC experiment that could have been so much more successful if the ICC had bothered to implement a more disciplined set of guidelines about referrals to the third umpire. And it shouldn’t be difficult should it?

In essence the whole debate about technology and referrals boils down to an issue of better decision making in several areas of the game that now demand better policing. For what it’s worth here’s my own set of guidelines on the whole referral issue;

(1) No balls – don’t refer because;

The no-ball area must be cleaned up quickly but consistently. Pollock’s incessant overstepping in the 3rd Super ODI was inexcusable for an international cricketer but some of the calls on him were very dubious. The policing of no-balls has to be on an ‘every ball bowled’ basis. To refer only no-balls when a wicket is claimed is biased towards the batsmen.

For 2 decades a machine has beeped on Wimbledon’s centre court when a serve goes long. Why can’t a beep go off in the on-field umpire’s ear when a bowler oversteps? Are the white lines of tennis and cricket so different that a similar solution can’t be found?

(2) Edges – don’t refer because;

A ‘standard’ TV replay is nigh on useless for determining whether the ball clipped the bat. Any deflection big enough to cause the flight of the ball to visibly deviate must surely create enough of a sound to be audible by the umpire. For those thinnest of nicks that are drowned out in packed stadiums then there are only 2 alternatives to improving the percentage of those picked up. High speed cameras permanently fixed and focussed on the batsmen.. or our trusty friend Snick-o-meter. (We could all sit back and romanticise about players walking but those days are gone my friend, the stakes are too high.)

(3) LBW’s – refer..but;

The solution to the whole LBW issue appears so obvious but it seems the ICC have made their mind up about Hawkeye. To the naked eye, Hawkeye for me is the ultimate authority on where that ball was going after hitting the pad and I remain confused as to why the ICC is reluctant to use it.

Either there are commercial or esoteric barriers to this being used within the game, or the ICC genuinely question its predictive ability. One of the key questions the ICC should be asking of Hawkeye is “is it consistent”. If it’s possible for its accuracy to be quantified (and I believe this to be the case) then provided it is making the same prediction for every batsmen, then it surely provides a consistent measurement with which to supplement the human decision making process. Therefore no batsmen, over time, would be unfairly penalised or rewarded.

But if Hawkeye (or an ICC branded equivalent) is not going to make an appearance then the replays should be here to stay and the ICC should refine the wording of their mandate to the umpires to allow them the complete confidence to refer all aspects of an LBW appeal, including asking the third umpire ‘was it going to hit?”

(4) Catches – don’t refer because;

I have yet to see a replay of a catch that proved beyond a doubt whether a catch was cleanly taken. Short of putting a microchip in the ball that beeps when it touches grass this may well be the one area of the game that carries the burden of the legacy of sportsmanship.

So there are my guidelines on the whole referral issue. Make of them what you will.

As a timely footnote, Peter English is lamenting the demise of the ‘romance’ of dodgy decisions, however as I have stated here, I take a contrary view. The technology exists to better police the game and as the stakes get higher the decisions must get better.

Professional sport can indeed be a romantic fairytale. I would argue that it is at its most thrilling when it is. But even in the most romantic of fairytales it is inexcusable for Prince Charming to miss the fact that Cinderella’s slipper overstepped the line, when an ugly sister sits on the boundary with a high speed camera.

Bookmark to: