Umpires let down by the review system
Cricket continued to inflict controversy upon itself yesterday with the umpire review system currently being trialled being shown to be thoroughly inadequate. The current series against West Indies is our first direct experience in England of a system that has already attracted controversy in other series.
Focus will fall on the 3rd umpire Daryl Harper for some poor decisions, but umpires have always made errors and always will, which was the reason for this trial in the first place. A similar review system has been used in the NFL for several years, and neither is this system immune from this error. Debate regarding a controversial review decision in Superbowl XL in 2005.
My feelings on this echo the concerns previously expressed by New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori at the restrictions placed on the use of television technology. What is the benefit in asking the third umpire to clarify a decision when he has no access to the technology that we see in our homes? It is like those game shows were the answer is flashed on screen whilst the contestant is still reading the question – as viewers we are almost willing the poor unfortunate to get it wrong so that we can tell our fellow-viewers how we could all do better.
If we are to have a review system, it must utilise the same technology as is available to TV viewers. The decision making process will then be more transparent, and it will give us armchair umpires one less stick with which to beat the likes of Harper and his colleagues. To do otherwise would ensure that the game remains one step behind the medium being used to broadcast it. After all, it is the availability of slow motion replays and tools such as Hawkeye that are helping to inflame this debate. Whilst they are undoubtedly not always completely accurate, it would be another string to the 3rd umpires bow and we should also be using them to solve it.
Another concern relates to the amount of time taken to complete each review – over two minutes in some cases. The television viewer, having seen hawk-eyes verdict within seconds is bound to be critical. A time limit of sixty seconds should apply, after which the on-field decision should be upheld if the evidence is not clear-cut.
The aim of having the review system also should be clarified – are we attempting to provide as much assistance to the umpires to enable them to do the best job they can, or are we aiming to eradicate all error from the officiating? If it is the latter, I fear that it will prove to be a fools errand. The umpires should be reassured that these are tools to assist them in making correct decisions, and means for them to undermine each other or be castigated by the media. We must accept that mistakes will still happen however much technology is used; we can after all apply this principle readily to the players who stand or fall by their mistakes.
Comments:
2