Should the man sitting ‘above’ review false decisions on his own?
How often has it happened in cricket matches that a single umpiring blunder changed the complete course of the game? On-field umpires are often underrated, in fact, they are mostly underrated. Viewers feel like anyone can do the job of the umpire. However, that belief will fail to find weight because, no, an umpire’s job is not as easy as it looks on TV. It is more than just standing behind the stumps with the hands folded behind the back. Yes, modern-day umpires have the assistance of technology but, umpires like Simon Taufel built their reputation based on their own skills.
Every Indian, and probably most Australians remember the Border-Gavaskar Trophy of 2007-2008 season. That was a series laced with deliberate umpiring blunders targeted towards the Indians. Those series of incidents were probably one of those things that brought the whole nation together. Regardless, it paved way for Monkeygate, one of the darkest spots in the history of the game. Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson were the 2 on-field umpires and go down as one of the most hated men in the minds of Indian Cricket Fans. Mind you, the wrong decisions were made not on tough calls, but on rather uncomplicated ones. A lot of criticism was thrown on these umpires, specially by the BCCI who were calling for the replacement of the 2 umpires, and rightly so.
This brings me to my question. “During all this, should the 3rd umpire have intervened and reversed the obviously wrong decisions?” Had the 3rd umpire intervened, ‘Monkeygate’ could have been avoided. Even if you don’t look at the ‘ifs and buts’ aspect of it, logically, it only seems right that the 3rd umpire reconsider supposedly false decisions on his own and reverse them if necessary. Being adjudged out wrongly disheartens the whole team, not to mention the batsman, as professional as he/she may be. A bowler, too, is left astounded at not being given the wicket of a batsman who was pretty evidently out.
What will happen if the 3rd Umpire starts to dominate decision making? The use of DRS system seems to question the integrity and effectiveness of the umpires, and sometimes even make the umpires look like a fool. So, if the 3rd umpire starts interfering, the on-field umpires would feel neglected, unimportant and obsolete . No on wants that to be. Technology shouldn’t nullify or replace the on-field umpires but at the same time, you want every decision made to be informed, reviewed and correct. That is difficult to achieve.
It is important to understand that having to make a right decision in real-time while looking at the foot of the bowler for no-ball, looking at the field to see if correct number of players are there in and out of the 30-yard circle, counting the number of deliveries, being attentive and reactive if the balls comes their way, observing the pitch area of the ball and the pads of the batsman for LBW, is all very difficult for the umpires. Yes, you may doubt his fitness. Yes, you may doubt his effectiveness. Yes, you may even laugh on his belly or stance. But, no, you can never doubt his skills and observation power. So, there should be technological intervention carried by the 3rd umpire only in decisions that are ridiculously wrong, such as not being given out on a pretty clear edge, straight-forward LBW. But, majority of the decisions should be made by the on-field umpires. Agree to it or not, umpires are as important to the game as bat or ball.
