Referral system would be better served by a combination of improving umpiring standards and utilising reliable technology sensibly
Referral system would be better served by a combination of improving umpiring standards and utilising reliable technology sensibly So much for the adage, "the umpire is always right", the referral system has put paid to that theory.
|
|
Umpire Steve Bucknor refers a decision to the third umpire in the Sydney Test between Australia and India that saw a lot of controversial decisions. pic/afp |
The referral system is being trialled in an attempt to ensure "the correct decision is reached" but it's been shown to have more flaws than the Empire State building.
The fact that the maximum number of unsuccessful referrals was quickly reduced from three to two is an example of why it's better not to conduct trials at the highest level of the game. Doing it in a Test match led to an embarrassing situation in Durban.
Phillip Hughes attempted a sweep shot, took a single and the umpire signalled a leg bye. Graeme Smith promptly asked for an lbw referral and the replay showed Hughes had edged the ball. Consequently, Hughes couldn't be out lbw and South Africa had wasted a referral because of an umpiring error, leaving Smith with only one remaining challenge and Australia no wickets down.
If Smith had stated before the series that he preferred not to play under a system being trialled at Test level, he would've been justified in refusing to bowl the next ball until the (umpire induced) wasted referral had been reinstated. Unfortunately, that's just one of many problems with the referral system.
Too far There are far too many marginal lbw decisions being challenged. The standing umpire is in the best position to decide lbw decisions, not a camera, perched on high, one hundred metres from the action.
Fifty-fifty decisions don't cause on-field acrimony or affect results because everyone accepts them and gets on with the game. As New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori said after first experiencing the referral system, "It should only be used to correct blatant mistakes."u00a0u00a0u00a0
Then there's the technology. The "mat" that's used to decide whether a ball pitches in line with the stumps can accidentally move out of alignment and therefore should only be an entertainment tool for television, not something that decides a batsman's fate.
Hot SpotIn the South Africa-Australia series "Hot Spot" was not available in the first Test because the television company didn't want to pay for the rights.
They then had a change of heart and purchased "Hot Spot" for the final two Tests. That meant a series which was already being played under a different set of laws from the one running concurrently in the Caribbean, was suddenly being conducted under laws that changed between the first and the final two Tests. Not only does that make a mockery of Test statistics it also devalues the game.
As good as "Hot Spot" is it's not foolproof. For instance, a suspected inside edge in Durban was hidden from view in the batsman's follow through. This just adds to the feeling of "justice for some but not for all" that the referral system creates.
This brings us to the matter of who is responsible for the technology used to assist umpires in making their decisions? It's cricket's job to ensure the technology is on site and if they then want to include that cost in the television rights package then so be it.
The ICC's objective is fine trying to reach the correct decision. However, it would be better achieved by a combination of improving the umpiring standard and sensibly utilising reliable technology. By taking this approach there's more likelihood fans will at least consider the adage, "the umpire is always right".
