a cricket thesis
If there's one thing cricket followers love to do, it's analyse the game. The uninitiated would say that there's plenty of time for thinking during your average 5 day Test; the rest of us would say that whether you're at a game or not cricket gets into your brain, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else.
Someone who has given it more thought than most is Blair Bartholemew who has sent us his thoughts on improving the game.
The following suggestion is based on the belief that improvements in television technology and application, represented by television replays, coupled with a strengthening of the role of umpires, can provide for a more enjoyable game with benefits to players, officials and the viewing public.
Background Over the past twenty years or so, TV replay features such as slomo, snickometers, freeze-frame, multiple cameras etc, has removed much of the viewing public' doubt about umpiring decisions, whether they be for run-outs, stumpings, boundaries given, catches and LBWs. Indeed the use of the third umpire is officially permitted and used in deciding run-outs, stumpings and boundaries.
However the same technology cannot be applied to assist field umpires in deciding the validity or otherwise of catches (other then whether the ball was cleanly taken) and LBW appeals. This seems an anomaly, which creates unnecessary pressure on field umpires, increases boorish player and spectator behaviour as well as denying batters or bowlers and their team the benefit of a correct decision.
The Suggestion 1. It is suggested that, technology permitting, TV replays be used to assist field umpires in all decisions.
2. Field umpires must make the original decision on all appeals made by the fielding side with the exception of runouts and stumpings that may be initially referred to the third umpire.
3. Appeals may be challenged by either or both of the batters, the fielding captain or an authorised member of the fielding side. The challenge must be made prior to the bowler commencing the re-start of play.
4. Upon challenge, the field umpire(s) will defer to the third umpire who will then be responsible for the final decision.
5. Where the TV evidence is beyond doubt, the decision of the third umpire is final.
6. Where the result of the TV replay is inconclusive, the field umpire s original decision will be upheld.
7. Where the third umpire supports the field umpire s decision, the unsuccessful challenger s team will have, for non-one day games, twenty runs deducted from their score, and for one-day games ten runs deducted. No runs will be deducted from an individual player's score.
Discussion It is acknowledged at the outset that in some situations, the use of TV replays will not result in a conclusive decision and in these situations the decision of the field umpire stands. However TV replays provide an opportunity which was not available in previous years for the right decision to be made. Surely the time has come for administrators to take advantage of this technology for the betterment of the game.
Debate about walking No fair-minded cricket follower likes to see a batter or a bowler prevented from achieving his or her rewards because of a bad umpiring decision. The debate about whether, under the present playing conditions, batters should or should not walk will no longer apply.
The fielding side will have the opportunity to challenge an incorrect decision in favour of the batter but the batter will also have the opportunity to challenge an incorrect umpiring decision in favour of the fielding side. In the first instance a batter who knows he or she is out, but stays his or her ground, will only look foolish. Similarly a batter, who at present is incorrectly given out (and of course is never recalled by the fielding side!), will at least have the opportunity for the umpire s decision to be overturned in his or her favour. Adoption of this system should promote better on-field behaviour as there will be fewer examples of bad decisions being given and fewer aggrieved sides.
Role of the field umpires Modern TV replays have placed umpires under greater scrutiny yet ironically, in some circumstances, the opportunity to use these replays have resolved umpires of the responsibility of making decisions in the first place! I refer of course to the almost monotonous use of the third umpire when deciding run-outs and stumpings. Surely a correct run-out decision is a sign of an umpire's skill, the same as the ability to differentiate between bat, arm, pad or thin air, when deciding on a caught behind!
However there are some situations, particularly at the non-strikers end, where the umpire simply cannot be in a position to adequately give a decision. In these cases an initial call by the umpire to the third umpire is justified and the third umpire is the sole arbiter.
The field umpire, where needed, would first make all decisions, except some run-outs and stumpings (see above). The challenge or refereeing process would then apply. Most batters and wicketkeepers know whether a batter did or did not snick the ball, or was in or out of their ground etc.
Under my proposal, the time wasted by referring to the third umpire for some stumpings and run-outs will diminish, as there will be an incentive for the batter to walk as the fielding side can challenge an incorrect ruling. Similarly where the batter is in his or her ground, there will be a reluctance of the fielding side to appeal knowing that the batter can challenge the umpire s ruling anyhow. Over time there will be less use of the TV replay in these circumstances.
My proposal will reward the good umpires. Those umpires who have the highest percentage of appeals against their rulings dismissed will be recognised and rewarded by their appointments and greater professional recognition. Where umpiring errors are made at least batters and/or bowlers will not suffer the unnecessary consequences!
Match conduct and player behaviour Another blight on the modern game is the incessant, speculative, frivolous appeals by the fielding side. My proposal would curb this because the match referee would have available the number of all appeals, appeals challenged by the fielding side and upheld, and appeals challenged by the batters and upheld. A high number of unsuccessful appeals coupled with a low or zero number of successful challenges by the fielding side and/or a high number of appeals challenged by the batters and upheld, would provide an objective measure to the referee of unnecessary or frivolous appealing.
Recourse to a final arbiter should help reduce boorish player and spectator behaviour arising from incorrect umpiring decisions. The odds in favour of better player behaviour will be dramatically increased because no longer will players become frustrated by incorrect umpiring decisions.
A fairer result
Finally, and most important of all, implementation of my proposal will heavily reduce the chances of the better team losing as a result of incorrect umpiring decisions. While it is often argued that in the long run the bad decisions balance out, with today's TV technology no such argument is needed, and besides particularly with one-day cricket, with many games and opponents over a short period, the long run is very short indeed!
