As a sports fan, there are two things we want when our team is playing from the referees, umpires or officials. The first is fairness in the umpire’s calls. The second, and in my opinion more importantly, the umpire’s calls and the process of decision making should also be consistent.
Fairness is the umpire’s ability to make the correct decision. If a foul has occurred then the umpire should call a foul. If the ball has crossed the line for a goal then the umpire should call a goal. Consistency, on the otherhand, deals with the umpire’s ability to make the same decision when the same scenario or situation occurs at multiple times throughout a match. Regardless whether the umpire made the right or wrong decision the first time, the umpire should stick with that decision for similar situations throughout the match. Consistency also relates to using the same decision making process regardless of the state of the game or if technology needs to be used to help make that decision.
It is this consistency that I argue is more important to a sports fan. Umpires are human and can make mistakes but they should continue to call similar incidents the same way so that the players and fans know what to expect. Otherwise, it feels like the rules are changing throughout the game, which is worse than getting a bad decision.
The Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) currently used in test cricket smacks of inconsistency.
As can be seen at the 2.20 mark in the video, umpire Aleem Dar raised his finger and gave the batsman out. However, about 10-15 seconds later, something has made umpire Dar reconsider and check if a no-ball has been bowled. So he goes to the 3rd umpire and it so happens that the bowler had indeed bowled a no-ball and Prior was given not-out.
The correct decision was made, so that is fair. But the process is erroneous as there is so much inconsistency is how the process of making this decision occurs.
Firstly, why did it take him so long to think that it may have been a no-ball? Normally, the umpire knows as soon as he has bowled it that it’s a no-ball or not - no more than 1 or 2 seconds. It took him 10-15 seconds to reconsider his original decision. This is completely inconsistent. Why should the umpire be allowed that long, or even longer, to make this decision when normally it’s done in 1 or 2 seconds. This is changing the decision making process - massive inconsistency.
Furthermore, how long has the umpire have to change his mind or go to the third umpire for some help? Is he supposed to go to the third umpire straight away? If he doesn’t have to, which it seams he doesn’t based upon what Aleem Dar did, how long does he have to change his decision? 5 seconds, 10 seconds? The time it takes for the batsman to walk off? I’m not sure if there are guidelines in place, again highlighting inconsistency.
Also, if it has taken the umpire 10 to 15 seconds to make a 1-2 second decision then his ability to umpire must be questioned. There’s a possibility that he has missed other no-balls during a wicket but never went to to the 3rd umpire to check them out. If the technology is being used to try and make a fair and consistent decision then should we be checking all wickets for no-balls?
Or what about close no-ball calls for deliveries in which there was no wicket and thus he could not refer them? If your team loses by a run then not calling a no-ball is as important as not calling a wicket. Should the umpire be allowed to check close no-balls even when a wicket does not fall? We check sixes and fours so why not?
Finally, should the umpires be allowed to “challenge” their own decisions? I don’t have a problem with umpires going straight to the 3rd umpire if they are uncertain. But if the umpire is certain enough to make a decision (either out or not) then I’m at a loss at why they would need to challenge their own decision 10-15 seconds later. This might get the fairer decision but the process is very much inconsistent.
Like many things in modern-day cricket, the UDRS needs a bit of work. Otherwise the following situation may occur and that is just not cricket...
Australia is batting second in the 2015 World Cup final at the M.C.G. against England. It is the very last ball of the game. Australia needs 1 run to tie the game and thus win on a countback while England needs 1 wicket to win the match. James Anderson bowls the last ball and gets Josh Hazlewood to knick the ball to the keeper and is given out by the umpire. The Barmy Army go wild, the English players go crazy and start celebrating on the field. After about 20 seconds and with hand-shaking occurring the square-leg umpire has a second thought and goes to the 3rd umpire to check if England had too many players behind square-leg, constituting a no-ball. On the big screen, it is shown that England do indeed had too many players behind square leg and the ball is now called a no-ball. The game is now tied and Australia win the World Cup.
Wouldn’t that just be an awful way to end a World Cup final? The decision maybe be correct but it would be a flat, almost hollow feeling - for both sets of fans and players. Things need to be changed so that the correct decision is made without causing this ludicrous and completely avoidable situation. With the process as it is now, this could be an ugly reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment