A question of answers

Prem Panicker

Yesterday (November 26), I was asked to be one of a panel of guests on the radio show Australia Talks Back -- the subject of debate being, what else, the Mike Denness imbroglio.

The usual finger-pointing apart, the most interesting thing to come up in course of the discussion was the need for a professional panel of referees, and some sort of control/review mechanism to oversee their work.

Which, to my mind, is finally cutting to the chase -- it is umpiring and refereeing decisions that are at the root of every single on-field problem plaguing cricket today: ball tampering, chucking, dissent, appealing, bringing the game into disrepute, whatever.

Having, just 24 hours previously, written a column on the urgent need for a total review and revamp of officiating in cricket, I won't go into the "why" of it all over again.

Instead, today, let's look at how. How, in an ideal world, would you go about restructuring the process, so that this kind of incident never happens again?

A good starting point is to concede that ICC chairman Malcolm Gray hit the nail on the sweet spot when, in course of that same radio programme, he said, "It strikes me as ironical that cricketers are professionals, their coaches and physios and managers are professionals, and only the umpires are not."

That thought contains inside it the best possible starting point for change -- first, professionalise umpiring. And that means, pick the best, and put them on your payroll.

A maximum of five Test matches can be played simultaneously -- and that means 20 umpires, plus five video umpires. Add five more as standbys, in case of illness and suchlike acts of god, and you need 25 qualified, good, umpires.

The current practise is to have each cricket board nominate two umpires. That doesn't work -- such nominations, as we in India know only too well, often have more to do with politics and less to do with competence. Thus, when putting the panel together, figure on picking the best -- and if one country can provide 10 top umpires and another can provide none, then so be it. The idea is to get highly qualified guys into those white coats, not buy votes and satisfy member countries.

Similarly, pick a panel of five, maybe six, match referees -- and a few guidelines on whom to chose might be in order. First up, they need to be cricketers of stature, those who have played in the modern era and who know all about the pressures of modern cricket, players who will be looked up to, and treated with respect, by all contemporary teams. The match referee does not have to rule on LBW decisions -- his job is to conduct the game in the spirit it should be played in, to enforce the code of conduct, and in general to play benevolent schoolmaster. And to pull that off, you need an Allan Border or an Ian Chappell, a Clive Lloyd or a Viv Richards, a Sunil Gavaskar or G R Vishwanath, an Imran Khan or his cousin Majid, and such.

Once you have your umpires and referees in place, get them all together and lay down the law. To wit -- all laws and regulations to be strictly enforced, no matter what. Or who.

Simply saying that gets you no place, though -- the first step is to empower the umpires. Personally, I find it ridiculous to suggest that the authority of the on-field umpire is lessened if you give more powers to the third umpire -- while simultaneously taking away from the on-field umpire the authority to punish transgressions.

A simple way out -- and one guaranteed to stop all forms of nonsense before it begins -- would be to go the football route, with yellow and red cards, to be carried by the onfield umpires. If, say, an official on the field saw any transgression by any player -- excessive appealing, intimidation, dissent, sledging, whatever -- he would immediately flash the yellow card, while simultaneously informing the player, and his captain, of the nature of the transgression.

If the player repeated the offence in course of the same match, the red card would come out, and the player in question would be sent off the field immediately, and forced to sit out the remainder of the day. And as per the rules, no substitutions would be possible for a red-carded player -- thus, the team in question would be forced to play the day out with just ten players. If you hold that particular threat over their heads, then you can bet your bottom dollar that even a Glenn McGrath would think a dozen times before cutting loose -- and more importantly, his captain would make very very sure his player stayed within bounds.

Further, if the same player, after serving out his time, returned to the field on the succeeding day and transgressed again, dock him for the remainder of the game, fine him the maximum possible, and levy a further fine on his captain for failing to get the message across.

And do this in black and white, sans shades of gray -- in other words, when wording the laws, leave absolutely nothing to the discretion of umpires. If you decide that a bowler using abusive language to a batsman or vice versa is bad form, put it down in as many words, and get your umpires to enforce the law right down the line. Similarly with needless appealing, with attempts to influence the umpire, whatever.

All this puts control of the game back where it belongs -- with the umpire. Once an on-field umpire sent a player out, the match referee would call that player over and, in presence of his coach/manager, review the video of the incident in question, and either ratify, or over-rule, the umpire's decision -- thus, the match referee would serve among other things as the court of higher appeal against discriplinary decisions made by the umpires.

It is possible, further, that on-field umpires may not spot certain transgressions (cleaning a ball without permission being definitely one of them). In which case, make it mandatory that the match referee will, on seeing the incident, immediately alert the umpires on the field, and ensure they know what is going on and can take a quick look at the ball. Further, the two umpires and the match referee will, at the first natural break in play (lunch, tea, stumps, whichever comes first) review the evidence (the video, the state of the ball), summon the concerned player if necessary, and decide together on whether punishment is needed.

Finally, establish a review committee, drawn up of eminent cricketing names from all Test-playing nations. The most important job of this committee will be to review, series by series, the performance of umpires and match referees and to mark their card -- with the understanding that an official whose record is consistently bad over a period of time (not more than a year, maximum) will cause that official to lose his job.

The other job of this panel would be to act as court of last appeal, in case a player, team, and/or board disagreed with a verdict handed out by the officials overseeing a particular game.

The minute you speak of reviewing decisions, apologists for the status quo insist that to institute such a process will bring the game to a halt. Which is about as logical as saying that to have a video umpire decide on key LBWs and catches will slow the game down.

Red lights at traffic signals slow me down, too, when I am coasting along quite nicely -- but I can see why they are there.

The trick is to make sure the process is not used to stall the game, and players and boards don't go before the panel with frivolous appeals against any and every decision handed out to them.

And the answer to that could be: Mandate that if a player believes that the sentence handed out to him is excessive, he will approach his manager, and the mother board, with the details. It is then the responsibility of the manager and the board to review the case and decide if there is grounds for appeal -- and the appeal will be made in tandem by the player, and the board.

At which point, the review panel steps in.

If the panel deems that the player has a case, the punishment is cancelled (thus, if there is a suspended sentence, it is revoked). If, however, the panel decides that the appeal is not valid, that the player was in fact guilty of what he has been sentenced for, then the sentence is taken out of suspension and immediately imposed.

In other words, assume that player X is given a suspended sentence for say excessive appealing. He appeals, and loses. In which case, the appeals committee makes the sentence effective immediately, that is, converts it from suspended sentence to effective sentence. And simultaneously, makes the player, and the board, pay the costs of convening the committee, plus a sizeable fine for wasting everyone's time.

That should check frivolous appeals, but at the same time provide an avenue for genuinely aggrieved parties to seek redress.

Take the incidents involving the Indians, and see how this works. Assume Sehwag had overcooked the appealing a bit -- the umpire would have flashed the yellow. Assume he had then done it again -- the red came out, and out he went for the rest of the day, forcing his team, already in trouble, to play with just ten men. You reckon in that context, he would have done the over-appealing bit again?

Or assume that the appeals process was in place at this point in time. Mike Denness does his number. The Indian players immediately alert their board, via the manager. The board quickly reviews the evidence, and informs the ICC of its intention to appeal. And within 24 hours, files the appeal, calling for a review of Denness' decisions.

Meanwhile, play goes on, and the players are happy because they know that at the end of the day, they will get justice.

The way things stand now, what did we get? Much bad blood, a genuine Test match downgraded, huge and totally unnecessary controversies -- and at the end of the day, no justice for anyone concerned.

The logical, sensible choice seems simple, doesn't it?

Read also: The Mike Denness Controversy -- Complete Coverage