In the Multan and Lahore Test matches the standard of umpiring came under lot of criticism. In international cricket, the two men in the centre have a tough job to perform. They are assigned to go through the game pedantically for all five days of a Test match without missing a single event. The decisions they make not only make or break the future of the cricketer sometimes, but also have a huge bearing on the result of a match.
The International Cricket Council is also very much aware of this fact. In order to maintain high standards of umpiring it regularly restructures the international umpiring panel.
Earlier, one of the main things that mostly bothered touring teams was the host umpires standing in games. There was always a chance that any decision going against the visitors would be unfairly concluded as a biased one. At the same time, the local umpires' love and affection for their country getting in the way of a decision was not uncommon. The ICC's initial policy of having a home umpire along with a neutral umpire was soon changed to two neutral umpires to avoid all controversies. An elite umpiring body was set up with efforts made to give representation to almost every Test-playing country.
Also Read
'We'd like to have a Shoaib Akhtar in our side'
Balaji bowls them over
'Azhar and I were made scapegoats'
This elite panel, serving as neutral umpires along with the wired third umpire, is supposed to make foolproof decisions. But teams are still moaning and complaints are still being made to match referees on a regular basis. It leads to the question: is the current set of umpires incompetent or just being made scapegoats by the losing teams?
Umpiring is never an easy job. The umpires are expected to make split-second decisions on a faint nick or a subtle bat-pad catch. They also have to decide on the path of the ball hitting the stumps. In noisy stadiums it is impossible to correctly hear every time the sound of the ball hitting bat or pad. Well-orchestrated appeals from the fielding sides that come in the form off pleading can equally deceive the umpires.
The commentators' deliberations on the decisions can cause enough damage to the confidence of the umpires. The commentators have the luxury of having technology in front of them and time to decide and discuss a decision in minute details. And when the big screens inside the ground displays the replay of one of the wrong decisions it certainly brings about a paralysing sense of guilt in the minds of umpires.
In my experience, I have seen umpires turning pale in such situations and becoming more inconsistent. The hawk-eye view, showing leg before decisions, is the most inconsistent form of technology. Technology like hawk-eye can enrich the information of the broadcaster but its correctness can always be questioned. The path shown by hawk-eye is definitely doubtful.
The media, these days, has become heavily dependent on technology to gauge the correctness of decisions. The ICC must check the credibility of such tools before allowing broadcasters to use it. A slightest deviation in technology means misleading millions of viewers. Human error is natural, but misleading technology can even doubt a good decision made by the umpire.
First class cricketers these days are seriously taking up the job of umpiring. The ICC is also encouraging the idea. Some of the current umpires are getting too old for the job. The fitness level of umpires is an important factor for the smooth running of the game. Hearing abilities and vision are key ingredients of umpiring. A 40-year-old first class cricketer with ten years of experience as a player, I feel, can make a good umpire.
An ageing umpire may be more experienced, but senility does not help in giving right decisions.
Previous column: Complacency undid India's good start
