The replay's the thing

A couple of weeks ago I spent a day at Wimbledon and got to see the Hawk-Eye TV referral system in action for the first time. Players may challenge a decision of the umpire or line judges three times per set and a replay is shown instantly on the big screen. It holds up play for maybe 15 seconds and, I felt, adds to the spectators' enjoyment of the game. The players feel that they get a fairer game and the officials, by and large, are proved right far more often than they are shown to be wrong.

Cricket has tried to introduce a player referral system for a few years but the present Test series between Sri Lanka and India is the first time it has been used at the highest level. Anil Kumble became the first captain to try his luck today, when he questioned a decision to turn down an appeal by Harbhajan Singh for leg-before. The replay showed that the umpire was absolutely right; the ball was missing leg. Tillekeratne Dilshan later became the first man to be reprieved by a replay - he appealed against a decision for caught behind off Zaheer Khan and the TV umpire decided it was not conclusive whether he had hit the ball.

It is often said that the proliferation of TV cameras at cricket matches undermines the umpires. We all make mistakes (players certainly do and even journalists boob occasionally) but in the main umpires do a fine job. By picking apart the odd poor decision, we ignore the dozens of right calls they make. Some feel that allowing players on the field to call for a TV replay themselves further undermines the authority of umpires (although it is surely preferable to players watching TV in the Pavilion and baying for a replay, as happened in last week's Test).

My view is that if suitable technology is available, we should use it but it should not interrupt the flow of the game. Umpires in the middle have to make a decision instantly, and occasionally that means they get it wrong, but I don't think that TV umpires should be allowed to take more than 30 seconds, say, in deciding whether someone is out or not. It worsens the already lagging over-rates for a start.

If a TV umpire cannot decide within two or three replays whether the decision was accurate, then they should back the man on the field. This particularly applies in line calls, where we have got used to delays of two or three minutes or more as the image of a bat or foot on the line or rope is slid backwards and forwards inconclusively. And why not show the replay on the big screen as it is being deliberated? It would allow the fans to make up their own minds. Or are they worried that there will be a pitch invasion if the spectators feel a local hero has got rough justice?

Comments

[James]

Trouble these days is it's not the occasional decision wrong - I listened to the last Eng v SA TM on the radio and came away knowing the Umpires had made so many mistakes that the result of the game was affected.

The standard of Umpiring has clearly declined.

Look what happened with Aus V Ind recently - all that could have been avoided with a proper referral system (and with stump mics turned up!)

[John Wilkins]

remember a few years back, when Mike Atherton gloved the ball to slip, didnt walk and the Ump gave it as not out? The following 25 minutes of cricket with him and a clearly pumped up Alan Donald was amongst the most enthralling periods of Test Cricket Ive ever seen. i guess we wont get that kind of drama anymore. I would rather the Umpire get the occasional decision wrong.

[The Pav]

Sunil,

I accept that technically an appeal is just an enquiry as to the umpires opinion & that the fielding side does not have to believe the batsman is out although I would be disappointed if anybody appealed on a speculative basis.

In reality fielding teams only, or should only, appeal when they believe the batsman is out.

The appeal system then puts them in the invidious position that the question I raised describes. If they don't appeal someone will conclude they were just trying it on whether or not they were.

I suspect feilding teams will go to the third umpire to avoid this criticism & burn their three appeals.

[Venkat Reddy]

I think the referrals are a waste of everyone's time.Dilshan was out when he had scored 1 but the replays proved inconclusive and he was given not out by the third umpire.Sehwag was correctly ruled not out by the on field umpire but after consulting the third umpire ruled in the favour of the fielding side.Out of the 10 odd referrals the umpires still got two wrong. Which goes to show that technology is still inconclusive.I think all this technology is an excuse for not providing the best umpires to the players and the public.We have many poor umpires on the 'elite panel'( Rauf,Bucknor,Harper) when people like Peter Willey are sitting at home.How many decisions does Simon Taufel get wrong? The elite panel can be done away with and a retirement age can be instituted so that we don have 70 year olds out in the middle. The referrals slow the game and confuses everyone.And even then it still doesnt remove the human element and the decisions are not right always.

[Sunil Julka]

Pav - your logic is slightly skewed in that it presupposes the fielding side has to believe that the batsman is out prior to appealing. An appeal is merely a request for the umpire to consider. So in answer to your question, this does not mean that the fielding side did not believe the batsman to be out - simply that there might be a possibility.

It is only when a request for referral is made that we can assume a fielding side believes the batsman to be out.

[Som]

Patrick,
3 referrals were tried on day 2 and on all three occasions, on-field umpires proved correct. On two occasions, the TV umpire upheld on-field umpire's decision and overturned one as well, which he most probably got wrong.

Sorry, I'm not a great fan of the referral system. It slows the flow, snaps the rhythm and creates confusion. I'm not sure of its effect on a bowler's psyche either. Even after the bowler gets his man, he knows celebration might be premature. I think they just dulled Test cricket further.

It;s sad that 130 years and still Test cricket has not learnt to live with human error. Try whatever, errors are bound to happen occasionally and
the sooner we accept it the better.

Finally, as long as you don't completely do away with them, please let there be a reason for having umpires.

[The Pav]

That excellent site "Cricket with Balls" poses the question

If the fielding side appeals for LBW , has it turned down and then DOES NOT asked for it to be referred does that mean they didn't think it was out in the first place?

[Johnmc]

Aside from the umpire issue. I can't help thinking that this is another aid for the batting side in the grand scheme of things. Generally batsman know when they hit it or not so they won't be losing challenges there, so it boils down to LBWs. I'm fairly sure that HawkEye proves there are more LBWs that should be given than not (particularly those that it shows clipping the top of the bails) and it will take a brave fielding captain to pick and choose which to refer.

[Frank Upton]

The use of challenges in tennis has revealed that the judges are nearly always right and the players nearly always wrong. I wonder if cricket umpires will prove to be as accurate. I suspect not, as many cricket decisions are far more difficult than a line-call in tennis.