The Hindu : Sport : Cricket can learn from American football

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 23, 2005

Sport

Sport

Cricket can learn from American football

Unfortunately the errors keep coming, bloopers that change the course of the contest

PETER ROEBUCK

Brian Lara's recent misfortunes have renewed debate about using technology to ensure that justice is served on the field. Questions have been raised about three of the champion left-hander's dismissals. Not that any of them was as bad as the leg before verdict given against Daren Powell in Hobart or the stinker received by Inzamam in Sydney when the umpire rejected the opportunity to use technology and promptly made a mistake.

The fact remains, though, that West Indies' best batsman has been given three `roughies' in four innings, a sequence that ended his team's slim hopes of putting up a fight. Ironically Rudi Koertzen, the main critic of technology, had put the strongest case for its deployment.

Arguments

Two arguments are raised against using replays when they are available. Romantics point out that the game's finest umpires would be reduced to coat-hangers. Considering their current pay scale it does not seem such a hard road to hoe. They add that frequent referrals to a third umpire would slow the game down.

Both points have merit and can be accommodated. Certainly senior umpires must be treated with respect. Accepting the umpire's decision is one of the game's finest disciplines. Youngsters are taught to take the rough with the smooth. Batsmen must keep their opinions to themselves till they reach the pavilion. In this respect both Lara and Sachin Tendulkar have set fine examples.

Unfortunately the errors keep coming, mistakes that could be corrected in forty seconds, bloopers that change the course of the contest and embarrass the umpire. Sometimes these howlers can ruin careers. Fortunately Lara is not playing for his place. Within a minute everyone on the ground knows that a batsman has been wrongly dispatched or reprieved. Meanwhile the umpire must remain on the field, an honest man trying to do a difficult job.

Possible solution

What to do? Obviously the idea of sending every appeal to a third umpire must be rejected as slow and belittling. Instead, consideration could be given to the sort of compromise reached in American Football whereby each coach is allowed four challenges during a match. To question a decision he must throw a red flag onto the field, a move that in other circumstances might provoke a riot in George Bush country. If replays indicate that the ref was right then a challenge is forfeited. Compelling evidence is needed before a decision is overturned.

Applying the idea to cricket, captains could be allowed two challenges an innings. Of course they must not waste them. Shane Warne could get through the allocation in his first over. Unless all three stumps had been flattened, Justin Langer would seek a second opinion. Just as well Steve Waugh has retired. The captain must be firm.

The appointed umpires would respond to every appeal. Only challenged verdicts would be sent upstairs. Not much time would be lost. Supposing all four challenges were made in an innings, still it ought not to take longer than a drinks break. Moreover the number of replays should be limited. If the umpire cannot make up his mind in four viewings then the batsman isn't out. Judging from Inzamam's dismissal in Faisalabad, extra umpires also need to reread the rules.

Sound as well as sight ought to be at the disposal of the spare umpire. Had Lara's latest appeal been referred he'd have been saved on both grounds, sight and sound. He might have fallen next ball or batted the rest of the day. Instead, a sturdy innings was ended by an umpire and not an opponent. Cricket is not forced to choose between technology and humanity. By allowing a limited number of challenges the game can get the best of both worlds.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport