The Hindu : Sport : ICC has to address the issue

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Sport

Sport

ICC has to address the issue

Criticising the ICC umpires is a clear case of not addressing the real problem, writes Makarand Waingankar

Are Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson the best umpires in their respective countries? Not necessarily. For that matter, not many of the ICC umpires are the best in their countries. The process of appointing umpires to the ICC panel is so faulty that the appointed ones cannot be the best.

Though the ICC has a Cricket Committee headed by Sunil Gavaskar, it does not have the power to choose the best from their respective countries.

No member of the committee is a member of his country’s umpire committee and hence has no say in either recommending or rejecting the proposed names.

One of the richest boards in world cricket, the BCCI has no umpire on the elite panel after Srinivas Venkatraghavan quit, simply because the nominated names did not measure up to the standard of the ICC.

Gavaskar, being the Chairman of the Technical Committee of the BCCI, can’t even discuss the nomination of the Indian umpires with the ICC. It is the prerogative of the Umpires’ Committee of the BCCI, but the committee has no first-class umpire to guide it.

Best solution

The best solution would be to have each member of the ICC Cricket Committee choose umpires from their respective countries, and be accountable for them.

The BCCI has an assessment system but the findings are not referred to the Technical Committee. Why not ask the Technical Committee to choose the best umpires?

Criticising the ICC umpires is a clear case of not addressing the real problem. Technology can’t be conclusive evidence.

Didn’t we have the best umpires in the business when there was no technology available? After the introduction of technology, certain umpires looked impressive while some others were exposed.

If the argument is that technology puts needless pressure on the umpires the fact is that the umpires are not mentally conditioned to withstand the pressure. Pressure is something you invite.

Bucknor is an ideal case study. He must be the only umpire who regularly falters in the second half of the match, especially in the fourth innings, and the batsmen must be finding it harder to concentrate when facing him rather than Lee or Ntini, never knowing when the West Indian’s dreaded finger will go up.

What is the solution? Wouldn’t it be prudent to have two sets of umpires for a Test match of 450 overs, with a change after the first 225 overs? Or, ask the third umpire to share the duties of the on-field umpires?

Statistics reveal that on an average 12.2 overs are bowled per hour in a Test as possibly part of the strategy to slow down the game. If referrals are added, the game will be boring with 10 overs being bowled in an hour.

At a time when the spectator-appeal of the shorter versions of the game have increased manifold, measures need to be taken to make Test cricket faster and entertaining.

Unless the ICC shows keen interest in addressing the issue of appointment of umpires and match referees, and enforcing the number of overs to be bowled in six hours without extending play, Test cricket will continue to lose its charm.

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

Sport