Search the Internet          Tips

Thumbs down for the men in coats

Prem Panicker

I think it was towards July-end that cricket fans forwarded me an article that had appeared on the Yahoo website.

The headline suggested that the Indian media should stop whingeing. On reading the article, though, I found that I was - according to the author - the sole exemplar of the whining Indian media.

The text of that article, as I recall, was that I was out of turn to talk of umpiring gaffes and such, that India was losing because it was a lousy side, that I had to face that fact and not deflect the focus to the umpiring, and so on.

Whining when losing is, I gather, bad form.

Since that day, India has, as I recall, lost one Test, won three, and drawn two - this, on the back of an incredible win in the NatWest Trophy final.

Is it okay, I wonder, to `whine' about umpiring (For reasons of space, I'll save other whines for other days) when winning?

I got back to Mumbai after a six month stay in New York in time to see the three Tests against the West Indies - and the one aspect that stood out more than any other was the umpiring standard, ranging from the ordinary to the downright abysmal.

And those are my adjectives - Rahul Dravid (given out LBW at least twice after making distinct contact with the bat) and Sourav Ganguly (similarly done it at least once) have stronger words to use, not fit for polite company.

They are not the only ones, either - check out the Player Survey results, now up on REDIFF.COM.

The section on umpiring is enlightening. Question one asks if umpiring is of international standard. 16 per cent think not, a further 35 per cent prefer not to express an opinion either way. Put differently, the majority (51 per cent) does not find itself able to endorse the officiating.

Question three in that category asks if umpiring standards have improved in contemporary times. The result is a standoff - the `strongly agree' and `agree' categories comprise 50 per cent, those who disagree or have no opinion comprise the rest. Again, hardly a rousing round of applause for the men in coats.

The real key here, though, is questions four and five. A huge majority - 80 per cent - agree that appointing an international panel of neutral umpires to officiate in all games is a good move. Significantly, though, the majority - 30 per cent say nay, a further 37 per cent are undecided - fail to agree with the statement that the current panel of eight umpires constitutes the best in the business.

Consider that the respondents to the above survey comprise the players of the top ten international teams and you realize a problem exists. Take that in conjunction with the fact that these same eight officials will adjudicate 54 World Cup games in 43 days, come February-March, and you get an idea of the seriousness of that problem.

The upcoming World Cup is about more - more matches, more pressure, much more at stake for all concerned and, perhaps, more mistakes? With the real possibility that one crucial umpiring error could push a harassed player over the edge, and cause him to "bring disrepute to the game" in spectacular fashion?

The solution is embedded within that same survey. Responding to the questionnaire after experiencing enhanced use of technology in the ICC Champions' Trophy, a clear majority (68 per cent) of the players polled agree that technology has improved decision making.

Who is the best umpire in the world? Steve Bucknor Asoka De Silva Daryl Harper Rudi Koertzen Dave Orchard David Shepherd Russell Tiffin Srinivas Venkataraghavan   View results

Interestingly, while the players seem ambivalent about the use of technology in LBW decisions, the majority endorses its use in bat-pad judgments and, interestingly, in no-ball calls.

This last is not surprising - both batsmen and bowlers have a grouse with umpiring calls on line infringement: bowlers believing that the calls are often too harsh, and batsmen holding that time and again, the deliveries that have got them out are illegal.

The argument most often used against increased use of technology in cricket is that it slows the game down - a statement 44 per cent of the players agree with, against 28 per cent who disagree and a further 28 per cent who have no opinion either way.

So who thinks the use of tech should be decreased? Not the players - 42 per cent disagree with any attempt to decrease use of tech, and a further 30 per cent remain noncommittal.

Does all this make a case for the ICC to back up its panel of eight umpires - said panel, it needs reiterating, not good enough to earn the endorsement of the players they stand in judgment of - with technological tools and a greater role for the third umpire?

You call it.

The ICC already has - by haughtily rejecting both the Federation of International Cricketers' Association, and the survey it conducted. Which brings us to the last part of the survey.

97 per cent of the players polled believe that players need a strong representative association.

98 per cent of those polled support FICA as their representative body.

91 per cent believe that FICA should represent them on all matters cricketing and financial.

98 per cent believe the ICC should recognize FICA.

93 per cent reject the ICC's attempt to pick players' representatives.

And finally, this: 87 per cent believe players should have a greater say in how the game is run.

When, do you reckon, will the ICC give the players that say? Before the next ugly - and eminently avoidable - crisis rocks the game, against the backdrop of World Cup 2003, or after?