Technology must supplement, not supplant

The recent incident involving the controversial LBW decision against Sachin Tendulkar by umpire Steve Bucknor in Brisbane has re-ignited the debate about the role and place of technology vis-à-vis the two umpires in the middle.

Fed up with egregious and high profile blunders like this one, one school of thought seems to root for "infallible" gizmos taking over umpiring for all intent and purpose, while the purist camp points to the spirit of the Gentlemen's Sport, where one is supposed to chivalrously accept the umpire's ruling and grin and bear with whatever comes one's way from the man in white coat.

Also Read The stage is set for a titanic battle The critics must be eating their words now Bucknor dismisses criticism of his umpiring

This situation reminds me of the days when "neutral umpiring" in international cricket was merely a concept.

Some quarter of a century ago, when my playing days were over due to a combination of age (I was already 32 by then), lack of any real talent in me, and my career ambition as a banker, I decided to try qualifying as an umpire instead. Bombay Cricket Association used to run coaching classes for aspiring cricket umpires. Umpire Emeritus Ahmed Mamsa used to be our coach. One could not ask for a better teacher or mentor.

One day, during our usual after-the-class informal chat on "all things cricket", I ventured that "neutral umpires" in cricket seemed to be a good idea. Umpire Mamsa was aghast. He couldn't believe that one of his very own students could utter such blasphemy. He turned around and sternly demanded of me as to what an umpire could possibly be if not neutral? I stammered the now-taken-for-granted rationale for it, but he wasn't amused. As Mr. Mamsa contemptuously dismissed the proposition as a slight to the spirit of the Gentlemen's Sport, I slinked to a remote corner of the room.

But things have changed over time and having neutral umpires for a test match has become the norm. And as well too! Just imagine if Steve Bucknor was an Aussie, or Tendulkar possessed the on-field manners of John McEnroe, or, God forbid, both at the same time!

The point is: A neutral umpire was not meant to be an affront to another umpire's impartiality; neutrality was meant to shield him against the insinuation of partiality. It thus relieved him of a great and unnecessary pressure. Similarly, today's technology ought to be made the umpire's servant, not his master - and so should it be seen and felt by all. But this does not seem to be happening.

But first consider this: How fair is it to a field umpire to deprive him of the means readily available to viewers and commentators who instantly replay and review each event and reach a better informed conclusion, whereas he is left to his mortal senses of sight and hearing in the din and fury of it all in the hot and sweaty middle? With hand-held gadgets even a spectator on the ground has the benefit of viewing, or at least listening to, the result of an instant replay complete with grids and lines showing the actual or projected path of the ball. Imagine the amount of pressure it all brings on to the white-coated man in the middle! 

Having a TV-umpire is a move in the right direction – except that the decision-delivery should still be vested in the field umpire. Passing the decision-delivery to someone other than the umpire on the field - whether another man or a machine - detracts from his authority as the TV-umpire switches green or red light. The effect of this procedure is not too different from sounding a gong from the outside to call the "over" or "time" instead of having the field umpire do so.

The psychological impact of not having the field umpire make a "life-or-death" decision is even worse and dilutes his authority. Such a decision-delivery arrangement is hardly conducive to consolidating the authority that a field umpire needs in other important matters as well - such as the interpretation of the laws regarding fair and unfair play.

This seems to be one of the reasons why introduction of more technology is resisted. But that is like throwing the baby with the bath water.

Therefore, what I would suggest is this: 

1. Do not resist the technology; make full use of it.

2. Do not handicap a field umpire vis-à-vis the gizmo-using viewers and commentators.

3. Find ways and means to rapidly make all the benefit of technology available to the umpires on the field, directly where already possible (for example, using a light-o-meter), or via the TV-umpire (run out, LBW, stumped, etc.).

4. Incorporate latest technologies – when feasible, provide the field umpire with hand-held gadgets for instant replays – so that he may take it into consideration while making his own decision.   

5. Never let the field umpire be without at least the same information through technology – direct or via the TV-umpire – as those who watch his finger.   

Whatever else is done, let no one but the umpire in the middle deliver a decision

Will all this cause delays and hold up play? Yes, but only slightly, and that too only occasionally. Given the constant advancement in technology, the delay factor will also become increasing insignificant. Even now, delays can be minimized by drilling the procedure of consultation amongst the umpires on the field and the one in front of the TV.

In any case, cricket is no hockey or soccer where play is more-or-less non-stop. An occasional, small interruption for consultation with the TV-umpire, when a field umpire is not too sure of his facts for whatever reason, is infinitely more acceptable than sending a Lara, a Tendulkar, or for that matter any one, packing … or to give them a reprieve, only to discover it in hindsight of a replay to be the wrong decision that turned a match on its head.