SALVATION lies in technology. Or so today's mandarins would have people believe. In the case of umpires, the reverse seems to be the case.
The use of TV replays to adjudge run-outs, doubtful saves on the boundary line and stumpings made its debut in South Africa in 1993 during a trination one-day tournament. At that time, replays were hailed as the new messiah, the factor that would eliminate doubt. But, increasingly, they have served to create more doubts than they have removed. Additionally, the fact that TV commentators have chosen to use these replays, which in many cases constitute only subjective evidence, to label umpires as incompetent or just plain guilty of wrong judgement has added to the debate over their usefulness. It has also increased the pressure on the umpires a hundred-fold.
The recent tours of Australia by England and Sri Lanka added more fuel to the fire for two reasons. During the Ashes series, a number of club grade umpires officiated as third umpires and made decisions based on TV replays that were doubftul at best. There are no prizes for guessing what went wrong during the Sri Lankan tour -- news of the Muralitharan affair, chapter two has spread to all cricketing corners of the globe.
There was one case which stood out during the England-Australia Tests and that occurred during Australia's second innings in the fifth Test. The innings was crumbling and only Michael Slater was standing firm. Early on in his innings, he was given the benefit of the doubt when England appealed for a run-out, went on to get a hundred and Australia ultimately won the match. The decision looked extremely doubtful as the TV cameras were not positioned at either side of the wicket; from the angles available, it looked as though Slater was short of the crease. Additionally, a club-level umpire was functioning as the third official. Why, is a question that begs an answer.
Only one country, South Africa, appears to have got it right as far as the use of the TV replay goes. Sponsors have been located to pay for the installation of TV cameras at all major Test-playing venues. Fixed cameras mean that there is no shake in the picture and the angle remains the same for all decisions. But even in this case, one factor can spoil all the good work -- a player getting in the way of a clear view. Or what happened in Australia during the CUB one-day series can also foul things up -- Sanath Jayasuriya, acting as a runner for Arjuna Ranatunge, ran so wide of the pitch that he did not appear in the picture at all!
Despite this, the South African solution is perhaps the best one in the interim. But other countries have cried off, citing the cost of installing the cameras as the reason. The game's governing body, the International Cricket Council, has as usual said that it cannot bear the cost either. It would appear that someone somewhere is being a bit penny-wise and pound foolish.
Visualise this situation: the World Cup final is being played in the West Indies in 2008. The final is in Barbados and pits the West Indies against Australia. Darren Ganga, who appears to be carrying the West Indies to victory, is adjuged run out with the team just two runs short of victory. The decision is similar to the one involving Slater which was mentioned earlier. The crowd goes mad, smashes up the stadium and digs up the pitch. The cost of repair would far exceed that which would have been paid for installing fixed cameras at all major grounds in the West Indies. And that is an estimate which errs on the conservative side. And remember, this scenario is not so far-fetched going by the crowd behaviour seen during Australia's tour of the West Indies.
But then such long-term thinking is not part of the ICC's way of operation. The present chief, Jagmohan Dalmiya, is probably content to sit back, bask in the publicity whenever it is positive and prevaricate at other times. The old attitude of not fixing something until it is totally broken still remains. As for thinking about 2008 -- well, one mustn’t ask for the moon.
During the World Cup, umpires are bound to come under more pressure than usual as they have to officiate in a large number of matches over a month. The organisers have stretched the tournament to 42 games this time and the international panel will be sorely stretched. As always, the usual batch of wise-guy commentators will be there to second-guess the umpires and with the number of countries again being 12, there will be that many more journalists to pick up every controversy -- or manufactured controversy -- and transmit it back home. The atmosphere is bound to be that much more tense. The message that will go out is -- it is no fun being an umpire any more.
The pressure on people who are admittedly not in the best paid of professions could well lead to a decline in the number who opt to take it up. More seriously, it may lead to a situation where the profession is avoided by competent people. Cricket needs less of the Ross Emerson types and more of the Steve Bucknor brand. Given the trend, it is more likely that the game will in the future be controlled (?) by more of the former. If that does not bother officialdom, nothing will.