They are every cricket-lover's favourite whipping boys; the men who can do no right. They are only criticized, never praised. They are noticed only when they make a mistake, and every individual who either watches or glimpses the game believes that he or she can do a better job than them.

There is only one job in cricket to which this description applies in entirety.

Lovers of this great game will never agree, but this is a classic illustration of an old human failing; criticizing, even villifying those who are important, vital and significant. Quite simply, a competitive cricket match cannot be played without an individual or a pair, who perform the job of 'umpires'. The much-maligned men in white coats are critical to the existence and well-being of the sport.

Like their cricketing counterparts, umpires come in all sorts of forms and shapes. If a Simon Taufel or Aleem Dar could give the fittest of international cricketers a complex, then there was a portly character like Swaroop Kishen who prompted many a watcher to marvel at the sturdiness of this genial personality's legs, considering the weight they bore! There have been likeable umpires, and others who put off players and spectators by their high-handedness. There have been umpires who have shied away from controversy, and others who have courted it. There have been some who have brought the spectators down with their penchant for improvising on the signals they were supposed to make, and others who went strictly by the book.

Whatever may be the case, the umpires have been an integral part of the game, and will remain so even in this technology-driven age. The ICC is presently in the process of experimenting with a rule that if implemented on a regular basis, will erode the importance of the umpires. The proposal of allowing both sides to 'appeal' against umpiring decisions has expectedly not gone down too well with the umpiring fraternity. Steve Bucknor, that colossus among modern umpires, has gone to the extent of alleging that TV companies doctored images to portray umpires in a poor light. Bucknor has his supporters, but the fact is that this is a step that the cricket's premier body was bound to take amidst the increasing emphasis on technology. In many ways, it was inevitable in an age of cut-throat competition. Why risk damaging a potential career due to a dodgy decision when you have the means and methods to minimize the extent of human error?

However, it is important that the ICC pays due heed to Bucknor's allegation and investigates into it. No individual, least of all an experienced hand like Bucknor, will make such a strong allegation and run the risk of angering powerful TV channels just for the heck of it. But will the premier organization do so?

Amidst all this talk of introducing 'appeals' and thus inadvertently diluting the umpire's authority, one crucial aspect has been overlooked by one and all. What these 'appeals' by either side will do is halt the game until the third umpire takes a close look at the replays and gives the decision. The proceedings of a one-day game, which are generally replete with exciting, fast-paced cricket, will slow down as a result. Is this what the ICC wants in an age of globalization, wherein it has gone on record to indicate its resolve to spread the game to the distant corners of the world? The 'appeal' proposal, which will be adopted in the forthcoming ICC Champions Trophy on a trial basis, will allow both teams to make a maximum of three appeals in a match. Now what if all six appeals are made in the same innings? Will a sport that proceeds in fits and starts attract sports-lovers based in the US, China and Japan, to name just three of the non-cricketing regions? Will people brought up on sports that are faster and yes, quicker to finish than cricket, be lured into a game where nothing seems to happen every now and then?

But then, this stop-and-start scenario might well be exactly what the TV companies want! For it will only give them the opportunity to run more advertisements and thus generate more revenue! Cricket matches, which have already become 4-5 ball-over affairs on certain channels, thanks to their penchant for going into 'ad' mode when the final ball of an over is about to be bowled and reverting to 'match' mode after the first ball of the next over.

Is this what the ICC wants? Or is it that they genuinely believe in the virtues of technology?

To be continued....................
 

- By Devendra Prabhudesai