How's that, umpire?

Sujata Prakash

When you play in a match be sure not to forget to pay a little attention to the umpire. First of all, inquire after his health, then say what a fine player his father was, and finally present him with a brace of birds or rabbits. This will give you confidence and you will probably do well." George Parr (1826-1891).

I admit, I don't know anything about George Parr except that he must have played the game of cricket in fine English tradition as it was first conceptualised. His advice to players to first pass the time of day with the umpire and only then get on with the game is old wordly and yet so quintessentially cricket. It's a game to be played without hurry, and with absolute trust in the umpire's skill, geniality and judgement.

Unfortunately no umpire has ever had the skill to always judge correctly if the ball pitched outside leg stump, or in line with the stumps. In Parr's days most of the lbw errors must have been mutteringly referred to as a fifty-fifty one as there was no stump vision to highlight just how bad the decision had been. But these days slow replays make it possible to separate the iffy ones from the truly appalling.

Let's face it, it's not a pretty sight to see a batsman walking back crestfallen as the commentator shows you the rectangle on the screen and hints that the poor chap wuz robbed. At such times Imran Khan's suggestion that all lbw decisions be handed over to the third umpire makes sense. It will certainly go a long way in making visiting teams feel they won't be done in by biased home umpires. Today, more and more voices are calling out for technology being used to make the game less chancy.

The other side of the coin argues that if this is done the flavour of the game will be lost. The job of the umpire will be reduced to counting overs and holding sweaters. How many of them would agree to be pin up boys only?

It's a confusing decision to make. In football there is a momentum gathering to use less of the referee and more of the 'third eye'. But in football one goal can make the difference between winning and losing the World Cup. Whereas in cricket one wrong decision shouldn't really make such a difference. Still, does that mean that umpires should not be accountable in any way; especially as most of them have an aversion to using the third umpire's help in giving lbw and caught behind decisions? Is it possible to balance tradition with a higher degree of fair play?

One way to make the umpires more accountable is to flash their averages across the screen the way it's done for bowlers and batsmen. Let's say we start with the year 2000. Have the following headings - Matches played, Number of lbw decisions given, Number of controversial decisions, Number of decisions which should have been given but were not.

The headings are just examples of thinking out loud. The 'controversial decisions' and 'decisions which should have been given but were not' can be decided by the third umpire or a panel of judges. Given this information it should be easy to come up with Ceat ratings for umpires as well. That would go a long way in sorting the wheat from the chaff. It would make the umpires aware, at least, that the world is privy to their levels of competence. George Parr might not be too happy, but it beats having only one umpire on the field whose biggest challenge is to call the no balls and wides.