The third umpire

Daniel Laidlaw

The use of technology to adjudicate on umpiring decisions cannot be taken any further until its application is remedied. The advocates of an increased technological presence in umpiring decisions must first campaign for a correction of current procedures. How can we possibly allow a third umpire to decide such things as leg-before verdicts, bat-pad catches and nicks behind the wicket when his capability and authority is already over-relied upon?

In the Zimbabwean introduction to Australia's extended practice session otherwise known as the Carlton one-day series, a gross misapplication of cricket technology took place. In the predictable rout of Zimbabwe, this incident exposed a disturbing flaw that exceeded in importance another meaningless limited-overs contest. After watching this, it became fully clear what is wrong with the use of the third umpire.

I refer to the catch in the covers taken by Stuart Carlisle off Ricky Ponting from the bowling of Mluleki Nkala. If you didn't see it, Carlisle dived forward to intercept Ponting's airborne drive, bobbled the ball up, and completed the catch on the second attempt. Ponting, who made 68, was on 12 at the time.

Because of the close proximity of ground to ball and the tumbling nature of the catch, Ponting stood fast and waited for confirmation. Umpire Steve Davis presumably could not clearly see that Carlisle held the catch, so he put the onus on third umpire Richard Patterson and ended his own participation in the matter. This is where the decision-making process began to break down.

Anybody who's watched a lot of cricket knows that using replays to settle ambiguous decisions, in particular those that concern catches that may have bounced, is not all it's cracked up to be. A lot of the time, replays are indefinite enough to be inconclusive and we are no closer to proving whether or not it was a catch.

Even though most of the time we have an idea of what happened, replays cannot prove it definitively. Carlisle took the catch, but we couldn't actually see it was out because the camera could not pan quickly enough, meaning the critical picture was either blurred or out of frame. Under current rules, Patterson had no choice but to flash the green light. That is simply unacceptable when there are two umpires on the field better placed to deliver a verdict.

Where batsmen may once have walked before being given out, now they will not do so with the knowledge there is a reasonable chance the third umpire may find them not out. While this makes sense, it is also very disappointing when honest cricketers like Brian Lara are not taken at their word because of a desire to follow procedure. In a professional sport the officials have to be relied upon to make the decisions. When this process is faulty and they cannot do so with assurance, it leads to opportunistic cricketers taking advantage of it.

The fact of the matter is that a cameraman can't keep up with a ball moving rapidly over a short distance. As a result, when an umpire succumbs to the pressure and consults a replay, batsmen are frequently reprieved when they should be out, even though the umpire probably had a strong feeling on the matter. What we have here is a pressure to use deficient technology that is directly counter-productive to the reason it was introduced in the first place, which was to ensure more right decisions were made.

The problem is not with using replays per se. It's a failure to admit that they are not helpful after consulting them. I am convinced that if the authority had been transferred back to Steve Davis, he would have given Ponting out.

Now, I thought that the white light was supposed to be used whenever the third umpire found a replay inconclusive. But as we have repeatedly seen, that is patently not the case. It's time for that to change.

On most occasions, I'm sure the umpires on the field have an opinion as to whether a catch was taken. A lot of times, like the Ponting case, the third umpire is called just to be sure. But when the third umpire's evidence is revealed to be unsatisfactory, there is suddenly no recourse and sole authority rests with him. Why? The third umpire must surely relay to the umpires on the field that his hands are tied and it is up to them to make the call. Otherwise it's ludicrous, considering the field umpires have far more of an idea of what actually transpired.

Here is what must happen before we can further the technological march. When a run-out is appealed for or a disputed catch taken, the umpire should make a decision first - either raise his finger or say not out - and then, if he feels there is any doubt, refer to the third umpire for assistance. In the case of most run-outs and sometimes catches, the third umpire will get a clear picture and make the right call. But if he can't, the white light must be shown and then the on-field umpire's original decision will be final. That way, the man in the middle logically acts as a back up to technology instead of being removed from the equation entirely.

A perfect example for this exists in American football. In the NFL, coaches are allowed to challenge a referee's call. If a receiver is adjudged to have completed a reception and the opposing team disagrees, they can challenge the decision. The referee will then walk over to the sideline to watch replays to determine whether the call was correct. If it was, the ruling on the field stands and the team that challenged is penalised a time out. If it was not, the verdict is overturned and the game continues.

Applying this back to cricket, what we currently have is the referee, or umpire, not making any decision before instigating a review process by himself. In cricket, if the reviews are indeterminate, it is automatically ruled that the pass was incomplete, or the batsman is not out, despite the fact the umpire may have felt the opposite ruling was correct! It is illogical and unfair to all concerned. Yes, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt, but he shouldn't when an umpire is confident he is out and has only consulted the third official for confirmation.

The original concept of the third umpire has metamorphed over the last few years. The third umpire was supposed to be a backup, aiding a field umpire when he is unsure to facilitate more correct decisions. Instead, he has become a third party wholly relied upon when he often has much less to base his decision on than the man in the middle.

Let's utilise the full capacity of all three umpire's properly before further eradicating the responsibility of those on the field.

Mail Daniel Laidlaw