Who's ball is it anyway? (Is it right to have a third umpire?)

Member Name: stevesfree

Product:	Is it right to have a third umpire?
Date:	11/09/01 (50 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: might give objective view., Less pressure on Umpires in the middle

Disadvantages: Lose a beauty of the game, Clinical, might LOWER standards

Scene 1 - A fast rising delivery. Flashing past the bat. Keeper takes. The whole slip cordon goes up! Howzaaaat!!!! Bowler jumps up & down, screaming at the umpire, who stares down the wicket - - pause, pause,

Not Out

Stunned disbelief - whole team attempts to restrain itself, daggered looks.. - possible mention to the match referee of dissent - next days papers are full of the 'incident' - what would Gatting have said to Shakil Ranoor??.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.

As the game that some many of us love continues to push the limits in terms of intensity & skill, where will the umpires go.
Do we need more technology to monitor the situation.
Now we can have 3rd umpires with TV monitors around the ground - is it 12 or 20 cameras? -to give the perfect view

Hawkeye - what a clever invention - using computer aided radar tracking to 'predict' where the ball would have traveled through time & space either to hit or miss the wicket. To help the lbw (Leg before wicket) decisions

Its not yet officially in the game, but channnel 4 are certainly pushing it.

Sound 'snickometers' to detect the sound of the ball touching the bat - the glove - the arm guard - the box -

All of this above are constantly watch by the all-powerful & ever increasing TV stations that watch & watch & watch, waiting to pounce, waiting for the opportunity . . . for what . . far a story of course, for controversy that will do what they want - make money!!!!

The players seem to want a decision that is as fair and as right as possible

phew its all getting very busy.

BUT is there another side.
Yes there have been poor, or even bad umpires that make clearly wrong decisions - I have often found myself as player & occasional umpire, and felt 'no way can you give that out' or worse still, 'that was definitely in'.

The rules state - the benefit of doubt lies with the bats
man - is it the aim to remove this doubt - even completely?

The point that few wish to raise is that with all the technology in the world - there will ALWAYS be dubious decisions, at all levels.

Cameras cannot get the exact angle, everytime, the motion of the cricklet ball through the air defies scientific opinion even now. WE still have no idea why a cricket swings or doesn't, or even why one bowler can & another cannot.

A computer guided anything cannot get the 'feel' of the moment. Because all though no-one wants to admitt it, cricket is NOT a computer game. The element of doubt or vagueness or the unknown is crucial to the sport.

You can have a hundred cameras & still the issue would not be clear.

So lets grow & take the medicine. Are the current umpires so bad (they can be helped far more in other ways).

Occasionally there are unfair decisions, it happens in life. So am I suggesting lets let umpiring standards go down, keep poor umpires?
No - but here is another angle - the moral of the game, the style, the atmosphere, the spirit.

If umpires recieved better respect - possibly through training & improved selection. Then many problems will simply evaporate.

In rugby Union this debate is very rare, as the referee's word is absolute. Cricket isn't far behind, in umpires authority, but he is trained to interfere as little as possible, this could be modified. It would be the route to encourage - Dicky Bird had total respect because he was good! Peter Willey also, his added bonus is that he has been known to apologise when he feels afterwards a mistake has been made.

Another point is - consistancy. Inconsistant umpiring must be about the worst thing. It is much more helpful to know that certain umpires view things in certain ways. This in part is the beauty of the game. CAn't we keep it.

The attitude of the players MUST be monitered & that has to be t
he job of the umpire.

Radically, I would suggest that each umpire should be generally younger (no older than 50) better trained & coached. Paid properly - as is now currently happening. But in addition to be encouraged to stamp a gentle authroity on the players conduct & to guide energy into playing the game at top performance, but offering best sportsmanship opportunities.
This last series in england has seen a dramatic improvement in Australian & English relations.

This ALL effects the need for 3rd umpires etc.

One point - what is the game? How is it developing? Is there a beauty, a magic, a mystique?
If there is - I for one want to keep it.
Increasing technologies is a process that will eventually sap out this factor.

Do we want colder, harder, no escape stuff? Or people to enjoy the game & be seen to enjoying it? Adam Gilchrist 'allowed' England to win at Headingley with a true sporting yet competitive choice.
Why not extend this to the judging of the game.

It is partly about winning, but there must be more. Winning cannot mean everything.
Because (last cliche) It's only a game!

Summary: