Andy Capostagno Cricket
There was a time when umpires were like good little children – they were seen and not heard. In the good old days there were 13 people on the field, two of them made the decisions and if those decisions were wrong the only people who knew were the 13 in the middle.
Then as now, the two captains marked the performance of the umpires and in 1948 when Sir Donald Bradman was the victim of a poor decision on Australia’s tour of England, the umpire is alleged to have said: “I’m sorry Don, but you’ll have to go.” On his way past the man in the white coat, Bradman, is alleged to have replied: “No, I’m afraid you’ll have to go.”
This is a World Cup year and umpiring controversies are going to dominate it, especially in the shortened form of the game. The International Cricket Council (ICC) is going to have to grasp the nettle before its sting paralyses the game. It shows no sign of doing so, however, else how can the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) be allowed to host the World Cup without a Pan Eye at every game?
The Pan Eye is the camera square to the wicket on both sides of the field which proves 99,9% of the time whether a batsman is in his ground or out of it. It has been conspicuous by its absence in Australia this season and as a result all kinds of travesties of justice have been perpetrated.
The ECB argues that the Pan Eye is not necessary, but what it is covering up is that its installation restricts the view of a number of expensive seats. Ag, shame. What’s more important? Getting the right decision, or allowing in 10 more people to sit in uncomfortable seats in the vain hope of glimpsing themselves on the big screen?
The technology is there, it needs to be used. Hansie Cronje said that during a game in Bloemfontein when a batsman was given out caught at silly point, the television replays showed that the ball had missed everything. But the laws of physics applied by the umpire demanded that it must have hit something.
It is now six years since the third umpire was introduced and yet the men in the middle are still not using him properly. At the Adelaide Oval last Saturday, Australian umpire Ross Emerson was certain in his own mind that Mahela Jayawardene had made his ground against England. Television replays proved that he had not, but because Emerson had not referred the decision to the third umpire, Jayawardene stayed to score a match-winning century.
Ironically, Emerson’s error went largely unremarked because he made so many others in the course of a bad- tempered match that a mere run-out was neither here nor there.
Later the same day in the Standard Bank League game between Western Province and Free State, South African umpire Robbie Brooks made the same error and the beneficiary, Brian McMillan, also went on to make 100.
One thing that Brooks fought shy of was no-balling Paul Adams for throwing. Like all wrist spinners, Adams bowls with a bent arm, but because he does not straighten it he has never been called a chucker. Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitheran, the world’s best off- spinner, was called for throwing three years ago.
The ICC set up an inquiry using an Australian research laboratory. Moving pictures of Muralitheran’s action were taken from many different angles and with the aid of computer simulations the lab was able to prove conclusively that Muralitheran does not throw.
But just as there are still people who believe, despite vast evidence to the contrary, that all life forms were created on the same day about 6E000 years ago, there are still those who believe the evidence of their own eyes rather than the evidence of the camera, the same device which the ICC have decided not to employ at the World Cup.
Emerson is clearly a creationist at heart, for how else could he justify calling Muralitheran last Saturday? Presumably the same way that he can justify not referring Jayawardene’s run-out, calling a Sanath Jayasuriya four a six and not giving Roshan Mahanama out for obstructing the field.
Mahanama dipped his shoulder into the oncoming Darren Gough as the bowler attempted to effect a run-out, an action which soured a game that should have been remembered as one of the best one-day matches ever played.
All of the above decisions could have been made correctly by the third umpire.
It will be worth keeping a count during the last four matches between South Africa and the West Indies how many decisions are given correctly due to the unblinking eye of the camera.
Perhaps then we will discover that the ICC is really afraid of the same thing that certain politicians feared when the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were published.
And I’m not talking about reconciliation.