The men in white were under scrutiny as Pakistan squared the series against England
Peter Robinson
If Pakistan are around, can a row be far behind? Not likely. Within hours of Pakistan’s 108-run victory in a remarkable Old Trafford Test on Monday, British television viewers were being treated to pictures of Waqar Younis allegedly scratching the ball.
Add to this the usual accusations of sharp practice and intimidation that come up whenever teams from the subcontinent have a spinner operating and men in around the bat and you have what almost amounts to a routine Pakistani Test match.
Which is a bit of a pity because Pakistan deserve credit for forcing the pace on the first day when they scored throughout at more than four to the over and then waiting patiently on the last day for the England collapse after tea.
The losing team, however, had more substantial cause for complaint as television replays demonstrated that a succession of England batsmen had been given out during the collapse to no balls. How many is something of a moot point: The Daily Telegraph said four, The Times three.
Whatever the case, and to be fair to the England players they weren’t the ones doing the moaning, it is disturbing when two of the game’s most senior umpires so consistently miss basic infractions of the rules. The umpires concerned were David Shepherd, one of the most respected and best-loved in the game, and West Indian Ed Nicholls who has been carving himself a decent reputation over the past couple of years. What is disturbing is that in some cases the overstepping was by no means marginal with an inch or two of space between the bowlers’ heels and the crease. Yet both men missed the no balls.
There are a couple of points to be made here. The first is that incidents such as these constitute a good argument for the return of the old back foot no ball law which allows the umpire a split second more to decide on the legitimacy of a delivery before concentrating his attention on the batsman. One of the explanations given for Shepherd’s and Nicholls’s oversights was that they were so busy focusing on the other end that they forgot to worry about what was going on at their end.
Another point is why their attention was not drawn to the no balls by the third umpire or the match referee. To be honest, other than convention there seems to be no plausible reason why this was not done.
Beyond all this, however, the Old Trafford Test prompted yet more calls for greater use of technology to help umpires get more decisions right. This is the standard argument used by those who work in television who make it without the slightest acknowledgement that television created the monster.
All the same, it does not make sense to deny the umpires a view of the match witnessed by people all around the country (and the world, for that matter) which could make their lives a lot easier.
We should be careful of technology, though. The current Australian view is that television not be used to decide the fairness of catches. When this first happened, officialdom hoped the replays would persuade batsmen not to hang about when they knew they were out. Instead the opposite has happened and very few batsmen now acknowledge that they have been fairly dismissed.
A couple of seasons ago I saw a Northerns batsman nick it to second slip and stand. With no replay to call upon, the standing umpires conferred bemusedly and gave him not out. For his troubles, the batsman copped an earful from Ken Rutherford (a particularly high price to pay, I hear you say) but was able to continue his innings.
Clearly, though, umpires need more help. I’m not entirely convinced of the efficiency of the Sky Scope as used at Old Trafford.This scepticism has something to do with the introduction of the prototype speed gun in South Africa a few years back which proved, incontrovertibly, that Hansie Cronje bowled consistently quicker than Allan Donald.
It also goes against the grain to rely too much on technology in a game that is almost wholly about a good eye, sharp hands, quick feet and psychology. Still, the modern Test umpire is being hung out to dry and this cannot be good for the game.
If technology must come, then so be it. But then redefine the role of the umpires with greater emphasis on their duty to control the game. By all means allow them a second or third, slowed-down look at a bat/pad, but also give them the teeth to punish players whose behaviour too often borders on downright cheating. God knows, it’s the players who try to pull the wool over the umpires’ eyes, not the other way around.
Peter Robinson is the editor of CricInfo South Africa