The Offside

Regulations laid down by the International Cricket Council (ICC) deal with, among other things, the reports written by team captains and handed over to the match referee at the end of every Test or one-dayer. These reports are to include comments of the performances of the umpires; submitted to the ICC, these evaluations are supposed to help the governing body constantly evaluate umpiring standards and individual performances by the men in the white coats.

If a captain were to have a legitimate grouse against the umpires, as Nasser Hussain could claim to have after Kolkata, one would imagine that the comments in the report would be critical of decisions handed down during the course of the match. If some international captains do not choose to use that privilege to its maximum effect, it is their loss; the rule is there for good reason, and Hussain's choice to utilise it should not be held against him.

The other question - was the umpiring bad enough to complain about? - should be considered in the context of the match. Not only did Hussain himself get a decision that could be termed unfortunate, but England's very real hopes of victory were effectively dashed by a rank bad decision against Marcus Trescothick. The English captain had every right to complain, especially when he has a perfectly legal and procedural avenue of doing so. Writing trite statements about the high quality of the decision-making in such situations would only doom the ICC's umpire evaluations and lead to the retention of incompetent umpires within the system.

The Onside

The concept of the umpire - of two fallible human beings making pivotal decisions in the middle - naturally assumes that, at certain times, a mistake will change the course of the match. Such situations should be minimised, of course, and the system of neutral umpires goes a long way in doing so. But there will always be the possibility of human error, and statistical probability ensures that, in the long run, each team gets its fair share of bad decisions.

If teams accept the powers of the umpire, they must also accept their frailties. Bad decisions have changed matches much more important than the Kolkata one-dayer, and those decisions have been gracefully taken in the stride by captains who recognise the limitations of the umpiring system. Nasser Hussain, in complaining about one decision against Marcus Trescothick, failed to do the same.

Granted that the decision against Trescothick was poor, but lbw calls are always dodgy, happening as they do within the blink of an eye. It is in fact to the credit of the umpires that they get it right much more often than not, and a stray bad decision, even if it coincidentally happens to be a crucial one, is no reason to tarnish their reputations in public. Hussain surely cannot believe that a major decision has never gone against India and in favour of England during the long cricketing history that the two nations have shared. So SK Sharma's error is not, as the English skipper seems to believe, part of a larger conspiracy to ensure a series victory for the home side.

[ Archive ]