England have requested a meeting with the match referee, Hanumant Singh, in the aftermath of a controversial finish to the First Test in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka - victory Photo CricInfo

Sri Lanka wrapped up a well-deserved innings victory in the penultimate session of the last day, but concerns over the standard of umpiring threaten to overshadow the quality of some outstanding performances.

The trouble on the final day started when Atherton, as so often the key to England's resistance, failed to add to his overnight score as he was given out caught behind off left-arm seamer Chaminda Vaas. Wicket-keeper Kumar Sangakkara dived forwards to claim the catch, and umpire Jayaprakash, without calling for the third umpire and technological assistance, gave Atherton out.

With television replays suggesting that the ball may have bounced before reaching the keeper, the failure by the umpire to use the assistance available is somewhat bewildering. The former England all-rounder Ian Botham asked: "What is the point of having the technology if you don't use it? For the next Test in Kandy, I hope they can find two umpires who understand the rules of the game."

Worse was to follow. Craig White was lucky to survive a confident appeal for a bat-pad catch to Tillekeratne Dilshan at silly point, but was then dismissed lbw to a ball from Muralitharan that hit him on the foot outside the line of off-stump. Such decisions raise questions not so much over the impartiality of the umpires, but over their competence and knowledge of the rules. Robert Croft was also unfortunate to be given out lbw as television replays suggested he hit the ball.

With Hick, Hussain (in both innings), Trescothick and Stewart also receiving questionable decisions in the Test, the overall umpiring performance was something close to inept.

The England team have been guarded in their comments so far, keen to give Sri Lanka due credit for an excellent, professional performance. No doubt they are also mindful of incurring the further wrath of the match referee. An unimpressed Duncan Fletcher did comment though, saying: "If you were watching that and didn't see what happened, you must be blind."

Nasser Hussain agreed: "It leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth," he said. "I've come here for four and a half days for what wasn't a very professional game of cricket."

Hanumant Singh has appeared somewhat heavy-handed in his dealings to date. A one-match suspended ban for the mild-mannered Graeme Hick (who could hardly be blamed for looking surprised to be given out), seemed harsh. He has also written to the England coach, Duncan Fletcher, to protest about the seemingly innocuous habit Michael Atherton has of inspecting the pitch prior to play, and trying to visualise batting upon it.

Before the Test he issued a statement designed to stamp out excessive appealing, using the phrase that it is often "an orchestrated attempt to cheat." Strong words, but fair up to a point. Certainly the captains have a role to play in ensuring that the game is played in the right spirit, but so long as a team thinks they have a chance of winning a decision, they are likely to appeal.

But the match referee has needed to be firm. The umpires capitulated under pressure out in the middle, and in an attempt to restore control, Hanumant Singh has had to take action from a distance. Stronger umpires, both in character and ability to judge decisions, would not have necessitated his stance. Demanding high standards of professionalism from the players is quite right and proper, but these standards have to be reflected by the umpires too, and in this game that has not been the case.

Four Sri Lankan players, Muttiah Muralitharan, Mahela Jayawardene, Russel Arnold and Kumar Sangakkara have been fined 25% of their match fee for excessive appealing. In truth though, it was the umpires who failed to keep adequate control. They allowed fielders to run on the pitch, thereby creating extra rough for the spinners to bowl into; they failed to control the appealing, leaving the match referee to administer punishment after the damage was done; and they made several poor adjudications that will have the unfortunate effect of lessening the value of Sri Lanka's victory.

Everyone excepts that mistakes are inevitable, but the sheer quantity of poor, and inconsistent, decisions in this game, allied to a reluctance to use the third umpire suggest that we are not being fair to the players. If we expect high standards of them, it is only fair that they are backed by officials of similar quality.

Whether umpires are neutral or not is not really the issue. No one suspects deliberate bias. It is a question of quality, not nationality. The ICC, and indeed the match referee, should turn their attention to the umpires and not concern themselves with petty issues (such as Atherton inspecting the pitch prior to play). Unless someone either works with the umpires who have just stood in this game, or instructs them, how will they learn from their mistakes?

In this game the umpires lost the respect of the spectators and many of the players. If the Sri Lankan players, who deservedly won this match by an innings, are worth only 75% of their match fee, how much are the umpires worth?

© CricInfo Ltd.