Wednesday, January 23, 2002 The time has come for all the officials in international cricket to be neutral, including the third umpire. There is almost a daily controversy over umpiring decisions, and the ICC must act to end these rows.

The plan to have one neutral umpire for one-dayers, from April, is a positive step, but two would be better. When the home umpire makes a mistake he will still be open to suggestions of bias regardless of who is standing at the other end. Inevitably, it is the visiting team that feels cheated and it always will be, as long as a home official gives a dubious decision in favour of the home team.

As we all know, these controversies are not new in cricket. Pakistan's umpires have been criticised regularly in the past and some people even suggest that I benefited from decisions when we played at home. My answer to that is that I scored heavily overseas as well, and whenever we toured we felt that the home team had benefited greatly from the generosity of their umpires.

This is a worldwide problem, not confined to India or Pakistan. And remember that Pakistan was the first country to recognise the need for neutral umpires and appoint them for a home series. This wasn't because we thought our umpires were inferior - we didn't want the opposition to feel cheated.

Overall, I think umpiring standards have improved since I played. Umpires are younger and more of them are former players. Technology and widespread television coverage have clearly made their life more difficult. The pressure on them is immense. But I don't agree with the view that we should go back to letting the umpires on the field of play make all the decisions.

The heat has been taken out of run-out and stumping decisions thanks to technology. We could do the same for virtually all other decisions. There are enough talking points in cricket without every verdict being debated. It makes no sense that millions of viewers know that a decision is wrong but it is allowed to stand. The game is devalued as a result.

My suggestion to ICC is that umpires on the field are allowed to consult with the third umpire about any decision that they feel unsure about. In addition, the third umpire should be able to overturn an incorrect decision taken by his colleagues. With walkie-talkies and traffic lights it would be straightforward to make it clear to everyone that the decision was being reviewed by the third umpire and might be overruled. The other option would be to allow players to appeal, as Duncan Fletcher has advocated, but I think this would cause too much disruption and unnecessary delay. The third umpire has to be proactive.

Another rule change should allow captains to openly criticise decisions. There is no use in complaints being conducted in sealed envelopes - the debate should be in the open. And just as players have the match referee watching their behaviour, umpires must have a panel that watches their performance and encourages captains to pass on their concerns. Umpires cannot improve if their mistakes are never challenged, and this is no good for the development of international cricket.

Some countries will be reluctant to deny their umpires at least a few opportunities to officiate at home. But if they want the betterment of the world game and standards to be raised, home officials will have to be sacrificed.

Javed Miandad, Pakistan's most prolific batsman and later their coach, was talking to Kamran Abbasi. His column appears every Wednesday.

More Javed Miandad
The cracks are opening
The Windies are being too windy

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd