Human error and technology, the hype went, could not co-exist in cricket. Using technology in umpiring decisions was supposed to minimise umpiring error; the men in white might still get lbw decisions wrong, but the use of television replays would make sure that line decisions, like run-outs and stumpings, would be devoid of error. Such optimism. There have already been two shocking decisions in the current series between India and West Indies which are outrageous examples of human error made despite the aid of technology. In Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, third umpire Eddie Nicholls was called upon to adjudicate whether a catch taken by Ajay Ratra was fair or not. Play was held up for over five minutes as numerous replays attested to the same uncontestable fact: the batsman had nicked it, the ball hadn't touched the ground after kissing the bat and Ratra had taken the catch cleanly. Nicholls ruled the batsman not out.

Another shocking error was made on the second day of the third Test at Bridgetown, Barbados. Third umpire Billy Doctrove was called upon to adjudicate on a run-out decision which clearly indicated that Carl Hooper had not made his ground. After endless replays, Doctrove adjudged that he had.

Where there are humans, there will be human error. But the decisions made by Nicholls and Doctrove were not excusable mistakes. They had technology to aid them, were shown an unambiguous version of events by TV replays, and yet chose to go the other way. If it was incompetence, it was of a staggering magnitude, which makes one wonder how such people get to be match officials in the first place. More likely though, it was bias.

Bishan Bedi recalls how, as captain of India in West Indies in 1975-76, he had complained to umpire Douglas Sang Hue about a particular virulent spell of intimidatory bowling. Sang Hue's reply: "You will leave this country in three days. We live here. We don't want to die." His predicament was understandable; presumably, Nicholls and Doctrove have the same problem. The ICC needs to act upon it.

The logic for having neutral field umpires is to eliminate the possibility of imputations of bias being accorded to umpiring errors. It has become evident in this series that the third umpire, despite having technology to aid him, is not immune to errors, or to bias. It is in the interest of the game that the practice of having neutral third umpires is introduced soon into the game, especially with the change in rules that will soon come into effect which will allow the field umpire to refer any decision to the third umpire. Thus increasing the scope for technology-aided human error.

Amit Varma is assistant editor of Wisden.com India.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd