August 19, 1997
NEWS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF
|
|
Questions of cricket
Amrit Mathur
While the Indian team suffers in the searing heat of Sri Lanka -
signed by the sun, scorched by the fire of Jayasuriya - Indian
first class umpires congregated in Bangalore to debate cricket
laws. With temperatures around 20, the odd person waring a thin
sweater, the atmosphere was pleasant but occasionally the deliberations
generated sufficient heat. The umpires in their annual seminar
met, discussed, debated, deliberated and exchanged views in what
is called a free and frank exchange.
They also raised doubts about rules and their interpretation,
in the process asking questions so tricky even the expert panel
- chaired by the respected Venkat -- was occasionally befuddled.
Actually, why blame the August panel, even the combined efforts
of Grace/Bradman/Gavaskar, if possible, would have found it exceedingly
difficult to satisfactorily answer all points raise. Debates on delicate
issues were lively, there was no shortage of argument or opinion.
Often, the proceedings ranged from the genuine to the bizarre,
the complexities raised capable of unhinging the finest brain.
For instance: what should one do when the bat leaves the striker's
hands but makes contact with the ball which is then caught by a fielder?
Or, what is the correct verdict when the keeper drops his gloves to field
a ball, but his throw makes contact with the discarded glove, first, before breaking
the wicket with the batsman out of the crease?
Answers: out in
the first case; not out, and a 5 run penalty, in the second.
The umpires discussed much more than just cricket laws -
they spent considerable time on other matters that stir them
profoundly. Like the constantly deteriorating relations with players,
who once were viewed as partners in a great sporting show, but are now
increasingly positioned as adversaries.
Old timers recalled the halcyon
days when umpires were respected, addressed as 'sir', looked upon
as venerable elders. Appealing then was polite and courteous,
and when LBW's were turned down the players apologized, close
decisions were gracefully accepted, dissent on the field was absent.
Those days alas are long gone, and there is no point in harking back
to a golden age which existed a million seasons ago. Nowadays,
players pressurize umpires, use every trick possible to extract
a favourable verdict, break into a war dance when appealing, and abuse umpires when their
pleas are rejected.
The umpires only theoretically control of the game - in practise, he is actually controlled by top players, who in the process often
get away with murder. Every umpire takes a long, hard look before
deciding on an LBW shout against a big player -- unfortunate, but
this is a fact of life. The same appeal, against a tailender,
would result in the finger being raised without much hesitation.
Nowadays, to add to the already substantial miseries of umpires,
pressure comes not just from players but also from TV. With intensive coverage from a dozen cameras positioned at every conceivable - and some inconceivable - angle, all action is picked up, even
the seam on the ball is distinctly visible, as is the manufacturer's
logo. In such situations the pressure on umpires is incredible,
every decision is discussed and debated, mistakes identified and
magnified. No umpire escapes this non-stop examination, and as a result
even good umpires look bad, while ordinary ones look decidedly foolish.
This is clearly unfair, but TV producers also have a job to do.
They too are under pressure to improve coverage so that viewers'
interest is retained. The doddering grandmother, the busy housewife,
the crusty cricket addict should all be entertained, so they remain
tuned in. If you can't hold them, then the danger is of them switching channels to a filmi song and dance programme - which means cricket's ratings slump, and the sponsors zip up their moneybags.
That is why you have zany camera angles, spin vision, stump cam, technical gimmicry and chatty commentary,
with experts encouraged to express snappy opinions on umpiring
decisions.
Mistakes by umpires will never cease, neither are contemporary
umpires in any way inferior to their predecessors - the only thing is
that they are less respected because their work is constantly shredded
by superior technology. Out in the middle, the umpire decides in a split
second, without any assistance of cameras - the action is a blur,
there is practically no time to think or reflect. Later, these
decisions are judged is slow motion with the assistance of sophisticated
technical tools. Oddly, the same technology helps umpires in one
dayers, where all major decisions are made by the camera and he
has a relatively comfortable time.
Says one umpire: "Cricket will never be foolproof, this intrusion
by cameras is bad because it lowers the respect of the men in the
middle. That is why. after slo-mo replays of close decisions, there
should be at least one replay at normal speed. Only then will
people realise the conditions in which we decide."
There were suggestions that a dialogue should start with networks
for fairer coverage, to limit replays and to restrict biased comment.
More so because the camera hardly provides the final word - for LBW appeals, for instance, it is unreliable because it can't judge height or the
exact angle of ball movement. The camera has a fixed line of vision;
the umpire, on top of the stumps, has the best view.
The players also have a reason why they behave the way they do. They
too are under enormous pressure to perform, careers and large
amounts of money are at stake. No wonder, given half a chance, they'd
prefer to shift the blame on to the umpire. Nobody is ever satisfied
with a leg before; bat/pad catches at short leg and silly point
are invariably disputed.
When past players are officiating, some of these problems get sorted
out because their mistakes are accepted more sportingly. The past
player is anyway better placed to separate drama from reality -
when close fielders erupt in appeal, he has an instinctive feel
for the game and, more importantly, the gamesmanship associated with the game.
In a way, the entire question boils down to better
umpiring. Contemporary sport, with its compulsions and intense
competition, has little margin for error - there will only be intolerance
for mistakes. The umpires thus have to do a better job, concentrate
harder, become tougher and reduce errors.
But that is far from
easy, cricket has no job more thankless than umpiring - like
wicket-keeping to an extent, you get noticed only when you make a mistake. But all your good work is unnoticed.
Meanwhile, in a related development, the Indian cricket empire has
struck back at the umpires. Yashpal Sharma and Maninder Singh, both TV
commentators, have been given an ultimatum to choose between
umpiring and working for the network. The argument is that they were
passing judgement on their colleagues while commenting on games,
which is 'not in the right spirit'. And so the BCCI, so mindful of
projecting the correct image in these turbulent times, has decided
to step in and to get the concerned people to come down on one side of the fence or the other.
|
Mail to Sports Editor
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL |
LIFE/STYLE |
FREEDOM |
FEEDBACK
|