#CWC19: Here’s What I Think Can Help Resolve Umpiring Blunders In The Future

Irrespective of performances and upsets, the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 will be infamous for poor and mediocre umpiring. A lot of decisions by on-field umpires were over-turned. Even the third umpire’s decision was controversial. The present law says that third umpire only over-turn the on-field umpire’s decision (soft or not) when it gets conclusive evidence against the decision.

In the India vs. West Indies match, the on-field umpire didn’t give out to Rohit Sharma on a caught behind appeal. The West Indies team reviewed. The third umpire clearly said that the evidence is inconclusive yet he asked the umpire to change the decision from not-out to out. There were around five occasions when the ball hit the stumps, yet the batsman wasn’t called out because the bails didn’t fall. In some matches previous to this World Cup, it has also seen that the lights would flash but the bails remained at their position resulting in a not out.

Then it’s always been seen that after a batsman was out, on-field umpires ask the third umpire to check the no balls. In many occasions, it was verified that the batsman was given out on a no ball. India’s semi-final against West-Indies in T20 World Cup 2016, both Pandya and Ashwini found to be bowled no-balls after Simmons was declared out by the on-field umpire, which gave two lives to Man of the Match Simmons and India lost the match.

In the Champions Trophy 2017, Fakhar Zaman of Pakistan survived early on his innings because the third umpire ruled Bumrah’s delivery as no-ball. It’s good that before sending batsman out of the field, the umpires preferred to check the no-ball. That’s a fair decision because no batsman should be out from a no-ball. But then the point is the no-ball checking is done after a batsman is out.

What if the bowler had delivered no-balls where the batsman wasn’t out? Isn’t the opponent team deprived of the run for the no-ball as well as subsequent free-hit? In the first semi-final, it was later known that Dhoni faced a no-ball and on the same delivery he became run-out but the umpire didn’t call it a no-ball. The delivery was no ball because six players were outside of the 30-yard circle against permissible five players. Had the umpire called that delivery a no-ball, then surely Dhoni wouldn’t prefer for quick runs because the next delivery would have been a free-hit? The result of the first semi-final could have been different.

Similarly, let’s talk about the ‘Mankad-out’ controversy. The ‘Mankad-out’ is valid law, so why are we calling it out to be against sportsmanship? If a batsman leaves the crease before the ball is delivered to take a single without being run-out (as it has the advantage of few distances before the ball is bowled) shouldn’t that be called un-sportive?

In case of DRS also, okay, a team wrongly takes DRS but couldn’t retain it. What will happen if a decision goes against the team wrongly? Let’s consider Jason Roy’s dismissal in the second semi-final. He was given caught behind and later the replay also showed that there was no contact between ball and bat, but Roy was still declared out because England lost the opportunity for review. In the final match, the replay clearly shows that the ball did not hit the stump, yet Ross Taylor couldn’t review it because there were no more reviews left.

Then there’s another aspect on the LBW decision. Let’s consider the target is 2 runs in one ball. The ball hit the pad or bat-pad and went to the boundary. But umpire gave LBW out. The chasing team reviewed, the third umpire found that it has a nick of bat or the ball is missing the stumps. The decision of on-field umpire is over-turned.

But still, the team will lose the runs because the moment the on-field umpire ruled an LBW, the ball becomes dead. Now the umpire’s decision might be wrong and also over-turned still the team will not get the boundary and team will lose by one run. Question is why should the chasing team suffer because of the on-field umpire’s wrong decision?

The point is simple. Technology, DRS system, and high-quality multiple cameras are used to ensure wrong decisions are not made in the gentleman’s game. But then, if still mediocre decisions are given, shouldn’t the ICC think about this? I have certain suggestions to improve the umpiring quality which are as follows:

No-Ball Decision

This need not be the decision of on-field umpires. Four cameras are dedicated to provide to both side creases to check the run-outs. The same cameras can be used to check no-balls. The only change required is to involve two assistants to the third umpire to observe whether the bowlers crossed the crease or not. If it’s a no-ball immediately the screen (or a dedicated red light for no-ball decision) will be flashed citing it’s a no-ball and the subsequent ball to be a free-hit.

When one assistant is checking a no-ball at one end, the other assistant can check whether more fielders are placed outside of the 30-yard circle beyond the permissible limit depending upon the phases of power play. This will add accuracy in calling no-balls.

Also, it can be assessed by the additional assistant to the third umpire if the batsman leaves the crease before the ball is delivered. If the batsman left the crease before time, a run short will be declared by the team of the third umpire through the screen display. That will give fairness to the game and no Mankad out is required.

For no-balls for the delivery above the waist, a batsman can appeal to the on-field umpire (if he hadn’t called the no-ball), then the third umpire must check between the deliveries and can give decision before the next delivery starts.

The Decision On Wides

The on-field umpire has the full authority in calling a ball is wide, or not. That can’t be challenged. However, inconsistent wide calling should be noted in the umpires rating file.

Bowled Out

This is the decision of on-field umpire who may take help of the third umpire in case of doubts. However, the rule should be made such that if the ball hits the wicket then the batsman should be out irrespective of the fact whether the bails fall or not. The Snicko-Meter may be used if there’s any doubt.

Run-Out/Stumps

These are already being referred to by the third umpire and thus need to be continued.

LBW Decision

This is to be called by on-field umpires and subject to the DRS (Decision Review System). However, the on-field umpire must not raise his finger immediately. He should wait till the runs are scored off the delivery. After the running is completed (or somebody is run-out), only then should the umpire raise his finger if he thinks the batsman is out due to a LBW.

Now if the DRS upholds the decision of an on-field umpire, then the batsman will be out and the runs scored on that delivery will not be counted. But if the on-field umpire’s decision is reversed then batsman will be not-out and the runs on that delivery will be counted.

Along with present equipment, the hot-spot system should also be mandatorily used and whenever more developed instruments or equipment invented/must be used (after testing extensively).  One more thing needs to be revised: the umpire’s call. Either the ball hits the stumps on doesn’t hit. Why avoid this?

Because depending upon the umpire’s call benefits only one team. Just recall Virat Kohli’s dismissal in the first semi-final, if an on-field umpire ruled that Kohli was not out and New Zealand reviewed the decision then Kohli would have survived because of the umpire’s call. The opposite happened because the umpire ruled Kohli out. This is ambiguous.

Catches

This is again the decision of the on-field umpire subject to the DRS. However, in case low catches or not-so-clean catches occur, the on-field umpire should refer to the decision to the third umpire without any soft signal. The third umpire or team of the third umpire will decide whether the catch is valid or not. The same is applicable on call for fours and sixes if there’s any doubt.

Decision Reviewing System (DRS)

I agree that the teams should be given the opportunity of the DRS once only, but then taking away the review opportunity is also not fair. To stop misuse, it can be ruled such that one DRS review can be provided to teams and the review will be retained on successful appeals. However, if one DRS review is gone then also the teams will have the DRS review chance at a cost of penalty runs. For example, Jason Roy could have taken the DRS with a condition that if his appeal is wrong then the team will be penalized for five runs. Such penalties will be enough to stop misuse of the DRS and the game will become fairer.

Some may argue that with the above safeguard there will be some delay in match duration. I don’t think it matters as most of the games are being played as day-night matches and even in day matches, lights are allowed. Then the delay can be adjusted through cutting time between innings break.

The point is simple, fairness in the game is above all this time to be adjusted or overs to be reduced.

It may attract more costs. So what? Cricket earns enough money. What if some more money is spent to ensure right decisions are taken, thus avoiding umpiring blunders?

Will the ICC take note of these suggestions?

Featured image for representative purpose only.
Featured image source: Andy Todd/Wikipedia.