KEY POINTS:
Even if unintentionally, New Zealand Cricket has demonstrated exquisite timing with its plan to experiment with greater use of television technology. The governing body is considering using the Shell Shield one-day final as a testbed in which players will be allowed to appeal against three contentious decisions in each innings to a TV umpire. The idea will agitate cricket purists who regard umpiring imperfection as part of the game's charm. But any qualms that New Zealand Cricket may have had must surely have been extinguished by events during the turbulent second test between Australia and India in Sydney.
The course of that match was heavily influenced by a series of blunders by umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson. Overwhelmingly, their errors benefited Australia. This led Indian manager Chetan Chauhan to comment: "The team is agitated. Had some 50 per cent of the decisions gone in our favour, the result would have been different." At the end of the test, the Indians took the extraordinary step of requesting the International Cricket Council not to appoint the two umpires in future matches involving India.
There is no question of either Bucknor, a West Indian, or Benson, an Englishman, being biased. Neutral umpires were intended to, and have, removed that taint from the game. Nonetheless, New Zealand followers have long known just what the Indians are going through. In Australia, crucial decisions tend to go the way of the home team. Maybe that is because of the pressure exerted by packed and patriotic crowds. Perhaps the gamesmanship of the Australian players plays a part. Whatever the cause, umpiring competence seems to wilt.
The solution is clearly to give umpires as much support as possible. In that context, using TV technology makes sense. The system proposed for here, and already given a trial in English county matches, does not represent open slather. No one wants to see the game slowed to a crawl by constant references to the TV umpire, as tends to happen in rugby every time a try is scored in the corner. The restriction to three player appeals in an innings is, therefore, a fair compromise. Players are dissuaded from making trivial appeals to the TV umpire.
It would, however, be wrong to see this as a panacea. The video technology will be a useful tool in clarifying some difficult situations, such as bat-pad catches and faint nicks. Andrew Symonds' match-winning innings in Sydney would undoubtedly have been terminated at a relatively early stage if the system had been in use there. But the technology is not reliable enough to supply a conclusive decision on many occasions. For the same reason, it cannot be used for leg-before-wicket verdicts.
Some critics will suggest umpires are put in an invidious position. How can their confidence not be affected when they know players have the power to see their decisions overruled? Already, however, every decision in a test is scrutinised and dissected. Even the most thick-skinned umpire can hardly be unaffected when he has made a series of mistakes in a game of high stakes. In such circumstances, most would surely be grateful that the TV umpire is available to save them from acute embarrassment.
Cricket's governors have, until now, been unable to agree on the player appeal system. Two years ago, the test-playing nations were split 5-5. Events in Sydney must, however, have shaken even the most pure of the purists. Technology to enhance the decision-making of umpires is available. New Zealand's cricketers can help make sure it is used.
