0
Sunlight in Sydney?
Posted by the lazy knight
on
11:14 AM
When the dust finally settles and a scorching Aussie summer (both literally and metaphorically) ends, the test match in Sydney might be remembered along with the acrimony it generated, also for the push it provided towards cricketing reform. For far too long, the administrators of this game have been spending their energies on matters that lie on the periphery of the cricket field. The BCCI might well have woken up to the ‘Bucknor Disaster in the making’ had they read through the list of umpires for the current series rather than spending all their energies in trying to sell the Indian Premier League. The ICC, of course, has now made a habit of waking up out of its rip van winklesque sleep only when the fire alarms start ringing in the kitchen. The elite panel is over-aged, over worked and in instances like Bucknor, clearly incompetent. But you wonder whether the ICC would much rather spend time debating the value of the media rights and the sponsorships clauses in the player’s contracts rather than concern themselves with the small matter of umpiring?
Perhaps then, the Sydney test will end up doing us all a big favor and remind the mandarins who run this game that ultimately cricket is played on a green oval ground with a twenty yard pitch in the centre and two competing teams of eleven each with two men in white shirts presiding over the proceedings. At the end of the day the only thing driving the billions of dollars of television revenues and media rights is what goes on there in the field between the two sides actually playing the game. And as long as matters that contribute more to the financial health of the balance sheets of the respective boards continue to enjoy more relevance than those related to the quality of game in the middle, fiascos such as Sydney and The Oval shall continue to occur.
As I write this, already the raging fire is sought to be controlled. The ICC, clearly wary after the Darrel Hair episode, where it stepped in too late and only compounded the mess, has shown a degree of flexibility which is refreshing. The standard typical response of ‘We do not interfere with who umpires whom’ has been replaced within a day (more so after a display of intent by the BCCI) with the removal of Steve Bucknor and the granting of permission for Harbhajan Singh to be picked till the time his appeal is disposed.
More importantly, the entire fiasco at the SCG has raised three important issues each of which now deserves a serious discussion in cricketing forums. The first is quite obvious – What can be done to improve the standard of umpiring and to what extent are we willing to go with the use of technology? The second is the issue of racism. Who judges what is racist or not and how do match referees sitting in the air conditioned comforts of the pavilions pronounce judgments on such problems. And the third being the matter of the spirit in which the game is now being played and whether players on the field can any longer trust each other?
So let’s address them one by one. The umpiring issue is perhaps the one that requires immediate redressal and also perhaps the one that will seriously test the flexibility and imagination of the cricket administrators. Can test matches between nine playing nations requiring round the year supervision be looked after by an elite panel of nine to eleven men? More so, when they often have to fly across continents, stand in varying conditions throughout the five days and face continuous scrutiny from television cameras? A few relevant suggestions have been floating around, the first of course being to expand the elite panel itself so that more rotation of duties takes place and umpires are not overworked. Another suggestion worth exploring was the one offered by Ian Chappell. As Chappell says, the concept of neutrality of the umpire is now an obsolete one, more so in the age of television where your biases can be cruelly exposed leading to Bucknor and Hair like consequences. So if neutrality is no longer the driving force behind umpire selections, then surely nothing should stop a good umpire from standing in a home test. A case in point is Simon Taufel of Australia, widely regarded as the best on the elite panel now. If Taufel is indeed the best (and I am sure no Indian player would have doubts as to his neutrality) and if he can umpire in one day internationals in Australia then why not in test games? Shouldn’t the best umpire on the elite panel be standing in the most high profile series of the year? The advantage of doing away with a redundant neutrality would be two fold – one, it will ensure merit remains the only criteria for appointment irrespective of nationality and secondly because it will allow an umpire to spend more time in his home country with his family, more umpires at the first class game may get encouraged to attempt to graduate to the tougher elite panel.
How far can technology be used is perhaps the most contentious point of all. Some advocate a radical usage, while some (like Ian Chappell again) prefer not to use any technology which is not a hundred percent foolproof and which also requires human intervention. The counter argument of course is that the umpires on the field are also not foolproof, and if they can be allowed their share of the errors then so should be technology. But in a game that thrives so much on the vagaries of skills, conditions and state of the playing surface, mechanizing the decision making in cricket completely would rob it of some of its charm and unpredictability. A three fold approach in contrast may be a more reasonable alternative. First, cricket administrators need to agree on what technological tools to use and which ones not. Something like a hot spot, which the broadcasters claim is cent per cent scientific and can be referred for leg befores and snicks must be used. Secondly, since television only caters to the viewing public and the newer tools are developed to enhance viewing experience rather than ease umpire decision making, it is imperative for the ICC to sit with the major broadcasters and consider what specific technological tools they need and how things like Hawkeye and the Snicko can be made more reliable for further use in umpiring space. The broadcaster by themselves have no incentive for such a move since they are not answerable for the verdict that hawkeye shows, but the ICC does have an reason simply because the umpire ruling the batsman out would have some questions to answer if the hawkeye goes against him. And finally, it would not be a bad idea to introduce tennis like appeals for questioning decisions that a team might feel are incorrect. Three decisions per innings (besides those that will anyway to go the third umpire) might be a way to start. The questions to be addressed then would be who decides to make an appeal (the batsman in the middle or the captain sitting in the dressing room?) and can a decision made by a third umpire (ala the Symonds stumping not given at the SCG) also be contested and if so, then who would adjudicate the same?
I wonder if people would have contrary views on racism. No matter how much sociologists here may dub us Indians as color conscious hypocrites, almost every cricket fan would agree that any racial abuse irrespective of the nationality and the tone of the skin of the abuser needs to be strongly punished. Cricket fields should not become like American streets of 1960s with words like ‘nigger’, ‘black’ and ‘bastards’ flying around. But the problem in the current case is perhaps, not the intent of the match referee to punish racism but the manner of doing so. And the sense of hurt in the Indian camp has been compounded by a feeling of having been cheated of a series saving draw by the connivance of incompetent umpiring and dishonest appealing by the opposition. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the words of one side have been taken against those of another. Whether something was actually said or not (and both the Aussies and the Indians are certainly capable of losing it in the heat of the moment), there is nothing to corroborate it. It’s a verdict that I suspect will have quite a bit of difficulty standing up in a court of law.
Another consequence of the final day’s play at Sydney would surely be the burying of the idea of trusting a fielder’s word for a contentious catch. Australia are not the first team to display selective honesty and I would perhaps go to the extent of stating that very often in case of diving catch the player may not actually realize that he has rubbed the ball against the floor in the process of balancing himself . But then that is precisely what umpires are out there on the field for. If a batsman stands (and he has every right to), then the decision must be made by the men in the middle or the one sitting in front of the television. Selective honesty, as displayed by Michael Clarke, will ruin the credibility of the players. Equally unacceptable is the logic offered by Ricky Ponting, that with the bat in his hand he is entitled to stand his ground even if the nick goes to third slip but while fielding his word must me taken as final. It is a thought that the ‘straight and honest as a coal miner’ Australian captain might find difficult to accept but in the competitive sphere of international cricket perhaps honesty has taken a backseat and adjudication should solely be left to the umpires and not to the players.
So did the Aussies behave badly and does Ponting, as Peter Roebuck wrote, deserve to be sacked for leading a bunch of wild dogs? Roebuck might have been a bit harsh but I wonder whether any Australian team in the future or any cricket watcher for that matter can call the Indians as an excessive appealing side. The last test was so much about going after that record that the Aussies went for everything. One admires competitive cricket and perhaps one secretly also desires the Indian team to be as feisty and no holds barred as there opponents. But somewhere Ponting has lost that grace that Steve Waugh built around his team. Waugh made Australia, from a good side that he inherited from Mark Taylor, into a champion side that seemed unbeatable. And no one grudged him his success; his side played tough but never was called a bunch of wild dogs. In the worst player behavior episode of his captaincy (Mcgrath abusing Ramnaresh Sarwan in the West Indies), Waugh did not shy away from criticizing his team mate. In his autobiography he called Mcgrath’s behavior as a case of ‘brain burst’. Ponting might have the support of his team but he would do well to analyze why most cricket writers and the fans in the public are not with him on this one. I guess it is partly because the Aussie fans are not used to seeing their team run to the match referee every time something is said to them and partly because the repeated coverage of the dubious catches claimed. Perhaps, there is a cost that the Aussie cricket public does not want its team to pay for victory. And in this case it seems the cost is honor – of a team, of a captain and above all of a game.
|
Perhaps then, the Sydney test will end up doing us all a big favor and remind the mandarins who run this game that ultimately cricket is played on a green oval ground with a twenty yard pitch in the centre and two competing teams of eleven each with two men in white shirts presiding over the proceedings. At the end of the day the only thing driving the billions of dollars of television revenues and media rights is what goes on there in the field between the two sides actually playing the game. And as long as matters that contribute more to the financial health of the balance sheets of the respective boards continue to enjoy more relevance than those related to the quality of game in the middle, fiascos such as Sydney and The Oval shall continue to occur.
As I write this, already the raging fire is sought to be controlled. The ICC, clearly wary after the Darrel Hair episode, where it stepped in too late and only compounded the mess, has shown a degree of flexibility which is refreshing. The standard typical response of ‘We do not interfere with who umpires whom’ has been replaced within a day (more so after a display of intent by the BCCI) with the removal of Steve Bucknor and the granting of permission for Harbhajan Singh to be picked till the time his appeal is disposed.
More importantly, the entire fiasco at the SCG has raised three important issues each of which now deserves a serious discussion in cricketing forums. The first is quite obvious – What can be done to improve the standard of umpiring and to what extent are we willing to go with the use of technology? The second is the issue of racism. Who judges what is racist or not and how do match referees sitting in the air conditioned comforts of the pavilions pronounce judgments on such problems. And the third being the matter of the spirit in which the game is now being played and whether players on the field can any longer trust each other?
So let’s address them one by one. The umpiring issue is perhaps the one that requires immediate redressal and also perhaps the one that will seriously test the flexibility and imagination of the cricket administrators. Can test matches between nine playing nations requiring round the year supervision be looked after by an elite panel of nine to eleven men? More so, when they often have to fly across continents, stand in varying conditions throughout the five days and face continuous scrutiny from television cameras? A few relevant suggestions have been floating around, the first of course being to expand the elite panel itself so that more rotation of duties takes place and umpires are not overworked. Another suggestion worth exploring was the one offered by Ian Chappell. As Chappell says, the concept of neutrality of the umpire is now an obsolete one, more so in the age of television where your biases can be cruelly exposed leading to Bucknor and Hair like consequences. So if neutrality is no longer the driving force behind umpire selections, then surely nothing should stop a good umpire from standing in a home test. A case in point is Simon Taufel of Australia, widely regarded as the best on the elite panel now. If Taufel is indeed the best (and I am sure no Indian player would have doubts as to his neutrality) and if he can umpire in one day internationals in Australia then why not in test games? Shouldn’t the best umpire on the elite panel be standing in the most high profile series of the year? The advantage of doing away with a redundant neutrality would be two fold – one, it will ensure merit remains the only criteria for appointment irrespective of nationality and secondly because it will allow an umpire to spend more time in his home country with his family, more umpires at the first class game may get encouraged to attempt to graduate to the tougher elite panel.
How far can technology be used is perhaps the most contentious point of all. Some advocate a radical usage, while some (like Ian Chappell again) prefer not to use any technology which is not a hundred percent foolproof and which also requires human intervention. The counter argument of course is that the umpires on the field are also not foolproof, and if they can be allowed their share of the errors then so should be technology. But in a game that thrives so much on the vagaries of skills, conditions and state of the playing surface, mechanizing the decision making in cricket completely would rob it of some of its charm and unpredictability. A three fold approach in contrast may be a more reasonable alternative. First, cricket administrators need to agree on what technological tools to use and which ones not. Something like a hot spot, which the broadcasters claim is cent per cent scientific and can be referred for leg befores and snicks must be used. Secondly, since television only caters to the viewing public and the newer tools are developed to enhance viewing experience rather than ease umpire decision making, it is imperative for the ICC to sit with the major broadcasters and consider what specific technological tools they need and how things like Hawkeye and the Snicko can be made more reliable for further use in umpiring space. The broadcaster by themselves have no incentive for such a move since they are not answerable for the verdict that hawkeye shows, but the ICC does have an reason simply because the umpire ruling the batsman out would have some questions to answer if the hawkeye goes against him. And finally, it would not be a bad idea to introduce tennis like appeals for questioning decisions that a team might feel are incorrect. Three decisions per innings (besides those that will anyway to go the third umpire) might be a way to start. The questions to be addressed then would be who decides to make an appeal (the batsman in the middle or the captain sitting in the dressing room?) and can a decision made by a third umpire (ala the Symonds stumping not given at the SCG) also be contested and if so, then who would adjudicate the same?
I wonder if people would have contrary views on racism. No matter how much sociologists here may dub us Indians as color conscious hypocrites, almost every cricket fan would agree that any racial abuse irrespective of the nationality and the tone of the skin of the abuser needs to be strongly punished. Cricket fields should not become like American streets of 1960s with words like ‘nigger’, ‘black’ and ‘bastards’ flying around. But the problem in the current case is perhaps, not the intent of the match referee to punish racism but the manner of doing so. And the sense of hurt in the Indian camp has been compounded by a feeling of having been cheated of a series saving draw by the connivance of incompetent umpiring and dishonest appealing by the opposition. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the words of one side have been taken against those of another. Whether something was actually said or not (and both the Aussies and the Indians are certainly capable of losing it in the heat of the moment), there is nothing to corroborate it. It’s a verdict that I suspect will have quite a bit of difficulty standing up in a court of law.
Another consequence of the final day’s play at Sydney would surely be the burying of the idea of trusting a fielder’s word for a contentious catch. Australia are not the first team to display selective honesty and I would perhaps go to the extent of stating that very often in case of diving catch the player may not actually realize that he has rubbed the ball against the floor in the process of balancing himself . But then that is precisely what umpires are out there on the field for. If a batsman stands (and he has every right to), then the decision must be made by the men in the middle or the one sitting in front of the television. Selective honesty, as displayed by Michael Clarke, will ruin the credibility of the players. Equally unacceptable is the logic offered by Ricky Ponting, that with the bat in his hand he is entitled to stand his ground even if the nick goes to third slip but while fielding his word must me taken as final. It is a thought that the ‘straight and honest as a coal miner’ Australian captain might find difficult to accept but in the competitive sphere of international cricket perhaps honesty has taken a backseat and adjudication should solely be left to the umpires and not to the players.
So did the Aussies behave badly and does Ponting, as Peter Roebuck wrote, deserve to be sacked for leading a bunch of wild dogs? Roebuck might have been a bit harsh but I wonder whether any Australian team in the future or any cricket watcher for that matter can call the Indians as an excessive appealing side. The last test was so much about going after that record that the Aussies went for everything. One admires competitive cricket and perhaps one secretly also desires the Indian team to be as feisty and no holds barred as there opponents. But somewhere Ponting has lost that grace that Steve Waugh built around his team. Waugh made Australia, from a good side that he inherited from Mark Taylor, into a champion side that seemed unbeatable. And no one grudged him his success; his side played tough but never was called a bunch of wild dogs. In the worst player behavior episode of his captaincy (Mcgrath abusing Ramnaresh Sarwan in the West Indies), Waugh did not shy away from criticizing his team mate. In his autobiography he called Mcgrath’s behavior as a case of ‘brain burst’. Ponting might have the support of his team but he would do well to analyze why most cricket writers and the fans in the public are not with him on this one. I guess it is partly because the Aussie fans are not used to seeing their team run to the match referee every time something is said to them and partly because the repeated coverage of the dubious catches claimed. Perhaps, there is a cost that the Aussie cricket public does not want its team to pay for victory. And in this case it seems the cost is honor – of a team, of a captain and above all of a game.
|
