Umpires decision review needs urgent review decision....

I have seen some very satisfying yest cricket over the past week or so with intensity and desire being the most pleasing aspects. In the southern hemisphere, four teams played hard, tough uncompromising cricket that was neatly punctuated with individual brilliance. Both matches were a great advertisement for the longest version but sadly one aspect has got me enormously frustrated and my previous first hand experience places me in pole position.

The Umpires Decision Review system is just simply inadequate in its current form and needs to be immediately addressed before more harm is done. It is a complicated, confusing mess and it is producing too many variables that are still exposing too many people. For example, a standing umpire can be made to look foolish not once but twice in a matter of mere minutes, wicket-taking no-balls are missed and coaching staff can call the shots from a distance. That is far from ideal and all of the above happened during the last seven days.

My foremost concern is that the players are far too involved in this process. Get them away from it totally. Sooner or later, and I fear sooner rather than later after some volatile performances recently, a player will go too far with his impulsive reactions. Raw emotions are dangerous in sport.

The players have no business dictating to the umpires on decisions.

I want to draw your attention to a paragraph or two that I wrote for this very website way back in early February on this issue. I could see this method of choice from the ICC was going down the wrong path then and my close involvement and scrutiny in establishing another very successful implementation of an Umpires Consultation Process put me in an ideal position to pass comment.

I wrote that column following months of working very extensively with the world’s best umpire, Simon Taufel, to ensure the ideal structure was implemented for the $20-million clash in Antigua during November 2008. By the way, I quickly learnt why Simon is considered the best around. His dedication and attention to detail is absolutely extraordinary and he is a credit to his profession. The following is a snapshot of the principles both Simon and I agreed upon, designed and executed to ensure simplicity and precision.

On Feb 9th 2009 I wrote….

We initially decided on some basic guidelines that would enable the game to progress without anybody being compromised. First and foremost we introduced a structure that took any form of decision making out of the players’ hands. It left the decision making process to the umpires, as it should be, and the players just got on with playing the game. The umpires are the controllers of cricket on the field and that should never be negotiated. The sole aim of the introduced process was to ensure that obvious incorrect decisions were eliminated and the integrity of the game was maintained.

It was not some brand new mindboggling format. It was simply based on common sense.

Simon and I implemented that should the umpire in the middle be uncertain about a decision he could consult on any aspect of the appeal without making an initial decision himself. He would then immediately contact the replay assisted 3rd umpire and he, in turn, would answer any concise questions presented by the standing official in order to reach finality. The TV umpire would then communicate directly with the television producer and request various relevant replays with technology if needed and once he had made his decision he would then relay his thoughts and advice. His judgment would always be based on conclusive evidence. Upon concluding that discussion the official decision would be made by the standing umpire who initially instigated the consultation.

Additionally we also introduced a ‘safety net’. We decided that should the situation arise at any stage that the 3rd umpire felt an obvious mistake was made on the field regarding a decision he could also intervene via communication equipment and then commence a consultation process.

The simple conclusion during the event was that no umpire was compromised and no obvious mistakes were made. It is important to note that the standing officials insisted that between themselves they would make decisions where possible and not incessantly consult upstairs and take a soft option.

Is this not common sense? Does this not immediately allow all to understand the system? Does this not give the stakeholders of the game their correct responsibilities? Will it not ensure obvious mistakes are eliminated?

Importantly, is it not the simplest way to progress?