You just have to think about the confrontations that have happened between players out on the park in the recent past. It has been in the heat of battle and perhaps I should not use the same brush to paint the scene, as an incident here and an incident there does not mean confrontations and such like events always occur. By and large the game goes along relatively smoothly.

Let us talk about walking when the batsman has edged the ball, as it may be described as the gentlemanly and honest thing to do. There are international players that built up a reputation of walking when they had edged the ball. Adam Gilchrist comes to mind and because I am in the Caribbean, Brian Lara is another who walked. What about those who did not? Would the knowledge that decisions would be checked, by the TV umpire and corrected if necessary, encourage them to walk?

The integrity of cricketers has been a much discussed subject in the commentary box, over the last two test matches particularly, but generally in cricket broadcasting circles. Is there no responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of the players when it comes to the issue of decisions going the wrong way…being given ‘in’ when you are ‘out’ and you know that you are. Should one stand or walk? Some players walk and others do not. Does that mean that some are bad and others are good, is it cheating to stand?

Of course this subject cannot be discussed without talking about how the umpires feel about it all and what part they play. There are some people who say that they are traditionalists and would like the umpire to continue to have a role to play in the game so would take the rough with the smooth as things even out over time. Others feel that human error has too much influence on test matches.

There are some viewing aids that an umpire that I spoke to agrees with. For instance, he has no trouble with the line calls being referred because in most cases one can say for certain whether the bat is over the line or not when the wicket is broken.

He got very animated and particularly irritated when discussing the predicting of what the ball would have done in the case of an LBW decision. The age of the ball and the pitch, the wind as well as the swing of the ball varies as you go through a game and the umpire concerned felt that the technology seemingly did not take that into account.

I am sure that these things can be improved upon but his argument was that there is a misleading of the spectators and viewers at the moment when the pictures say that the umpire got it wrong. I understand where he is coming from….he feels the umpires are being hung out to dry by technology at the moment.

Tough as the job of umpiring is, it is important and fair enough to point out when errors have been made. Umpires are only human and will make mistakes. For the international game, the best are selected and the more they get right, the more likely they are to get onto or to continue on the elite panel. With the best umpires that one could get, there would still be some errors made….that’s just how it is.

The referral system has been discussed and has even got to the point where the powers that be have tried to have it trialled in a country versus country contest. South Africa on tour in England was earmarked as the trial tour but that decision was changed and that will no longer happen.

There are a few issues with the system and the issues will continue to be debated. How many referrals can you have? There was talk of three per side per innings. So, while you bat or field, you can ask for three decisions to go to the TV umpire. If those that you refer are in your favour, you lose none; you continue to have three at your disposal. If the decision goes against you then you lose one and have two remaining.

The question to ask would then be; what happens when your three have run out and a decision goes against you that blatantly should not have? I guess that is still to be sorted. We have to start somewhere though and get the ball rolling. The game will surely just evolve as a matter of course over time and if the changes make it better then they should not be resisted just for the sake of it.

The way I look at the issue of technology is to say; how can it help to enhance the game? The answer is simply to say that if it can help to reduce the number of incorrect decisions that are given then it should be adopted. As far as challenging the umpire and showing up those players who do not walk when they are blatantly out, I reckon that should not get in the way of making sure that games are decided by superior skills rather than by human error.

What do you think?


Recent ColumnsPommie Mbangwa