As we saw during the recent test in Jamaica the umpires were badly compromised by having to change their decisions in a very visual fashion that left them embarrassed. No-one likes to be proven wrong, particularly when the rest of the interested parties (the world viewers) can clearly identify an error via immediate television replays.

Prior to the $20-million clash in Antigua last November, I consulted at length with several prominent stakeholders about that particular aspect and we developed a system that we thought was the best way to ensure correctness given the magnitude of the winnings on offer.

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 mind boggling format. It was simply based on common sense.

We 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 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 game 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.

This worked superbly during the $20-million game but obviously could unnecessarily delay proceedings during a longer version.

An interesting thing happened though. Because the television production team was also involved in prior discussions, the required replays were instantaneous, the conclusions prompt, and the downtime minimal. This in turn created an acceptable delay that heightened suspense, adding to the spectacle.

I do understand that further delays are possible during a test and that could frustrate but the bottom line is that the correct calls will be made.

Is that not what we all deserve?

Recent ColumnsMike Haysman