THE THIRD UMPIRE

It should be so simple. We have the technology. We have the cameras. And yet still umpiring controversies persist, even with the extension in responsibilities of the present Third Umpire.
By Simon Lewis

While I yearn for the days of cricket whites and no advertising billboards, I am realistic enough to realise that, failing the intervention of an anti-Kerry Packer billionaire, those days are gone. We have the pictures and TV footage to remind us of those simple days, but we are left with the reality of highly-intrusive television coverage and blockbuster TV replays which show everyone what the correct decision should be. This will not change. And in the highly-professional cricketing world incorrect decisions can no longer be a part of the equation. We simply must get it right. The effect on players’ livelihoods and the outcome of major events deserve correct and fair decisions; it’s not asking too much, given the available technology. And for the umpires it will provide relief from unnecessarily being at the centre of controversy as well as allowing them a greater hand in ensuring that correct decisions are made.
Can you imagine spending five to 10 years earning a Test call-up and then being dismissed twice for low scores when TV replays show the debutant should not have been given out on either occasion? Selectors, although acknowledging that incorrect decisions occur, are less likely to accord a player the relevant future opportunities on that basis, remaining loyal instead to runs in the book. We have side views, stump views and super slow-mos. They are perfect for many decisions, and yet caught-behind and leg-before wicket remain an untapped area of opportunity for the Third Umpire, which the current camera coverage can’t provide sufficiently revealing replay footage to adjudicate on accurately.
There is only one solution. And the only way is up.
By having a camera suspended over the pitch, erected temporarily for big matches which are receiving major television coverage, we will be provided with a whole new range of views and angles which the Third Umpires will be able to access to provide a better quality of decision on a highly consistent level. This camera could be attached by four wire cords to the grandstands, floodlight pylons or underneath a miniature hot air balloon. In addition, the side view should be used by the Third Umpire to verify that the ball’s path does not indicate that the ball might pass over the top of the stumps. Alternatively, the square leg umpire could confirm this to his fellow umpire for leg-before appeals, a backup system which could easily be extended to cricket at all levels.
Critics might point out that additional angles will further add to the delays of waiting for a decision, but if there were two or even three Third Umpires constantly reviewing video footage they would be able to take advantage of these extra angles. No-balls and wides could also be accurately picked up, especially with the use of an onscreen grid or lines on the umpire’s replay monitors to effectively ‘draw the line’ for no-balls, wides and run outs, thus ensuring greater accuracy, especially with the chance to review the action two to three times before the bowler bowls the next ball. These umpires should work autonomously to the onfield umpires - in other words, there should be no referrals. This will allow the onfield umpires to adjudicate to the fullest, trusting their own judgement to make correct calls as they see it, without worrying about the possibility of making a mistake. Any ‘mistakes’ by the onfield umpire which can be picked up by the Third Umpires will be radioed in to the relevant onfield umpire so that he can change his decision. The Third Umpire will need to do so before the next ball is bowled, thus preventing time wastage. If they can’t prove that the onfield umpire was incorrect in the allotted time then the onfield umpire’s decision will stand and the play will continue.
Obviously, when a wicket falls or an appeal is made the Third Umpire should be able to request a specified delay to check more carefully before adjudicating on this more crucial decision. This delay would need to be time-regulated beforehand and the time limit adhered to. When a batsman is given out by the onfield umpire the Third Umpire would have until the batsman leaves the field to make his decision. Once the batsman has left the field of play the decision can not be reversed. The Third Umpire could request extra time to review replays, thus keeping the dismissed batsman on the field of play for an extra 20-30 seconds, although this would be on rare occasions as the Third Umpire’s task would be to quickly review TV replays, using the extra overhead cameras and existing angles, and if they can pick up a glaring error, as would TV viewers, then they will overrule the decision.
This should not be seen as an attempt to gain 100% accurate decisions (which is not possible with some decisions), but rather to eliminate any glaring errors which would be picked up by the TV cameras, as well as providing a better judgement on LBW through the use of the overhead camera, or Aerial Umpire. This will guard against human error, which is understandable when an umpire has to adjudicate on a split-second of frantic action, as well as ensuring fairness and consistency for players and spectators who have access to TV replays. Any inconsistencies which they can pick up on TV replay can not be allowed to be passed by the umpires. And if replays don’t provide conclusive proof then we will rely on the onfield umpire’s original decision, which thus reaffirms his role as an adjudicator and not just a middle-man between the players and an umpire in a TV booth. Cricket can only be the better for such a system.
Having two to three Third Umpires would also ensure that no human errors are allowed by one man’s misjudgement. The Third Umpire is still making some shocking errors, even after repeatedly viewing clear footage. Although he has a far easier task than the onfield umpires, the Third Umpire is still under enormous pressure not to make an incorrect decision, especially as TV viewers have the chance to watch the replays with him, thus forming their own decisions at the same time as he is making a binding decision. For major decisions all two or three Third Umpires would need to quickly view all the relevant replay footage and then agree on a decision. If they can’t agree without doubt that the onfield umpire erred then there is clearly further doubt, and the onfield umpire’s decision would stand. This further allows the onfield umpires to retain their decision-making power, with the knowledge that the Third Umpires have a better view than him as well as the chance to review the action to eradicate any possible errors.
Everyone benefits, and cricket is the winner.
To further speed up the process, the Third Umpire’s replays need to be separate to those seen by TV viewers, the latter showing more of the action for entertainment value. Third Umpires, who are under heavy time constraints, need their replay feeds to be focussed in to the critical moments of action, and be replayed back and forth quickly. The most telling piece of footage can then be highlighted for viewers once the decision has been made. The umpires would also be viewing as a matter of course the no-ball line, and informing the umpire after every delivery if a no-ball was bowled but not called. Many batsmen are given out off no-balls, as these are not always easy for the onfield umpire to call correctly due to the bowler’s position on the crease and the angle from which the umpire is watching the crease. The Third Umpires will watch every delivery for a no-ball, but when a wicket falls they will specifically double-check to ensure that the ball was legitimate. This is essential for fair play and correct decisions. And if a no-ball is called by the onfield umpire but it is found, on review, to have been a fair delivery, then the no-ball will be overruled from a point of extras and there will be no extra delivery awarded. If the batsman goes out on a no-ball which was called early by the umpire (ie called before the batsman played his shot) then the batsman will be given not out as he could have been disturbed by the call or have changed his shot on the basis of the call. The alternative is that the onfield umpire doesn’t call out loud a no-ball, in which case he can signal a no-ball and be overruled by the Third Umpires without it having influenced the batsman or fielders. The same would apply to wides called by the onfield umpire.
A further innovation could be to rotate the Third Umpires with the onfield umpires. The Third Umpire will be severely tested with constant replays and would welcome a ‘break’ out in the middle. It would also prevent the onfield umpire feeling ‘powerless’ due to the Third Umpire’s ability to overrule them, as the onfield umpire would periodically also have the power to do the overruling when he moves to the Third Umpire’s seat. Further, as mentioned, their original decisions would remain in the event of the Third Umpires not being unanimously agreed on overruling a decision. If anything, the onfield umpire’s powers and credibility would be strengthened under such a system.
Critics might argue that there will be a lack of consistency when compared to non-televised or less comprehensively televised games. My response is that the issue of controversy crops up most when matches are so highly-televised, thus allowing players and spectators to pick up on umpiring errors. It’s a case of horses for courses.
The overhead view, or Aerial Umpire, will be an incredible assistance in run out decisions as it will provide a far superior view of the bat crossing the line and the stumps being broken. Viewed from above the keeper would almost never obscure the camera, as is sometimes the case with the side view, and the view of the moment at which the bails are lifted would be totally clear.
The Aerial Umpire would also improve caught-behind decisions, as the Third Umpires would more clearly be able to see the exact point of deviation (especially in cases where the ball brushes the batsman’s shoulder, which, from the front, looks like an edge off the bat) as well as for very fine edges. From above you will clearly see if there is any deviation as well as the exact point it occurred in the ball’s flight path, which will be seen more exactly from overhead. From the front or from rear views the batsman’s bat obscures your vision of any deviation as it passes along the ball’s path.
The Aerial Umpire would revolutionise LBW decisions, as well as casting a whole new level of understanding of LBW and the ball’s flight path, which could greatly educate and inform umpires at all levels, empowering them to adapt this new knowledge to their own umpiring at first-class, club and school level. Using a grid or line system indicating clearly the line of stump to stump (thus eradicating any undesirable guesswork from the Third Umpire as to the line that the ball pitched, as well as the exact line at which it struck the pads), we will be able to see clearly the line of the ball and be in a better position to judge how it was likely to continue on its flight path after it struck the pads. The aerial view will give an idea of the amount of swing and, based on the flight path from the bowler’s hand to the pad (a longer distance than from pad to stumps) we will be able to accurately predict if the ball would have held its line to hit the stumps. We might even find that balls pitching on off and striking the batsman in line of leg stump might be worthy of an LBW dismissal. We do not know until we start viewing decisions from above. Until then LBW will always remain a mystery and accurate decisions will never be possible. It would clearly eliminate a large area of doubt, speculation and guesswork which has arisen from decades of a one-dimensional view, that of judging LBW purely from a frontal perspective.
The aerial camera might detract from the atmosphere of a cricket field, and I’d personally hate the idea as a cricket traditionalist. However, I’m sure that it could be done in a subtle and unobtrusive manner, using a small camera like that used in the stump cam. And the resultant benefits to televised matches would be enormous. It remains the only frontier yet to be explored in cricket, and it could be one of the most dramatic, not to mention facilitating a massive paradigm shift in understanding LBW.
Ideas of using computer chips in a cricket ball are, in my own opinion, undesirable as it would be a dramatic leap forward, too far ahead of its time, I feel. It would tear from the game the human element of a person using his judgement to make decisions, albeit with the aid of TV replays that afford a superior view and point of reference than is currently the case. A computer chip system might, in fact, be able to provide the correct decisions for most bowlers’ appeals, but at the same time it would dramatically reduce the human element of umpiring, which would alter the face of cricket irrevocably. Is it so necessary to achieve perfection in umpiring decisions, or should we rather be seeking to reduce the amount of clearly incorrect decisions as can be seen on TV replay?
Certainly we should use the TV replay to allow humans to give better decisions, as well as providing them with better angles and views from which to make their decisions. But we need to keep the umpires ‘human’, for our sanity and for theirs.

© SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine 
simon@theball.co.za • www.theball.co.za