The Ball sports magazine

How to play like Barca #1

2011-09-29T09:15:00.003+02:00

You know you want to… so stop simply being in awe of them and look closely to see what makes Barcelona the best team the world has ever seen – in any sport.
By Simon Lewis

Facing the relative minnows FC Bate Barisov in the Champions League group stages (28 Sept 2011), Barcelona were being kept at bay by the mass of yellow Bate shirts stockpiled in the midfield and in front of their penalty box. Barca were playing well but up until the quarter hour mark you wondered if they would be able to perhaps keep them at bay. Within 7 minutes Barca were 2-0 up.

Aside from the pressure they kept exerting, what made the difference in both goals was, as usual, slick and purposeful passing: move the ball quickly, don’t linger on it, get your opposition running around for it. But… a big factor was the fact that they kept switching the play from one side of the field to the other. If the opposition are massed against you and parking the bus in front of goal, you have to get up in their face… but equally you must pull them this way and that.

By spreading the ball across the field, this way then that, from left wing to right wing and back, you force the opposition to stretch themselves that little bit, thereby opening up gaps for you. Add some well-timed, darting runs as well and you can see how Barca went 2-0 up in the face of a pretty solid and determined defence.

A TALE OF FOUR FINALS 2005

2011-08-03T19:37:00.002+02:00

In 2005, as Editor of The Ball magazine, I appealled to FIFA to address the issue of TV replays being used in football. There was no immediate impact following my communication to FIFA, however, I also CCd it to a few hundred magazines, newspapers and sports organistions and federations.
By Simon Lewis

“Soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wake-up, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid referees,” I said back in 2005. “I appeal to FIFA to consider the facts of the four finals as shown here and make the best and most positive decision – bring the TV ref to life!”
At that time very few people saw any merit in using TV reviews or any other form of referee assistance in football. The split was about 85 against to 15 for referee assistance. The split seemed to have grown to about 50-50 in favour of helping the referees before the 2010 FIFA World Cup… and following the disallowed Frank Lampard goal and numerous subsequent referee errors (albeit mostly impossible for the referees to call correctly – although most were confirmed as incorrect almost instantly within a handful of seconds), the spilt is about 20 against to 80 percent FOR the use of technology now. Hopefully my mail to FIFA and the sports media played some small part in this. Today the argument is not about IF we do it… it’s about HOW we do it.
Using TV footage is the cheapest way to ensure quick and accurate decisions by humans! And, the beauty of it is you don’t need to add any additional equipment – simply use whatever TV cameras are in place – after all, the controversy arises as a result of TV footage that immediately shows a refereeing error. If there’s no TV footage then, no problem – the crowd will be none the wiser about any refereeing errors and naturally the onfield referee’s decision stands.

WHAT IMPACT WILL STOPPING FOR THE TV REFEREE HAVE? A CASE STUDY FROM ‘THE FOUR FINALS’ IN 2005
In 2005 I took extensive notes of all the referee and linesmen decisions during four high-profile soccer finals in 2005 (the FA Cup, Champions League, Scottish Cup and Championship Playoff finals). After watching the four finals I was amazed at how busy the referee and linesmen actually were and, moreover, how accurate they were with the majority of their decisions!
- In the first half of a match the referee blows his whistle every 54 seconds.
- In the second half he blows every 47 seconds.
- The number of ‘errors’ remains even between the first half and the second – a referee’s ‘error’ rate is 1 in 25 decisions.
- On average a referee blows his whistle every 50.4 seconds.
- Referees make 107 decisions per match in normal time (90 min).
- The number of ‘errors’ in 90 minutes of normal time is 4.25 (under 4% of total decisions), which equates to an ‘incorrect’ decision every 20 minutes.

Note: Most of these decisions are humanly impossible for the referee and his linesmen to always call correctly.

(Source: The Ball magazine, www.theball.co.za)

FOOTNOTE
There were a few areas where referees and linesmen erred to a greater or lesser extent, although these were usually due to the decisions being extremely difficult to judge with the naked eye. Crucially, however, those instances were decisions of far greater importance. Ironically, most of these could be confirmed or overruled within 10-15 seconds of watching TV replays, which is usually the time it takes for the players to stop arguing with the referee and linesmen about a contentious decision. Considering that referees essentially make so few wrong decisions in a match, the amount of interruptions for delays linked to the TV referee would be a matter or 2-4 minutes per match. Considering the value of getting accurate decisions, it is arguably a delay worth taking, especially when you consider how much time the players waste arguing with the referees. In the four finals, between 8-10 goalscoring opportunities could have resulted had the TV referee been used (ie largely relating to offsides or penalty decisions).

Figures, stats and workings from The Four Finals
Compiled by Simon Lewis

FIGURES AND STATS AND WORKINGSFA Cup final – Arsenal v Man United
90 min    EOT    RBP    ERR        extra time    EOT    RBP    ERR
1st half    48    4    3        1st half    13    2    0
2nd half    47    9    1        2nd half    18    0    0

PENALTIES – keeper off his line before the kick for five of the 10 kicks (most were only a slight jump off the line) – the one penalty that was saved the keeper was well off his line before the ball was kicked.

Champions League Final – AC Milan v Liverpool
90 min    EOT    RBP    ERR        extra time    EOT    RBP    ERR
1st half    23    16    1        1st half    13    2    0
2nd half    45    11    3        2nd half    17    3    1

PENALTIES - keepers off their line before the kick four times, three of which were saved.

Scottish Cup Final – Celtic v Dundee United
90 min    EOT    RBP    ERR
1st half    42    10    3
2nd half    51    7    5

Championship Playoff Final – Preston v West Ham
90 min    EOT    RBP    ERR
1st half    50    7    1
2nd half    53    5    0

OVERALL AVERAGES
90 min    EOT    RBP    ERR    extra time    EOT    RBP    ERR
1st half    163    37    8    1st half    26    4    2
2nd half    196    32    9    2nd half     35    3    1
Total        359    69    17            61    7    3

NORMAL TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS
1st half 180 minutes total            200 blows of the whistle
8 decisions missed / unseen on TV    Blows every 0.9 min (54 seconds)

2nd half 180 minutes total            228 blows of the whistle
9 decisions missed / unseen on TV    Blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)

EXTRA TIME FOR THE FOUR FINALS
1st half 30 minutes total            30 blows of the whistle
2 decisions missed / unseen on TV    Blows every 1 min (60 seconds)

2nd half 30 minutes total            38 blows of the whistle
1 decision missed / unseen on TV    Blows every 0.78 min (47 seconds)

TOTAL OVER FOUR FINALS
428 in 360 min (normal time)         blows every 0.84 min (50.4 sec)
20 ‘errors’ (1 in 21 decisions)

496 blows in 420 minutes (incl ET)     blows every 0.85 min (50.8 sec)
17 ‘errors’ (1 in 29 decisions)

SUNDRY STATISTICS
On average, the referees made 50 decisions in the first half of normal time (45 min) and 57 decisions in the second half (45 min).

The increase from the first half to the second half was 200 decisions up to 228 decisions (the total over the four finals), no doubt as the players take more risks looking for a winning goal. This equates to a referee and his linesmen making a decision every 54 seconds in the first half and down to 47 seconds in the second half, seven seconds faster in the second half.

The number of ‘errors’ remains even between the first half and the second – in both cases, the ‘error’ rate was 1 in 25 decisions.

On average, the referees made 107 decisions per match in normal time (90 min). The number of ‘errors’ in that time was 4.25 (under 4% of decisions), which equates to an ‘incorrect’ decision every 20 minutes.

STATISTICAL NOTES
• Times are based on an average time of the 45 minutes in each half – stoppage time is classed as dead time, as the ref wouldn’t be making decisions. ‘Decisions’ listed are when a referee blew his whistle.

• EOT = viewers can confirm decision from live footage (including the replays shown live). Note that the officials don’t know what will be a close or an easy decision and are fully focused for the full 45 minutes of each half – they can’t relax for a moment. Probably the time when any mistakes happen is if they do lose concentration, which is a normal human failing, or when the decision is not ‘humanly possible’ to always call correctly.

• RBP = the referee or linemen were in the best position, and live footage did not show evidence to suggest an incorrect decision was made. Additional replays might show errors within this category. RBP means no replay shown essentially. Taking time to rewind tape often provided confirmation of the decision, and accessing other footage and angles would have done so probably in almost every single decision or appeal. You could make all decisions using TV replays, although obviously the refs and linesmen are able to make 95% of decisions with 100% accuracy and probably twice as fast as the quickest tv replay would allow.

• ERR = a clear error that can be seen by TV viewers live using the TV replays shown live.

• There were less RBP decisions in the English FA Cup and the Championship playoff – English footage seems to show more replays and, possibly, has more cameras in position. In a short space of time English TV confirms the majority of referee decisions.

• The ‘error’ statistics might actually be higher than would normally be the case, as in one match one linesman made three clear offside errors (when viewed on live TV replays) in a short space of time.

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

SOUNDBITES FROM THE ARTICLE “30 SECONDS TO FAIR PLAY”

2011-08-03T19:34:00.000+02:00

• If the players are going to be tricking and ‘cheating’ the referees, their opposition and the fans, then they don’t deserve much of a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they? If the players know that they can’t get away with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalized then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes the referee’s role a lot easier. And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the right decision? Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter.

• Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views. Plain and simple. If I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays.

• In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than the handbags hit parade and would be fairer to all.

• Your boss at work wouldn’t say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit last year … unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Don’t worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.

Article extract from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005, written by Simon Lewis
© SIMON LEWIS The Ball magazine
simon@theball.co.za • www.theball.co.za

QUOTES ON THE TV REFEREE by Simon Lewis

2011-08-03T19:32:00.000+02:00

HOW TO USE THE TV REFEREE?
“To refer a decision to a TV referee is awful – it’s slow and more embarrassing to the official as he is asking for assistance without having the chance to prove his ability to get the decision right. We should empower the referee (and cricket umpire) by not allowing them to refer any decision to a TV referee (or umpire). Let them prove their decision-making ability on the field. At the lower levels of refereeing or umpiring they have to make those calls, so now when you get into the televised arena suddenly you stop calling it as you see it but ask for help from your TV buddy every time there is a close call? The onfield umpire / referee should make the decisions, with the knowledge that if they get close calls wrong, the TV umpire/referee will be able to correct them, for the benefit of the game, the fans and the players. That sounds a lot less embarrassing for the referees.”

WHAT ABOUT MATCHES WHERE THERE IS POOR TV COVERAGE
“The four finals showed me that referees CAN be trusted – they do a good job. They can be trusted! It follows, then, that if there is no TV coverage or inferior standards of broadcasting, then at least we have already discovered that officials can be trusted as far as is humanly possible. Sure, the finals would have had the top-rated referees and linesmen officiating, but their performances do offer proof of their ability to get it right under pressure and heavy scrutiny. The only problem with referees is that the phrase ‘humanly possible’ becomes a grey area with penalty decisions and offsides (as well as certain goal decisions), simply because it is only with slow motion replays that you can get 100% accuracy with these decisions, and even then sometimes you need to watch 2-3 replays, as well as sometimes another angle or two. Sure, mistakes will happen in non-televised matches, but these would have happened anyway. TV referees can only improve soccer, they can’t lower standards in any way or harm the sport. Cricket uses TV replays for certain decisions, yet there are matches with no TV coverage. The important thing is to get the high-profile obvious decisions right, even if it means over-ruling an official. The end result is that the correct decision gets made – that has to be good as the public and players’ view of referees can only be improved if there are fewer controversial errors hitting the headlines.”

MANY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE USE OF THE TV REFEREE
“I appreciate the delicacy and care required by the people in charge of soccer – any such major change needs a good deal of talk and careful consideration. But it’s reached the stage where brain surgery is no longer required – soccer, one of the leading sports, actually needs to catch a wake-up, as almost all other sports are using video replays to aid referees and umpires. I appeal to FIFA to consider the facts of the four finals as shown here and make the best and most positive decision – bring the TV ref to life!”

THE PROBLEM WITH OFFSIDES
“Incorrect line calls halt play, breaking down legitimate attacking situations. This frustrates the fans and the players, especially as in around 40% of instances the attacker would have been on a virtual or actual one-on-one face-off with the keeper. These decisions are sometimes almost impossible to judge even with TV replays, so for a linesman it is unthinkable for them to always call these correctly. Linesmen in general do phenomenally well in their adjudications, but the impact of any wrong decision is so huge that prevention should be implemented. The solution is for the linesman to raise his flag when he believes the players are offside, while play carries on (thus not affecting the players or frustrating the fans). The TV ref can overrule or confirm the offides without play having been stopped. Rather have a goal overruled by the TV referee than have incorrect offsides being called.”

IN A TIGHT CORNER
“The goal-kick or corner kick decision is potentially a big decision to get wrong – a corner kick is an opportunity for the attacking side to drop the ball right in the goalmouth and look to score a goal. It’s a great attacking opportunity, and being denied it is potentially a huge disadvantage, especially for weaker teams who rely on dead-ball situations for a goal against the run of play. Refs and linesmen can’t always get these decisions right as it is humanly impossible to spot some tiny deflections. A TV replay usually confirms this before the players can take the goal kick or corner kick.”

THE BEST POSITION“TV commentators themselves sometimes can’t agree on decisions, and perhaps they aren’t well enough versed with the rules, but the point is that the referees and linesmen are best placed to judge decisions that are often open to interpretation and which require you to be placed in the thick of the action to best ascertain impact, cause, effect and intent. However, there are some decisions made by officials that a TV replay can quickly confirm or reject with absolute certainty. As these are often of major significance in the course of the match, TV replays should be incorporated into the referee and linesmen’s decision-making armoury for the start of the next European football season.”

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

30 SECONDS TO FAIR PLAY

2011-08-03T19:23:00.001+02:00

If a spaceship from a planet far, far away landed on earth tomorrow, how would you convince them that not using TV replays is a good idea?
By Simon Lewis (from The Ball magazine, May/June 2005)

There are three main arguments against the increased use of technology in assisting match officials to arrive at the fairest decisions:
- They say it dissipates the referee’s powers;
- They say it isn’t reliable, and;
- They say it takes too long.
All three are good arguments in their own right, especially when delivered by a big name player, manager, coach or ex-player. You always need to remember, of course, that any comment or statement carries with it a degree of bias.
The players obviously want and demand fairness, but in reality the whole debate can be unravelled to reveal one shining pearl of truth: The fans, who pay and pray in support of their teams, deserve the right decisions!
Remember the guy who scored that long-range goal against Man United, the one where keeper Roy Carroll literally shouldered the ball and almost the blame, before diving backwards to scoop it back from across the line. TV replays would have ruled a goal in two seconds, and that poor unknown player (in terms of the masses) would have become a household name. Instead, today no-one except the diehards remember his name or his team?
He is Spurs’ Pedro Mendes. Salute, Pedro!
The same applies to free kicks and penalties when the ball is hoofed upfield and the referee can’t see if a player dives, is tripped accidentally or on purpose, or even who trips himself (accidentally or on purpose!). Unfair red cards, penalties and free kicks have changed many a game, yet a TV replay could so often have ensured the correct decision before the players even stopped arguing with the referee.

DON’T FOOL THE REF
Players: stop appealing for free kicks and penalties when you know you don’t deserve them. Stop appealing for the throw-in every time the ball goes out. Don’t you realise that the referee will make decisions even if you don’t appeal? Maybe everyone’s been watching too much cricket! Get on with the game and concentrate on your efforts rather than trying to weasel out false decisions. That way you are more likely to have a fairer balance of decisions anyway: if you and your opponents play fairly and in the right spirit there won’t be fake appeals for referees to rule on in the first place. The amount of referee error must surely, therefore, be reduced.
Perhaps that’s too simple to be practical and perhaps it has more chance of happening than a woman becoming president in the US or SA, or for thousands of men to start turning up to watch women’s rugby or netball, but it is relevant in terms of one thing: what the players say they want!
If the players are going to be tricking and ‘cheating’ the referees, their opposition and the fans, then they don’t deserve much of a voice in deciding about the use of technology, do they?

BIG BLUBBER
Here’s the best part: if the players know that they can’t get away with trying their luck on officials, if they know they will be found out, exposed and penalised (sorry, that does sound awfully dramatic!) then they will simply have to start playing their games in a more sporting manner. That makes the game fairer and certainly makes the referee’s role a lot easier.
And why not? Where does it say in the rules of any sport that we must test the referee as much as possible, see if he can spot the right decision?
No, no, no. I say NO! The more invisible the referee is the better – and referees (mostly!) agree. Their purpose is not to be tested, but to be an arbiter. They share the field, enjoy some limelight, make good money, and get to enjoy a physical activity that is also a big test of the grey matter. The ref ain’t there to play Big Brother between two spoilt playground brats!
But do you know what’s absolutely, unequivacably BEST OF ALL?
Do I even need to say it?
If players start behaving normally and with good sporting grace on the field … oh dear, think of the massive effect on club and school sportsmen and women! Your hero no longer dives for a penalty in a tough Premiership match … you no longer dive for a penalty in a tough school or club match.
A Test rugby player no longer makes dirty, high tackles, or punches in the scrum, or stands on someone’s face … and you no longer dirty your name or your club’s name in a crunch match.
Isn’t that enough argument for the TV referee and umpire to be used much more?

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A REPLAY!
My worry about technology in sport is that, as with most of the other problems in sport, MONEY is at stake. The top players, teams and managers generally would rather leave decision-making to an onfield official. Consider this: a lowly team such as Exeter can draw with Man United. Doesn’t that show that in the competitive world of sport, a one-on-one contest between two vastly uneven foes can, in fact, be a very even contest. I think the top people know this! I think it scares them. They have a lot at stake. However, we as fans also have a lot at stake. Firstly, we want a fair contest and, secondly, if we think the contest is not fair, we spend our money elsewhere. We need to wake up and think for ourselves about what we want our sport to be. Do not be taken in by big voices convincing you of things. History has shown often enough how dangerous that can be.
To illustrate, it’s a well-known fact that officials are often more inclined to rule in favour of the better player, or bigger club - not because they are cheating or applying ‘favouritism’. Please do not even consider that for a moment. No, it’s simply that the official is more likely to believe that the better player or team is deserving of the benefit of the doubt in any close call. Call it a form of subconscious sporting goodwill.
No wonder, then, that so many top teams aren’t picketing for greater use of technology!
A bleeper in a ball costs money, in research and development, and to supply the balls. And Hawkeye… it wasn’t just lying on the side of the road, or plucked off a tree.
I’m not suggesting that any of these methods are in any way unsavoury, but I am saying that they are unneccessary. Tennis has the cyclops to call line decisions - but why is it sometimes over-ruled? How reliable will Hawkeye or a bleeper in a soccer ball ever be?
Why not leave the power in the eyes of the referees and umpires! Have a system where the referee or umpire always makes the best decision he can onfield, backed up by his umpire or refereeing ‘partner’ watching a TV monitor. He can then radio the onfield ref if a more accurate decision can be given after a QUICK viewing on the monitor.
Traditionally, the referee or umpire was always in the best position to make a decision. Think about the 1950s! However, today cameras are all around the stadiums and THEY now provide the best views. Plain and simple.
To be honest, if I were the umpires I would be picketing hard for the implementation of TV replays. Many people use shock appeal to make the public fear that technology will make the referee disappear. Oooh, let’s not use the replays, as it will dehumanise the sport and make the referees redundant. Oh no – let’s avoid technology today! It’s the plague of the new century.
However, in three weeks’ time when the same authorities smile and announce tests of this format or that format of technology, we all rejoice. Thank heavens - they have found a way! Hallelujah! We are now all saved.
Referees and umpires – thanks for all your hard work, but if the hi-tech technology goes much further, you guys are going to be back home in your slippers! If I was brave and dedicated enough to stand among your ranks, I would be DEMANDING more low-tech decision-making, such as the increased use of TV replays.

BUT IT TAKES SO LONG!
Back in the 90’s everyone moaned about cricket’s Third Umpire ruling on run outs. Today it’s just part of the game. In football any controversial decision is followed by 45-60 seconds of players swinging their handbags above their heads and crying to the referee. Look, we don’t need the right decision always. Sometimes that’s too difficult to achieve even if you watch a tape for months – and I mean that! What we can do is spot the really big mistakes quickly, which an onfield official might have missed (because he’s human). Surely if everyone waits for 20-30 seconds for a TV umpire to spot any glaring errors it would be quicker than the Handbags Hit Parade… and it would be fairer to all.

BUT IT ALL EVENS OUT …
It’s just stupid to say we shouldn’t use an easy and available resource to help make high-impact and high-pressure decisions. In club or school sport there’s no alternative: you have to accept the referee or umpire’s decision, and ‘it all evens out’ is relevant (well, there’s also no choice in the matter than to accept that – and hope!). Not in professional sport, however. Selectors don’t worry about things evening out, and neither do league tables.
Your boss at work wouldn’t say, oh, you made us R200,000 profit last year … unfortunately, this year you lost us R200,000. Don’t worry, though, you can keep your job as it all evens out.
In the old days rugby never allowed substitutions: it was a great mystery to me, as a soccer lover. In fact, as recently as the 70s soccer didn’t even allow substitutions! Of course, the players and management found a way, and phantom injuries allowed players to be ‘substituted’. Today substitutes are a big part of rugby, and are taken for granted.
Funny how things change!
Is it really such a difficult decision to say that all televised sports should have a referee watching a TV screen, ready to overrule wrong decisions?

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

THE ONLY WAY IS UP A solution to the third umpire crisis

2011-08-03T19:18:00.000+02:00

The Third Umpire system has gone a long way to changing the face of cricket and ensuring more consistent umpiring decisions. This is a good thing, given the level of television coverage that highlights mistakes by the onfield umpires. But it is still not enough. It’s time we pushed our cricketing frontiers a little further westwards.
By Simon Lewis (2000)

It should be so simple. We have the technology. We have the cameras. And yet still we have umpiring controversies. We simply must get it right.
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.
A camera suspended over the pitch (an Aerial Umpire), erected temporarily for big matches which receive major television coverage, will provide a whole new range of views and angles which the Third Umpires will be able to access to provide a better quality of decision-making on a highly consistent level. This camera could be attached by cords to the grandstands, sightscreens, floodlight pylons or underneath a miniature hot air balloon. Technology will find a way.
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 for leg-before appeals. Alternatively, the square leg umpire could confirm this to his fellow umpire - a backup system that 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. This would be a large extra cost, but the costs could be picked up by the broadcasters and their sponsors, and perhaps even the players could chip in to subsidise a portion of the costs – after all, they stand to gain the most from consistently accurate umpire decisions.
No-balls and wides could also be accurately picked up with the use of an onscreen grid or lines on the umpire’s replay monitors. These would 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 would work autonomously to the onfield umpires - in other words, there should be no referrals. The onfield umpires would adjudicate to the fullest, trusting their own judgement to make correct calls as they see it, without worrying about making a mistake. Any ‘mistakes’ that can be picked up by the Third Umpires will be radioed in to the relevant umpire to 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 a decision was incorrect in the allotted time then the onfield umpire’s decision will stand and play will continue.
When a wicket falls or an appeal is made the Third Umpire should be able to request extra time to check more carefully before adjudicating on this more crucial decision. When a batsman is given out the Third Umpire would have until the batsman leaves the field to overrule the decision. The Third Umpire’s task would be to quickly review TV replays, using the extra overhead cameras and existing angles, to see if a glaring error was made.
We cannot achieve 100% accurate decisions with all decisions, but we could eliminate any glaring errors that would be picked up by the TV cameras, as well as providing a better judgement on LBW through the use of the overhead camera. If replays don’t provide conclusive proof then the onfield umpire’s original decision would stand, 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, and the Aerial Umpire could be extended to all sports for added visual appeal as well as for decision-making, notably rugby (forward passes, off-sides, conversions) and football (off-sides).
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, and is still under enormous pressure because his role is seen as being easier than that of the onfield umpire. The two or three Third Umpires would need to all view the relevant replay footage for dismissals 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 assurance that the Third Umpires have a better view and the chance to review the play to eradicate 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 need their replay feeds to be focussed in to the critical moment of action and replayed back and forth quickly. The most telling piece of footage could 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. If a no-ball is called by the onfield umpire but is found, on review, to have been a fair delivery, then the no-ball will be overruled, with no extra runs or balls being awarded. If the batsman goes out on an incorrect no-ball call by the onfield umpire he will be given not out as he might have been disturbed or changed his shot on the basis of the call.
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 him, as the onfield umpire would periodically also have the power to do the overruling when he moves to the Third Umpire’s seat. Further, their original decisions would remain in the event of the Third Umpires not unanimously agreeing to overrule 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 during televised matches that allow players and spectators to pick up on umpiring errors. It’s a case of horses for courses.
The Aerial Umpire would be an incredible assistance for run outs as it will provide a far superior view of the bat crossing the line and the stumps being broken. The keeper would almost never obscure the view from an aerial camera, as happens with side views, and 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 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. From the front or from rear views the batsman’s bat obscures your vision of any deviation as it passes across 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. This in turn would greatly educate and inform umpires at all levels, empowering them to adapt this new knowledge to umpiring at first-class, club and school level. Using a grid or line system indicating clearly the line from stump to stump will eradicate any undesirable guesswork from the Third Umpire as to the line the ball pitched and the exact line it struck the pads. We will also be able to clearly see the line of the ball and be in a better position to judge its likely 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 could more 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 after all. We will 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 view remains the only frontier yet to be fully explored in televised sport, and it could be one of the most dramatic, not to mention facilitating a massive paradigm shift in understanding LBW, off-sides, forward passes and so on. It would also provide a more awe-inspiring view of the action and the players’ position on the field: think of a slip cordon standing way back to a fast bowler; fielding positions and the gaps in the field clear for all to see; offensive and defensive moves in rugby and football; court coverage in tennis. Pick a sport!
This will happen one day – I have no doubt. But why wait when it’s possible now, and can only benefit sportsmen, officials and spectators alike.

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

THE THIRD UMPIRE

2011-08-03T19:15:00.000+02:00

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

CRICKET’S AERIAL UMPIRE: A Solution to the Third Umpire Crisis

2011-08-03T19:10:00.002+02:00

A Report by Simon Lewis 1 September 1998

CONTENTS
1.   THE THIRD UMPIRES
2.   THE THIRD UMPIRE’S CAMERAS
3.   SPEEDING UP THE DECISION
4.   AN END TO UNCALLED NO-BALLS
5.   LEG-BEFORE-WICKET
6.   CAUGHT BEHIND
7.   RUN OUTS
8.   WIDES
9.   BAT-PAD CATCHES
10. IN CONCLUSION

1. THE THIRD UMPIRES
The current high level of television coverage of top-class cricket makes the onfield umpire’s job extremely difficult. Television viewers at home and at the ground are in a better position than him to make accurate judgements, aided by super-slow, close-up action replays, and yet he must make tough decisions in the heat of the moment and under enormous pressure. To fall back on the old faithful comment that it all evens out in the end is no longer relevant in the Test arena. If the camera is now able to tell us with greater accuracy if a batsman is out or not, then the umpires must use the cameras to help them strive to ensure that no blatant mistakes (as viewed on TV replay) can slip through. It should be a partnership, and the main aim should be ensuring that no glaring errors occur.
There will be two to four Third Umpires making their adjudications, and they will swop places with the onfield umpires at the end of every session of play so that they are all kept fresh and involved in all levels of umpiring.
The onfield umpire should ONLY give a batsman out when he is 100-percent certain that the batsman was in fact out, that there is no doubt in his mind whatsoever. It currently seems that umpires at all levels of cricket are striving to make decisions, a fact possibly exacerbated by unsporting and increasing appeals. Umpires should be more responsible for giving batsmen out only when they can be certain that they are out - if they were to call for the Third Umpire that should indicate doubt, and therefore the benefit should then be given to the batsman. The Third Umpires should be constantly monitoring the play, viewing video replays, and they should inform the onfield umpire when an incorrect decision has been made so that the onfield umpire can change his decision. The onfield umpire’s aim should be getting through a match without making an error. If that means he rules every appeal to be not out then so be it. The Third Umpire will be there to rule on the close decisions that require careful analysis of slow-motion replays.
It will be embarrassing for the onfield umpire if he gives a batsman out but the Third Umpire rules not out. Equally it will serve as evidence of an umpire’s ability when he gives a decision which is backed-up by a ‘well-informed’ Third Umpire watching a set of slow-motion replays. The onfield umpire should never approach the Third Umpire for assistance, for that could hamper the entire process as he then holds sole right to call for the Third
Umpire. Would Javed Akhtar have called for the Third Umpire to adjudicate on any of the LBWs he gave against South Africa in the Headingley Test? If he had that would have implied doubt, which would imply having to give the batsmen the benefit of the doubt.
The onfield umpire should act independently of the Third Umpires and make his own decision employing a high regard for the benefit of the doubt. The Third
Umpires will contact him to inform him of any incorrect decisions which can be verified by two of the Third Umpires on-screen in a set time, failing which the onfield umpire’s decision stands.
The current Third Umpire system has already usurped the onfield umpire’s position as sole judge and executioner, yet it still allows him to make a mistake if he fails to call for the Third Umpire on a close decision. There’s no point having a foolproof back-up umpiring system if it’s not going to be used in a consistent manner. The Third Umpire must have autonomy to make or reverse any decisions that he can back-up with video footage evidence.
Television coverage has advanced so radically that Test cricket is in the position where it must now reinvent itself. Failure to do so can only lead to increasing displays of poor sportsmanship in the face of umpiring errors. In the past batsmen would always walk off berating an umpire for a poor LBW decision. Everyone knew that in most instances he was covering up his disappointment at being given out and was, usually, totally unaware of whether he should or should not have been given out. His anger soon subsided.
But today a batsman can walk off the field and watch conclusive evidence on a
TV monitor that shows that he should not have been given out. And the evidence gets more conclusive as technology advances. It’s not fair for professional batsmen or for Test cricket and its supporters.
The only incorrect decisions that should be allowed under the Third Umpire system are the not out ones when technically a batsman might have been out in a really close decision that can’t be confirmed easily. It’s far better for the umpire (either onfield or the Third Umpire) to give the batsman the benefit than to make a judgement and give a batsman out when he isn’t absolutely certain. The Third Umpire’s primary task should be to ensure that no blatant errors are committed by the onfield umpires, and secondly to award any decisions that are clear and obvious as viewed on his TV replay. He mustn’t search for the answer – if it’s staring him in the face then he must make the relevant decision, but if there’s doubt then he must award it to the batsman or go with the onfield umpire’s decision. At present the Third Umpire sometimes views run out situations for a couple of minutes, trying desperately to see if the batsman was out and then, it would seem, trying to convince himself that the batsman was out. They’re searching too hard for the answer. He should have a quick look at the replays from all angles, possibly a second look if required but if more than that is required it should be given as benefit to the batsman and play should continue. The aim is not to achieve 100-percent perfect decisions, but rather to ensure 100-percent error-free and consistent umpiring. If the batsman sometimes gets the benefit of the doubt when he should have been given out, that is better than some batsmen sometimes being given out incorrectly.
To ensure that cricket continues as a fair and honest gentleman’s game, the use of TV and video replays needs to be expanded and at the same time stream-lined. Here follows some ideas that could be considered.

2. THE THIRD UMPIRES’ CAMERAS
The Third Umpires will need more cameras to help them make more-informed decisions, but specifically they will need more stationery cameras. Currently the cameras all tend to jump around too much, focus close-up and then pan out again. That doesn’t help the Third Umpire make his decisions as he needs to rely on consistently clear and focussed pictures to provide his hard evidence. Having additional stationery cameras will also benefit TV viewers as they will also be shown live-action and action replays of a still, clear shot.
There will be an Aerial Umpire camera. The logistics of this are not within my technical knowledge. If it can be implemented (technically, aesthetically and financially) then it alone would be able to provide almost 100-percent accurate decision-making reference for the Third Umpires. The concept would be hanging a camera (similar in size and structure to the stump-cam) directly above the pitch. It would naturally have to be high enough not to interfere with any big hits from the batsman, and constructed in such a way as not to detract from the pleasure of spectators watching at the ground. Such a structure exists, I believe, at a good many soccer stadiums around the world, not to mention in South Africa. The camera could either be ‘draped’ from above one grandstand to another, or it could be strung up on four ‘cords’ attached to the floodlights found at most major cricket grounds. This camera will provide the sort of views never before seen on a cricket field, and I believe they will be illuminating in the extreme. I believe it will revolutionise the face of umpiring understanding, which will have far-reaching consequences in terms of education and learning for umpires at all levels. I believe it will give us all a totally new perception of leg-before-wicket decisions. Furthermore, the view will be able to assist with almost every possible umpiring decision, as well as being a dynamic new view for replays and cricket education. Ideally there would be one aerial camera to take in the whole pitch and two more focussing up closer on each set of stumps.
A system of onscreen grids is also essential to the success of any Third
Umpire system. These will be computer-generated onscreen ‘grids’ or ‘templates’ which will assist the Third Umpire in making fast and accurate decisions, as well as giving viewers a clear idea of why a certain decision was given. These grids will be aesthetically ‘messy’ and thus will only be shown to the viewers once a decision has been given. The Third Umpire will have these grids on his screens all the time, giving him clear lines from which to tell if the bowler overstepped the mark, if the batsman reached the crease before the bails were removed, if the ball pitched on leg stump or outside, and if the ball hit the batsman in line of wicket to wicket. They will be integral to any success of the Third Umpire, as he shouldn’t be forced to make judgement calls. He must have a clear view of exactly where the ball pitched, and so on. He cannot be forced to guess if it was on the line or outside. The line needs to be shown on his screen for him to make accurate and consistent decisions.
The still camera shots will add value to the cricket broadcast as it will show the action in one clear shot, as if the viewers were sitting at the ground. This will also provide a better source of stock footage for use in compiling cricket coaching videos. It also guarantees that certain pieces of the action are not missed by the cameraman through bad luck or when focussing on something else. It will require an investment in more cameras, and it will need greater control and management in the production and editing department, but these extra cameras will not need to be manned like other cameras.
Ideally sponsorship would cover the additional costs.
There will be a camera at mid-wicket/cover on both sides of the wicket. This stationary camera will take in the whole pitch, from stump to stump, to give viewers a clear picture of the action from side-on. The current Pana-eye camera can be kept to help adjudicate on run outs, no-balls, stumpings and short runs, although it will have to be lined-up 100-percent accurately with the popping crease to ensure accurate decisions using the onscreen grid. There will also be two to four (depending on costs) Pana-eyes about 30-metres in the air positioned at mid-on and mid-off on either side of the field.
These steady views will help with judging the height of the ball (LBW) and giving steady, totally focussed views of the batsman, allowing as many options as possible for the Third Umpire to tell if the batsman edged a delivery or not (especially bat-pad) and whether or not the batsman hit the ball into the ground or not (ie a bump ball).
There will be a stationery camera at either end of the ground directly behind the middle stump and positioned above the sightscreen or at as high a point as is possible (on top of a grandstand). This will help with LBW’s and caught behind, as well as providing superb views of the bowler running in and the batsman playing his shots. This will also help with technical analysis during broadcasts, as there will be consistently good images on which to discuss points of technique, and will be invaluable for live-action cricket coaching videos.

3. SPEEDING UP THE DECISION
The Third Umpire system has caused a great many stoppages in play, partly because the Third Umpire views the same monitor as the television viewers, so he often has to wait for the action to arrive at the crucial moment when he can make his decision, causing play to come to a halt as the action replay is broadcast across the airwaves. He needs to have access to that crucial moment or two when the batsman ran his bat into the crease, etc, not the fielder throwing the ball in, which is essential to show television viewers, but equally hampers the Third Umpire’s ability to make quick decisions as vital seconds are being eaten up by the action replay. He should have immediate access to whatever action he needs to view and should be able to view it however he needs to in order to make his decision.
To run the system efficiently decision-makers should only be shown footage a few frames either side of the relevant moment of action, thus affording them more time to view other angles and review them all again in the same time it usually takes the current Third Umpire system to view two angles. The emphasis must be on a slick, no-nonsense operation. This will naturally require more manpower to source and play these views to the Third Umpires.
He should be able to go straight to the crucial moment once an appeal has gone up, view the incident two or three times with a cue/review freeze-frame system, and then make his decision. Importantly, his monitor will not be seen by television viewers as the pictures will be jumping backwards and forwards, thus not being pleasing to the viewers who will be watching replays as normal. Once his decision has been made the viewers can be shown the most relevant and conclusive piece of action which will prove the decision, accompanied at that point by the onscreen grids which are available on all the Third Umpire’s replay monitors.
Two umpires will have to verify each decision and if they can’t both give it quickly then the benefit must go to the batsman. For instance, in the event of really close run outs, if it can’t be seen to be out after looking at the slow-motion replays for 10 seconds then you have to give the benefit to the batsman. Theoretically he might still be out, but if it’s not conclusive then the Third Umpire should give the benefit and get on with the game. If you can’t prove it in 10 seconds then you’re not going to be able to prove it, but will be relying on subjectivity to ‘insist’ on giving the batsman out.
The Third Umpire should have no more time than the bowler walking back to his mark, which is the normal time from the ball going dead till the bowler starts his next run up, which then makes the ball alive - the time in which a team can make an appeal and in which the umpire can answer it. Once the ball becomes alive again the fielding side can no longer appeal, as a new ball is in progress, and the result of the previous ball can not be altered by any of the umpires. The time available for a dismissed batsman to be called back to the wicket would obviously be greater, although as with a normal appeal or cancelling of a decision the batsman would still have to be on the field of play, for once he leaves it his innings can under no circumstances be continued. There would of course be leeway to allow the Third Umpires to, on occasion, halt play for a while longer if the replays are complex or if there is some valid reason why they are not easily able to pick up the most important piece of action. This would have to apply to spin bowlers especially, whose run-ups are shorter, which therefore allows even less time for the Third Umpire. This would suggest extra stoppages and some time-wasting, but it would clearly be much less than would be the case if there had to be constant appeals to the Third Umpire using conventional replays.
The possibility of having a limited amount of appeals to the Third Umpire is impractical and would be unfair. Imagine if only a certain amount of run out consultations were allowed under the present Third Umpire system?
The Third Umpires will beep the onfield umpire on a walkie-talkie or cell phone to inform him of an incorrect decision. As with the possibility of the onfield umpire making a mistake, through error of judgement or not being able to see the action clearly, so it is vital that TWO Third Umpires confirm all the decisions that they make. They need a sounding board and a second opinion, especially if they are going to operate the system quickly and efficiently. Neither should they be subjected to the intense pressure of having to make a decision alone. This second Third Umpire should be a guarantee that no umpiring errors occur. As there will be major pressure on the umpires in the booth, which is why it will be imperative to swop positions every session with the onfield umpires, as well as giving all the umpiring officials a chance to perform all the various umpiring duties.

4. AN END TO UNCALLED NO-BALLS
One of the Third Umpires could be permanently watching a split screen that shows the bowler’s crease from the side (with an onscreen gird in place), and from the Aerial Umpire’s view, also with a grid in place. As soon as he spots or can confirm a no-ball he informs the onfield umpire and no-ball is signalled on the field of play. This might sometimes be called rather late, certainly always too late for the batsman to capitalise on the no-ball by having a free hit at it, but at least it would ensure fair and honest deliveries, consistent and objective no-ball calling, and a reprieve for any batsman unfairly given out off a no-ball. It would probably take a while longer to spot the no-ball, but there should be enough time in the case of a dismissal, the major reason for concern anyway; for a delivery which has not yielded a wicket, if the umpire can’t pick it up clearly and early before the bowler starts his next delivery, then that’s too bad. But at least the glaring and clear mistakes would be picked up, which in the long run would save the onfield umpires from embarrassment as well as ensuring a fair and even contest.
This umpire would need one of his fellow Third Umpires to confirm his decision as well, by showing them the most obvious frame of footage. This umpire would also be responsible for adjudicating on run outs, stumpings and short runs which might not have been picked up by the onfield umpires.

5. LEG-BEFORE-WICKET
To solve the problem of leg-before-wicket decisions, any one of the cameras mentioned in the introduction would be used for clarity, although undoubtedly the most effective cameras will be the following:

i) The side-view camera
To judge the height and path of the ball in relation to passing over the top of the stumps;

ii) The stump-cam
Using a grid to show the position of the stumps in front of the batsman on the screen, thus giving a clearer and more accurate picture of which stump the ball hit the pads in front of, etc, and grid lines from stump to stump to accurately pin-point where the ball pitched; and

iii) The Aerial Umpire
Using a grid to show the line of the stumps from wicket to wicket to clearly show where the ball pitched and which stump it hit the batsman in line with, but also giving a better view of the path of the ball and the likelihood that it might stay on path to hit the stumps or not, to see how far the ball still had to travel and what its course was likely to be. This could also be invaluable for giving umpires a better view of the path of the ball in general, with access to different views which would help coach umpires at all levels to have a better understanding of LBW and all that it entails, which would improve the standard of umpiring at all levels.

The present stump-cam could be used with a grid showing the stumps (transposed over the batsman on the screen), as well as a grid showing the line from wicket to wicket, bearing in mind that it is ‘distorted’ with the stump-cam, so the distortions would have to be represented on the grid, otherwise the umpires would be making incorrect judgements on the line that the ball pitched (it needs to be definite and exact and not reliant on any judgement calls - if it gets to the stage of a judgement call then the benefit should go to the batsman). This should enable the umpire to accurately tell where the ball pitched and where it hit the batsman in relation to the stumps behind him (which are shown in front of him on screen). This clearly shows the point of impact. This will primarily gauge the height, but it will also be useful for direction, although this will best be seen by the Aerial Umpire. Naturally, the two will work well together.
Leg-before is an incredibly difficult decision. The factors involved are so complex that errors should be expected on a regular basis. It is unavoidable.
The biggest problem is the fact that umpires base their decision on learned principles from years of umpiring with a single focus or viewpoint - straight on to the batsman. Having a view from above would make for almost perfect decision-making. It will also open up a huge new understanding of leg-before-wicket, especially with a view to the path of the ball after it strikes the batsman. Perhaps we shall find that presently umpires are too lenient and that indeed many more batsmen have been given out who should otherwise not have been, or the other way around.

6. CAUGHT BEHIND
Using the Aerial Umpire camera, there will be a far better view of the line of the ball from bowler to keeper (where the majority of controversial snicks go), thus giving the clearest and most unobstructed view of the ball’s path and the likelihood that it might have deviated. From the front or from behind it’s difficult (for the onfield umpire or an umpire watching a replay on TV) to see a faint nick, as the batsman’s bat passes across the line of the ball as it goes through to the keeper, thus obscuring the view of any deflection.
Seen from above and on a slow-motion replay you will be able to see if there is a point at which the ball actually deviates or edges off an otherwise ‘straight’ path through to the keeper. All balls bowled have a natural drift through the air, which is what sometimes leads to incorrect caught-behind decisions as the umpire sees the ball drifting to leg or off after passing the bat, incorrectly assuming this to be an edge when in many cases it might be the ball’s natural late swing. Viewed from above it will be possible to see if the ball starts its deviation as it passes the bat. There will be a clearer view as well of any air between bat and ball. Equally, this view will support not-out decisions when the ball has passed the bat and struck the batsman’s shoulder or arm directly behind the bat, causing a deflection which, when viewed from the front by the umpire or on a front TV view, justifiably looks as if it came off the edge of the bat. Seen from behind one is often able to spot this, but undeniably viewed from above it will prove in most cases when the ball hit the batsman’s body and not his bat. From above this sort of unavoidable and honest error could be eliminated in most cases, certainly avoiding any blatant errors slipping through the cracks.

7. RUN OUTS
The present Third Umpire system is close to perfect in the case of run outs, but obviously the Aerial Umpire would give one extra view, as well as providing a far clearer perspective on the bat crossing the line in relation to the bails being lifted. The no-ball line view can also help if used with a split screen for replays played at the same time as other angles, allowing the umpires to see the various pieces of action in relation to one another.
It would also provide a better view of the bat sliding past the crease, unlike the side view which can be blurred depending on the state of the popping crease and the pitch, which tend to get dusty and smudged as the match goes on. Using a similar onscreen grid would provide a clean and consistent view of the actual line that the batsman needs to cross in order to make his ground safely. This would also provide the Third Umpire with more of a tangible and real determination upon which he must make his decision. At present Third Umpires are being forced to guess to a certain degree exactly where the line is which the batsman must cross. If there was a clear line on screen for the Third Umpire to use to help him in his decision-making (and which could later be shown to viewers to prove the accuracy of the decision) it would further reduce the margin of error, if not eliminating it altogether. Furthermore, the wicket-keeper or fielder usually breaks the wicket from the side and not from above, thus ensuring an even clearer picture from the Aerial Umpire to show exactly when the bails are removed, which in itself would be clearer from above than the present TV angles.

8. WIDES
In Test matches wides are dependant on a batsman’s height and reach, not allowing for a consistent onscreen grid. However, the Aerial Umpire will give a clearer idea of how close the ball was to the batsman as it passed him.
There would be a general grid guideline, but it would have to be discretionary. It’s difficult for umpires to always get this one right, but with an overhead view there would be a greater degree of accuracy. In one-day cricket the grid system fits in perfectly and would ensure against the onfield umpire anguishing over calling a wide in the final overs of a match, which could unfairly affect either side’s chance of winning. Furthermore, having an umpire away from the pressure and able to have a second or third look at the action before having to make a possibly match-affecting judgement will not only reduce the pressure on the onfield umpires but also ensure that a fair result can be achieved and eliminate any need for calls of poor umpiring by the losing side and their supporters.

9. BAT-PAD CATCHES
Bat-pad catches are possibly the second-most difficult decision to adjudicate on, after leg-before-wicket. The aerial view could help in this decision, although most likely a separate aerial camera at a 45-degree angle to the pitch would give a better view inbetween the bat and the pad. That extra camera might not be worth the effort for a somewhat occasional dismissal (although it would also provide viewers with a further unusual view of the action, taken from the top of one of the four floodlight pylons at a ground), especially seeing as the noise factor plays a large part in the dismissal and in that regard the onfield umpire is in a good position to judge. As a back-up, the stump-cam and other views can be replayed to the Third Umpires who, if they spot a glaring mistake either way, can hurriedly inform the onfield umpire.
Once again, to achieve absolute perfection with every single decision will almost certainly never be possible, but at least every reasonable means should be employed to ensure that no major umpiring errors (out or not out) which can be spotted on a slow-motion replay are allowed to stand, not when the stakes are so high and the pressure so intense.

10. IN CONCLUSION
Major cricket matches and tournaments are in need of a system that eradicates major and blatant errors by the umpires. They need help simply because the current high level of camera work and camera technology has meant that errors are so much more visible to the layman. It is not the umpires who are at fault or who should be blamed. Theirs is a near impossible task - that of making faultless decisions in high-pressure situations with only a split-second of information at their disposal. It is only right and fair that the umpires are able to utilise or rely on an accurate Third Umpire system to ensure that they can’t be accused of making poor decisions that ruin Tests and one-day matches. Cricket is a gentleman’s game, but it’s so difficult to remain a gentleman when everything is at stake and yet you have clear evidence of unfair decisions going against you.
The umpires need to remain involved with the decision and the play, and they need to be the ones making the decision, albeit with an increasing amount of assistance from visual views and TV screens. But it will still be the umpire, an impartial but human observer, who will be making the decisions and informing the players, spectators and scorers what the decision is based on what they see before them on the TV replay monitor.
Umpires’ skills will become far more analytical, and umpires at all levels will benefit by being exposed to the new views and angles of the action shown on TV, and seeing how certain factors affect what the decision should really be will enable them to apply that knowledge when they go in the field to umpire without the aid of technology, but with a clearer understanding of the path a ball is likely to take after hitting a batsman on the pads. If the overhead view proves that a ball pitching outside off-stump and hitting the pads in line with leg-stump can still hit the stumps (if it’s possible), then umpires all over the world will be able to view LBW appeals in a new light.
The truth will be revealed, there will be less speculation, guesswork and personal opinions, and cricket will benefit from more correct decisions.
However, I personally believe that the Aerial Umpire will prove that in the majority of instances the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to LBW. I believe the Aerial Umpire will prove to be that conclusive and, with that in mind, umpires at all levels will have to adapt their decision-making to only allow leg-before decisions which they are certain are out.
The aim is to have a team of umpires on the field and in the Third Umpire’s booth all working together to ensure that they uphold the laws and make correct decisions, all working together and performing equal tasks, aided by camera angles to make the correct decisions, thus maintaining the human element whilst ensuring a higher level of umpiring accuracy. That would be a fair system for all.
Everyone loves the run out assistance from the Third Umpire because it ensures that a quantifiable decision is not made incorrectly. Now it is time for the same level of accuracy and chance to recall applies to all umpiring decisions. The technology exists right now, it can be put into place very easily (once a few minor logistical problems have been overcome), and it can ensure that humans can make more informed and accurate umpiring decisions, under less pressure and therefore less likely to make a mistake, rather than being embarrassed in front of the public (who can see when a blatant error has been made). The fact that the Third Umpire is already being used for so many decisions (run out, bump ball catches, fielders or ball touching the boundary rope, ball carrying the rope for six) should make it an easy decision to progress one step further, especially since the aforementioned methods do not change the face of cricket in any more drastic way than the initial introduction of the Third Umpire.
We are already travelling down the road of decreasing onfield umpiring responsibilities - let’s now complete the journey, quickly, safely and as affordably as possible.

© SIMON LEWIS 1998
simon@theball.co.za • www.theball.co.za

THE BALL EDITOR’S LETTER Scrap rugby in South Africa?

2011-08-03T18:59:00.000+02:00

This is the editorial column I wrote for the inaugural issue of The Ball magazine that was published on 2 May 2005. Sadly it was also the only issue, as this bold venture was caught short due to cashflow and a series of unfortunate attempts to negotiate with investors. The Ball is finally making a comeback as a free online magazine. This maiden editorial, however, I believe still has a relevance to us all in so many ways today and tomorrow. Sadly, the message was never picked up and our much-loved Bafana Bafana team failed to progress or impress in the World Cup. OK, so they had some memorable performances… but we all know they were capable of so much more. So, onto that Editor’s Letter..

CAN WE BAN RUGBY IN SOUTH AFRICA?
No, that’s not right. Rugby is a great sport, a marvellous game. A dramatic balance between power and precision, speed and brick-wall stability. Ban rugby? No ways! I know people who still talk about the days when we were world champs!
No: banning rugby is madness. But why not give soccer a chance? Soccer is the global game, played by more people in more countries than any other sport. Better than rugby? You can only answer that for yourself, of course, and every sport has its strengths and weaknesses.
But let’s take a look at sport in South Africa. The English boy is so entrenched with dad and grandfather’s tales of leather on willow, while the barefoot boerseun is obviously going to have rugby running in thick green globs through his veins. Equally, the masses of poorer people living in townships around the country have grown up with the round ball at their feet. It’s the same the world over. The poor shall inherit the soccer ball.
It’s sad and it’s not sad. I don’t mean sad as in ‘we aren’t all sitting arm-in-arm singing kumbayah m’lord’ by the campfire, as someone well-meaning strums their guitar. Give a human a break: most of us wouldn’t want to do that with the majority of people who hang around in our own family tree, let alone strangers. Nope, for me the real sadness is purely that we are all largely born into the sporting culture of our family and social influences. Yes, there are always some who break free, but if only there could be sporting freedom for everyone! What might that do for us all as individuals, and what might it do for the sporting success of our nation?
You might know of an Australian sportswoman called Tatiana Grigorieva. Pole vault took her into the exciting world of international competition and, within a year of taking up the sport, she became one of the world’s best. Astounding… but imagine if she hadn’t decided to turn up for pole vault trials?
How many of you have toiled for years at rugby, cricket or soccer because it was the ‘right’ sport for you, yet you’ve never enjoyed the thrill of a really high level of competition to challenge your personal sporting ability? Perhaps you should try a new sport? You might need to put your dreams and family traditions aside, but isn’t it better to live your dream and create your sporting destiny, rather than running with the sheep? In five years we are hosting the greatest sporting event known to mankind, if you ignore the Olympics for a sec. Five years is relatively short in the development of a soccer player, but who knows: perhaps we have some great soccer talent unrealised because so many rugby-playing schools simply have never exposed their pupils to soccer. Should there be trials around the country? There must be some great talent out there waiting to be moulded. Will anyone find it?
Rugby and soccer in particular have so many skill sets and abilities that are transferable: take your average soccer player and throw them in at flyhalf or fullback and you could be surprised at the results (once he or she learns to tackle!). And keep thinking laterally: encourage your backline rugby players to play a bit of soccer in order to expand their range of ball skills. The more people who play soccer, the more competition for places there will be in South Africa, and the more our standard of soccer will rise all the way through the ranks. The same applies to all sports.
The world of sports and, in particular, ball sports, is so rich and rewarding and diversified that one should never ignore new possibilities. Give yourself another chance, or at least encourage someone you know to try a new sport. Don’t discriminate – try your hand at all sport. You never know how you might surprise yourself! And if you’ve hung up your boots or, if injury or age is against you, remember: referees and umpires also get to run around in a World Cup final!
SIMON LEWIS, Editor

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

GIRLS ON THE SIDE: Women in Sport

2011-08-02T15:22:00.002+02:00

Women’s sport always seems to come off second best. If women aren’t having their bodies visually exploited, regardless of their ability, then they’re being ignored by the sporting world, or labelled lesbian. Where is the media coverage to boost women’s sport and, as importantly, where is women’s interest in sport.
By Simon Lewis (July 2005)

As with all change, there often needs to be a rebel who forces that change. In the world of women’s sport, Michelle Wie seems to be that rebel, in addition to being a 15-year-old occasional mall-rat who stands over six foot tall on size 10 (and growing) feet. When she’s not changing the world or tripping through malls with her mates, she manages to keep ahead of her studies and maintain a level head on her shoulders. The youngest person EVER to play in a (men’s!) PGA tour event, Wie already hits the ball the same distance as many men on the tour. She’s not going to sit back and let men rule the roost without a challenge: when she grows up she wants to take on the men in the PGA in a big way. She has a need to push herself to the limit, and she has the benefit that her generation no longer stands back while the pale male dominates everything. She’s cheeky, but not cocky. Another woman golfer who had a crack at teeing off with the men recently was Sweden’s Annika Sorenstam, but she was all a bit too apologetic afterwards, no doubt upset over not playing as well as she’d hoped. Sorenstam seemed to shy away, overtly proclaiming her desire to return to the women’s tour, to ‘her place’. Perhaps the weight of expectation on her had been too great. Certainly, there were many waiting for her to fail: she didn’t. In fact, she did rather well, better than many people had expected, but she did fail to make the impact she had hoped for. Ultimately, it knocked the wind out of her sails.
Wie has no such apologetic streak, and she seems to be less bothered by any expectation to match the men. She is, rather, inspired by the pure challenge to her own ability. Sorenstam is currently twice as old as Wie, so perhaps it shows that the new generation isn’t going to be blown by the wind so much as do the shaking up themselves. This new generation can do it easier: they travel lighter through life and carry less baggage.
A similar wind blew through golf in the late-90’s when Tiger Woods tore the opposition apart and ran around scything through the record books like a smoking chainsaw through cardboard. Woods opened up the world of CAN DO to people of all races and ages, one of whom was Wie herself, then a mere seven years old. So inspired was Wie by Woods’ Masters walkover in 1997 that she started playing golf with ‘greater enthusiasm’; she was clearly a seven-year-old with purpose and a lot of drive.
Wie’s approach is refreshing for one bearing the standard for women worldwide, smiling when she says that it would be “neat” if she could be a Tiger Woods that breaks down barriers and, in her case, makes it easier for women to compete against men. She is, however, diplomatically quick to stress that she is not suggesting that women SHOULD play against men. Nonetheless, the fact remains that over the past decade she has embarrassed battalions of boys and men on the golf course, and her development hasn’t been hindered by a love for sport that extends to her kicking a soccer ball around at break with the boys while her girlfriends sit chatting in the shade.

… OR NOT TO BE
One of the main ‘voices’ being raised against women taking part on the men’s tour is one subtle ‘threat’ that packs a mean punch. ‘They’ warn that if the best women join the men’s tour their earnings will only be a fraction of what they would have earned on the ladies tour (where they would more likely be winning and finishing high up the leaderboard). With the loss of the top women the LPGA – weakened and unable to maintain the interest of their sponsors – will wither, ‘they’ claim. It’s a great argument: get the other girls opposed to Annika, Michelle and any others who are keen to take on the men. Inspire division in the ranks. It’s a stupid argument, though, if you examine it. Until men and women are able to compete equally together, women obviously wouldn’t always play on the men’s tour - they need success on the ladies tour to boost their career portfolios and earning potentials. However, they ALSO need men’s competition in order to lift their own competitive levels. Women would, therefore, only appear sporadically at men’s events. But clearly many men are concerned that the difference between men and women is not quite as unbreachable as some would have us think.
Ellis Cashmore, Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Staffordshire University in the UK, an eminent proponent for equal opportunities for women, is quick to point out that men and women’s bodies respond in similar ways to training.
“Take a male and a female, same height, weight, build and similar physical condition, and subject them to 6 weeks of identical training and conditioning and you’ll find both bodies have responded in very similar ways,” says Cashmore. “Test the people involved and you will find the female’s muscular strength is within five per cent of the male’s. Five percent is a lot when it comes to sports where brawn is a crucial factor, but most sports are further along the continuum and involve a greater skill factor. The further along the skill continuum you get, the more women are able to compete with men as the difference in physical strength becomes less significant.”
Clearly women have great potential for change, but such change happens when there is power and intent behind it. Change happens when the marketing machine gets fired up.

A RAINBOW AT THE END OF THE GOLD
Unless you’re a really hot sportswoman with legs to die for and have learned how to pose with that delicious come-on smile as your thumbs tease your bikini down, you will struggle to get media exposure or big-time endorsements. Ironically, it’s the opposite for men. The good-looking ones with the great bodies don’t automatically get the support they need to fulfil their own potential. We’ve had more grim-looking sportsmen over the years than good-looking ones, but the only men who get the attention are the ones who win (damn them!). Not the beefcakes with no headline-grabbing honours. That’s because men are the consumers of those images, stories, and live coverage.
Ryk Neethling and his fellow swimmers have battled for so long for decent media coverage and support. Ryk is a good looking bloke, hell of a body, modest yet not a pushover. Oh, and a damn good swimmer. The perfect guy for any gal.
But endorsements, major sponsorships, decent funding? Well, precious little really, compared to mainstream sports. That is, until he, Roland and two other guys (not quite as good looking or hunky as R&R, ironically!) picked up some Olympic gold. Now it’s embarrassing – you see more of those two than Graeme and Minki. Ryk hasn’t changed nor become ‘better’ as a commodity, he just became a big-time winner. He has the same smile, same bod. Yet winning matters not in terms of who gets exposure and huge endorsement deals in women’s sport. Mrs Iglesias: case in point!
Obviously, though, swimming doesn’t pack them in like soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis or golf, so there’s less adspend and gate-money to make the swimmers rich, and the equipment sponsors aren’t going to be making gajillions from selling extra costumes at R60 a pop. So it’s about identity as a winner that matters in terms of earning male athletes and sportsmen big money, while for women it’s their identity as someone physically desirable for men.
I guess it’s understandable as both scenarios are exactly what appeals to the supply and demand needs of the male sports-buying market …

WERE WOMEN BORN EQUAL TO MEN?
A big bone of contention is that men and women are generally not allowed to compete side by side, and Cashmore claims that myths and male-dominated society over the past 120 years of organised sport have ensured the status quo. “Women and men could be competing at comparable levels,” he said, adding that women are advancing at a more rapid rate than men. Partly this is because women are pushing themselves harder, as they have a huge gap to close. They are chasing, and you often chase harder, as you know what your goal is.
“Women’s progress in sport has been retarded not by their own physiological frailty or bodily differences, but by myths about their physical capabilities. If we could turn back the clock and start organised sports again, except allowing men and women to compete in the same events, we would have a very different history of sports ... and women would be holding their own in mixed team sports by now,” claims Cashmore.
You don’t have to like sport and you don’t even have to try your hand at playing or watching sport: but you do HAVE TO have the opportunities and the choice either way.

THE SPIN CYCLE
Women’s disadvantage in the sporting arena is also largely an economic thing, and economic issues have two sides. Your market wants X, so you supply X. You give them a bit of Y and Z, but your focus is X. That is how you stay in business. If your readers aren’t interested in reading about black showjumpers, then you’re not going to feature them. If people aren’t interested in white swimmers who look like Greek gods but who lack any gold around their neck, then the public don’t want to read about them. You’re wasting space if you try to supply hockey or netball information while disregarding other mass-market sports. Of course, if your market starts to want more of Y & Z, why then the media starts to supply that. And that’s the second issue. It’s a vicious cycle, fuelled by media spin doctors and marketing moguls, but it is ultimately driven by what the market wants. Charitable benefactors are few and far between, so you need a sponsor who wants a bit of bang for their buck. A glimmer of hope remains in the fact that the supply and the demand for women’s sport will always balance out perfectly, as most supply and demand generally does in the long run. Supply (and advertising and marketing bucks) will follow when demand increases, and being led by demand ensures a more sustainable, long-term product.

WHAT A MAN WANTS
Any argument also has two sides: they don’t always balance, but there are always two sides. Why don’t men support or encourage women’s sport? Well, men’s interest in sport is extremely personal: it’s based on personal experience and personal aspiration. We generally like relating to the reading and photographic matter that we are provided with, or the sport we watch. This fact surely indicates that if women only played more sport, then they too would create a greater market for women’s sport as an industry and a career. Absolutely true, although if you cast your eye back a century you’ll see where things started to go pear-shaped, as Cashmore points out.
“The idea of sport, as we understand it, is a peculiarly western male creation, built in fact to validate masculinity. The main organisations that gave us what we now regard as sports were instituted in the late nineteenth century — around the time when the factory system was introducing machines to replace physical labour. This meant that men’s physical work was less and less useful. According to some views, men created organised sport as a kind of substitute, as if they wanted a forum to demonstrate their physical superiority over women. Which is why women were excluded for the best part of the last century.”

AND THE ANSWER IS …
The only reason men have more power and money in sport is because MEN SUPPORT MALE SPORT. They turn up to watch, youngsters buy the memorabilia, they join fan clubs and own season tickets. Sure, girls and women also get involved, but it’s men en masse. And THAT is the key!
There’s nothing really stopping women from starting a whole new culture of sport. If that’s what women want then they now have the freedom to pursue it. It’ll still take time, but there’s room to build ... so long as women start by supporting women’s sport. Many might bemoan the lack of support from male spectators and male corporate companies ... but if women don’t start by building up a following and an infrastructure themselves then they can’t expect an insecure male population to encourage further self-emasculation. Women will have to keep the ball rolling… and take charge of speeding it up.
Think about the power of money and the greater power of supply and demand. I’ll bet my house, my job and everything I own on one fact - if women started to turn out in their thousands to watch the ladies provincial matches or national tournaments, there would pretty soon be big sponsors involved. There would be stadiums. There would even be a woman’s sports magazine. I’ll bet my life on it, cos it’s a pure economic fact. If you support it, they will support you.
Most men play or have played a number of sports, and this helps to build men’s sport as a whole, because in playing a sport you are more likely to be interested in watching the sport. You can relate to it, maybe even aspire to it. But we’ve never encouraged women to do the same, aside from encouraging them to take an interest in watching our men’s sport with us (think ‘dutiful wife or girlfriend’!).
“Men have excluded women; but not always by force,” reveals Cashmore. “Many of the eminent physicians in the first half of the 20th century warned against women participating in sport. They feared exercise and competition would lead to virilism (women taking on the physical characteristics of men) or infertility. The prohibitions on women’s participation in sport were quite subtle in their own ways: women simply didn’t want to get into something they thought was either going to hurt them physically or stigmatize them socially.”
Men also build themselves physically by playing sport. That gives them an increased physical edge over women, as well as an emotional one. A couple of boys are throwing a ball to each other. Little girl skips into the garden and asks them to throw her the ball. She drops it, or it klaps her on the head. The boys laugh, the girl feels stupid, and runs back into the house to help her mother out in the kitchen.
Of course she looks stupid, and she has little co-ordination. But then she hasn’t had the benefit of a lifetime of ball throwing, kicking, hitting and holding. Co-ordination is built up over a lifetime, as is physical conditioning. You don’t get as toned by dancing around the kitchen as you do out on the golf course, or playing touch rugby, tennis, or any of the other sports that men and boys have held the monopoly on. The more you do it the better you get. Why does Tiger Woods hit a ball so much better and with greater consistency than everyone else in the world? Probably largely because of all the effort and time he has devoted to it. Yes, he’s a genius, but his advantage is built on hitting hundreds of golf balls every day for the last 20 years. You get good like that. So the fact that some girls can’t catch a ball shouldn’t be embarrassing, as it just shows that they haven’t spent time catching balls.

STEP TWO
Having built your co-ord the same as little boys are allowed to, where do girls go from there? You have to watch women’s sport! Your mothers and aunts need to pitch up for netball or hockey in the same numbers as uncles and dads go to boys’ rugby and cricket matches. You don’t need to go mental like many sideline fathers, trying to relive their youth through their sons, but showing support en mass validates the girls and their sport. It shows an interest in them playing sport. With no spectators watching and maybe even cheering a bit, what are girls to think about sport? ‘Oh, we’re just doing this to keep fit and in reasonable enough shape to draw some male attention’? And your school peers need to also pitch up to watch. But aren’t most of the girls watching the guys play? Probably, and maybe that’s the way the girls want it, and if so, that’s great. No-one should be forced in any way regarding sport; it should be a pleasure and a privilege, not a duty.
Getting onto a more competitive level, with your fledgling sports you’re going to have to use a lot of ingenuity - and that’s something women have in buckets. You can’t expect, at this stage, to have 20 matches going on at 20 different venues and hope to have decent crowds at each game. Not at this stage of women’s sporting revolution. You need to play at central venues, where crowds can congregate at one stadium or ground and wander from match to match. People who come to your match will perhaps stay on to watch another match. That way you’re sharing spectators, and the players are being exposed to greater swells of spectators. Reputations start being built. One step at a time.

BOYS WILL BE THERE, GIRLS
With 600 girls at a stadium for a day of hockey or cricket or soccer or rugby, well, I’ll guarantee that you’re going to start pulling the guys to your matches – I’ll bet my next prosthesis on that fact. If you build it, the boys will come … in droves. They’ll go to check out the babes, of course, but before they know it they’ll start to notice how you play. They’ll get to know about the better players, and word will spread. Legends will be built. Stars will be born. Aquarius will rub the sleep out of her eyes and leap out of bed ready to kick some boy butt. But, better still, why not adopt the methods used by tennis and athletics: piggyback with men’s sport. Hijack their audiences and share their admin and marketing costs. Starting on a small scale, girls should ‘ambush’ the high profile schools weeks, like Craven Week rugby and Nuffield cricket. Select a couple of the best girls sides from around the country and let them play their own matches during Craven Week on surrounding fields. The audience that is there to watch the boys will start getting to know, appreciate and respect girls cricket and rugby… and so the girls will benefit from the exposure.

SO MRS MOHAMMED WENT TO THE MOUNTAIN …
The adult women could play curtain-raisers for professional soccer and rugby matches, while the lady cricketers could play 7-over slogs to fit in with the breaks of play during men’s matches. It would be a great way to expose the male audience to women’s cricket and its players, as well as giving the girls a chance to play in front of large crowds, building their reputations, experience and confidence.
Of course, this brave new women’s sporting world wouldn’t be built in a day, but then neither was the current men’s professional sporting world. It’s taken decades of male support and privilege to attain our pro sporting world, but as women have a goal in mind to chase as well as a blueprint to follow, so potentially they can fast-track their ‘own’ professional world.
Looking forward, the most exciting possibility is not equal money for the big professionals, or more development courses and clinics for girls: no, the most exciting thought is the possibility that sharing equal opportunities to enjoy the world of sports will encourage a breakdown in stereotypes and prejudice. In short, it will bring men and women, girls and boys, husbands and wives closer together in a more natural way. It’ll put us all on the same playing field. That’s fantastic because, although our differences do need to be appreciated and allowed to flourish … we all sure do love playing together!

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

GIRLS ON THE SIDE: Food for thought

2011-08-02T15:21:00.003+02:00

If the above article has you nodding in agreement then perhaps you'll need some help creating a Women in Sport Blueprint… or at least some more conversation pieces for the dinner table.
By Simon Lewis (July 2005)

HOW TO BEAT THE BOYS
• Compete fairly and equally for places along with boys, rather than only playing in your own team. This will help to raise your levels of play and competitiveness. How good would Jacques Kallis be if, for some reason, he had only ever been allowed to play in the women’s cricket league?
• Play tennis to five sets like the men and you’ll build up your stamina and strength. It will discard one more argument against men and women receiving equal prize money at events.
• Find your level to compete at and play against males of equal ability. Improve your play (and that of your male opposition) through genuine and tough competition.
• Play with a men’s side even if it means an SA woman’s Test player playing fourth league with men, or in a boy’s side. That’s how men improve their levels of competitiveness!

WHAT CAN WOMEN DO?
• Play sport, which will give you a frame of reference to …
• Support women and girls playing sport, emotionally or financially.

WHAT CAN WORLD SPORT DO?
• Schedule women to play short exhibition matches during or before high-profile men’s matches and tournaments.
• Include women’s teams at, for instance, boys schools tournaments. Women need the exposure of a shared audience.
• During the men’s major golf tournaments there should be 2-4 women’s two-ball groupings shuffled around the men’s field. The women could play for an informal women’s title if the men feel their participation is in any way unfair. It would be something different for the fans to enjoy and would give women a vital chance to compete on the same stage, even if not for the same prize, as the men. This would further raise their levels of play as well as the public’s awareness of the top women players. Perhaps in ‘exchange’ the women’s tour could include some men who aren’t able to make the senior tour on merit, or perhaps younger men or boys who need to raise their own level or gain a form of exposure. In turn that would give these women players an added incentive and spur to keep progressing themselves with the different challenge presented by having ‘different’ players competing against them.

WHAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN, BUT COULD WORK?
Destroy all sexual segregation in sport. Let sportspeople find their own level in a newly graded system. Slightly weaker men’s golfers would play on what was the LPGA, along with women. The men’s tour can include any women who can hold their own on the tour and can sacrifice their women’s earnings compared to what they will earn on the PGA. What about the LPGA? The divisions could be almost like boxing. Weight and strength is a big factor in sport, so why separate men and women just by sex. Ok, so you can’t define it by weight, as most men’s sport is not divided around weight classifications, but there could be a ranking system of ability divisions. This could work well for many men who are unable to compete against the bigger male opposition, but who want a high level of competition, and perhaps a greater degree of exposure than they would otherwise get. There are many men who can’t make the men’s tour … why not open the ladies tour up to some of them? As soon as any man or woman dominates in a division, they earn the right to move up to the next division, or at least have a chance to play some events at the higher level, to see how they perform. The mixed sex competition should help both sexes, and it will certainly get the sexes playing together and getting an appreciation for one another. Sound crazy? Didn’t the thought of whites having to share ‘their’ buses and trains with blacks sound crazy not so long ago … or sharing ‘their’ sportsfields with blacks …

HOW DOES A SHARED AUDIENCE WORK
Most of the successful and best-known women sport stars are tennis, golf, swimming or athletic stars. All but golf enjoy the benefit of frequent shared stadiums and tournaments. Golf has, however, grown as women have started PLAYING the sport in such large numbers, and there is now greater media coverage of the women’s tour, but the crowds are pretty small compared to the men’s events, and the TV coverage is nowhere near as large as for the men’s tour. The average guy will struggle to name more than two current women golfers on the tour. One of the main reasons for the existing growth in exposure of women’s golf is that women now have a reference point and an aspiration towards golf, and they are the consumers of golfing equipment and paraphernalia.
In tennis, the men’s and women’s tours are separate, but there are a number of tournaments where they play at the same venue. This has helped to get the women stars known to men and women as well as helping them to become high-profile heroes. It’s perfect. There’s less division of ‘who are you paying or spending time to watch’, and marketers promote one event that draws a shared crowd. You pay, go in and watch. And the whole infrastructure is there to split the costs of admin, marketing, event organization and TV logistics.

IF GOD WAS A GAL
1) Male players would always appear topless in post-match interviews, even if they are sweaty and slightly out of breath …
2) Richard Snell would still be in the Proteas side and Bob Skinstad would still be playing for the Bokke… even into their 40s!
3) Women’s endorsements would be based on their ability; men’s endorsements would mostly take into account their listing in the Hot and Handsome 100 ratings.
4) Rugby players would wear cycling pants – shorts can be left in the locker-room.
5) Mark Boucher would be on billboards countrywide ... advertising just the jockstrap!
6) The women’s final at Wimbledon would be played last.
7) And they’d be paid equally!
8) The SA Sports Illustrated Swimwear Issue would feature Keith of Storm Models, Gareth of Outlaws and Rob of Max Models in an exotic location wearing teeny Speedos and tighty-whities.
9) And that’s the only time men would be on the cover of SASI: gals would be on all 11 other covers!
10) Ryk Neethling would be Yahoo’s “most-hit” sports star.
11) AND ... the gals would be channel-hopping through channels 21 to 27 on DStv while the guys would be dancing around in the kitchen wearing just an apron (and I mean, JUST an apron!).

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

Lessons from United vs Liverpool (FA Cup 3rd round)

2011-01-10T18:42:00.000+02:00


Giggs slots the contentious penalty home… but he gave Reina every chance of saving it.

JP Duminy and the non-bad run of form

2010-01-03T23:12:00.002+02:00

There’s something I really like about JP Duminy. He’s compact at the crease yet can unleash a range of dynamic, powerful strokes to change the course of the game. He’s got concentration and resolute determination and has played some match-winning innings already in a short career. His undoubted highlights have been 50 not out in his second Test innings (Perth, December 2008) followed by that scintillating 166 at the MCG in the following Test. The other two highlights were 73 not out against Australia in Durban last year and an accomplished 56 against England. After his 15th innings his average was a respectable although far from earth-shattering 35.38... and he’s just shy of the 500-run mark. Not signs of a Tendulkar or Lara legacy in waiting, although when watching him bat it’s hard not to want to lay money down on him enjoying a lengthy and profitable Test career with the bat.

SELECTORS TAKE NOTE
However, before we let stats get the better of us, it’s vital to mention that SA legend Jacques Kallis’ Test average currently stands on just under 55, yet he’s substantially lower than this mark against Australia (40.58) and England (43.47) – the only two teams Duminy has played against in Tests to date (Duminy’s average against the Baggy Greens is actually currently 48.62!). Hopefully the selectors will take this figures into account before the even contemplate giving his place to someone else in the side.
THE PRICE OF A RUN
Form and confidence are the most important thing for a cricketer and for a batsman in particular there is simply nothing more devastating than a poor run of form. You just don’t know where the next run is coming from and the old saying ‘he couldn’t buy a run’ rings oh-so-true for those struck down by the runless virus.
Duminy made two consecutive golden ducks (2nd innings of the Durban Test, and 1st innings of the 3rd Test at Newlands), which meant that his last three balls faced in Tests have all resulted in him losing his wicket. For England, it was an effective Duminy hat-trick.
SUPPORT FOR BATSMEN
For batsmen it’s important to highlight the difference between a run of bad form and a run of bad luck – and at this point hopefully selectors will also take note. A bad run of form is really when a batsman gets in at the crease and then loses his wicket. Typically, scores below 10 are more down to a run of bad luck rather than a run of bad form – unless, of course, the batsman’s defence has been shocking in getting out, or he’s simply played poor shots. It might seem like splitting hairs, but batting being such a precise and heartless science, it’s vital to know when to give a batsman the benefit of the doubt... as well as not giving a batsman a bad name. Keep telling someone they’re having a bad run of form and, most likely, they’re going to start believing this – and it will have an effect on their play. If you’re just in a run of bad luck then that needs to be dealt with differently in terms of mental preparations and approach. Be careful not to shackle your child, team-mates or pupils with such an incorrect diagnosis. It can be costly to their statistics and devastating to their mental state going into their next innings.

END NOTE
For a Test batsman to keep scoring between 15-35 is effectively a run of bad form. Even getting out for 50s as a top-order Test batsman is really a run of bad form by definition: their ability is such that they should produce better results more often. Two golden ducks in a row is almost certainly more bad luck than bad form, and losing your wicket early in an innings is no indicator of form: sometimes no matter how you try to grit it out you simply can’t avoid an unplayable ball sending you back to the pavilion... or a bad umpiring decision (see the article Taking Your Chances, to follow).

The tempo of the underdog

2010-01-03T23:07:00.000+02:00

Bond moments

2009-08-04T09:58:00.001+02:00

It's that time of year again when women cringe. No, not just winter, it's the time when TV channels roll out the Bond movies, and husbands, boyfriends and children leave mothers in their wake. For guys Bond is the epitome of macho style, wit and athleticism (without looking like you're trying too hard). It's going to be a particular delight to start watching these brittle classics again when my young son moves from Ben 10 to 007. Equally it's going to be great watching Austin Powers movies and laughing at all the rip offs.
You can be sure of good times when Bond is around.
When it comes to sport, however, the lesson is that to be the best in the world you don't need the whole world to know about you. Your every move doesn't need to be watched. It really boils down to going out and finding and enjoying your sporting adventures, at whatever level they might be.
And when Pappa Sport dumps you on the ground just think what Bond would do. He'd get up, shaken but not stirred, and carry on the fight. It's also the attitude you'll need to get the girl, even if you don't get the gold.

The Commitments

2009-08-02T13:06:00.002+02:00

Morne Steyn's 31 points in the Springboks' Tri-Nations triumph over the All Blacks yesterday [South Africa (19) 31 – Try M.Steyn, Con: M.Steyn, Pen: M.Steyn 8; New Zealand (13) 19 – Try Ross, Con: Donald, Pens: Donald 3, McAlister, 1 August 2009, ABSA Stadium] might have been a record for the most points by a player in a Tri-Nations match, however, the joy for South African supporters and rugby fans was in seeing how committed all the Springboks were. Sure, there were a few mistakes, but on the whole the team played as one with a clear focus. Perfect example of this was the sight of Bryan Habana flying Superman-like over a loose ruck trying to block a clearance kick from the base of the All Black scrum. Every man playing together putting as much pressure on the opposition as possible – it was inspiring rugby.
Then there was the audacity of the triple-threat, Francois Steyn, attempting another snap drop-kick from his own half (and failing only due to the swirling wind). That's the sort of confidence and determination required to be the best in the world… or, indeed, to be the best you can be, regardless of your opposition.
Captain John Smit's achievement of leading South Africa for a world record 60th time could not have been honoured in more appropriate fashion by his team who seem unstoppable and, quite possibly, the best team ever to wear the green and gold.

Lies, Damn Lies.... and statistics

2009-07-30T12:41:00.000+02:00

One of the great things about sport is the wealth of statistics that are created as a result of all the sporting competitions that unfold around the world. A mountain of stats and records are the happy byproduct of these competitive unions, and these facts and figures provide the wealth around which our sporting history and future is built. True champions are the ones who look beyond their stats and are willing to compete for the sake of competition, even at the 'risk' of affecting their statistical legacy. Take Michael Schumacher, back for another tilt at the Formula One wheel after a number of years on the sidelines. And there's Lance Armstrong, who put it all on the line for another bash at the Yellow Jersey. If you look at their achievements from a statistical point of view they have nothing to gain. The likelihood is that Schumacher's great record of a podium finish every second race is likely to be eroded as he keeps competing, and for Armstrong their is the failure to win a race he won seven times in a row.
Ironically, lucky number 7 is a common thread between these two champions: Armstrong won the Tour 7 times in a row, and Schumacher retired from Formula One with 7 world championships under his belt.
The truth about it all is that you are only young once, you only have one chance to compete, and the beauty of sport is twofold: there are the memories, the records, the statistics, and the chance to reflect... but there is also the chance to compete, get your hands dirty and get sweaty testing yourself against the best opposition you can find.
Be inspired by these great champions and don't be a slave to records or living in the past.

Daily sports tip

2009-07-29T18:17:00.000+02:00

The daily sports tip will follow shortly, along with an article on the Aerial Umpire.