Sport

Referral system raises several points

— Photo: AFP

CLOSE ONE: Virender Sehwag was probably unlucky to be ruled out leg before through the referral system in the second innings of the first Test.

GALLE: Sri Lanka’s mastery over India in the first Test at the Sinhalese Sports Club (SSC) in Colombo wasn’t confined to batting, bowling, and catching; the host’s use of the umpire referral system was better thought-out as well.

The system raised several points of interest. For one, it exposed the hypothesis that the use of technology will eradicate umpiring errors.

For another, it confirmed that the perfect decision is no nearer with the sophistication of technology.

There is no such thing as the perfect decision, never has been; there are merely obvious decisions (in that they are immediately perceptible) and ones that need informed judgment.

Fortunately, the ICC’s ambitions were modest. “We mustn’t forget what the real objective of this process is,” said ICC general manager (cricket) Dave Richardson. “That is to avoid obvious and clear mistakes.”

For an innovation to succeed, particularly one that involves so critical a facet, it must be demonstrably better than the system preceding it. Which, in this case, translates to umpire referrals leading to consistently better informed decisions in a manner that is fair to both sides.

The evidence of the first Test suggests that there certainly will be more information available to the umpires. But while that will help some decisions, it will confuse others.

The system is defined and thus limited by the technology, its set-up, and its interpretation. “The technology might be accurate, but it is only as accurate as it is set up,” said Richardson.

The referrals involving Tillakaratne Dilshan (first innings) and Virender Sehwag (second) were two instances where the on-field umpire may have been better off trusting his intuition.

Dilshan immediately asked for a review of a caught-behind decision. This implies that he was convinced he hadn’t nicked it. Strange as it may seem, there are rare occasions when even the batsman isn’t aware — and this has happened in international cricket.

The technology officially used to determine nicks involves slow motion replays and the sounds from the stump microphones. Neither was conclusive in this instance. Yet Snickometer, which isn’t being used because its accuracy isn’t beyond doubt, registered a spike in sound as the ball passed the bat, the sort that corresponds, we are told, to bat hitting ball.

Now there were other sounds involved — just to illustrate the complexity inherent, consider what Michael Holding, one of cricket’s most intuitive minds, said during a similar instance.

On crumbling surfaces, he said he had seen pieces of soil — loosened by the ball pitching on the playing strip — hitting the bat and producing a similar sound to a nick. The point being made here is that the umpire went against his instinct, reversing the decision because technology offered no conclusive proof to support either case.

A similar reversal of a decision made by instinct occurred in the Sehwag case.

The ball shaved the front pad before hitting the back pad. The ball-tracking technology didn’t seem to register this deviation. The impact on the back pad showed the batsman was in front.

But when it had hit the front pad, the off-break, which turned barely a smidge, couldn’t conclusively have been deemed to be heading towards the stumps.

Decision-making involves complexity — much like batting. Batsmen perform best when in the zone, when they can’t cognitively access how their mind works.

The best results in umpiring seem to spring from a similar state of mind, from intuition. With the referral system, umpires may begin to over-think, and lose the ability to respond spontaneously.

It is a difficult balance to achieve. The ICC must test Hot Spot, the technology based on thermal images, and remain open to any other that improves the information available.

The most evolved system with the technology currently available will involve the television umpire intervening only in the most obvious cases, and trusting the instincts of his on-field colleagues when the technology is inconclusive.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu