Cricket has undergone significant transformations. The journey includes not only victories but also bloopers and game changing umpiring mistakes
The elusive cup reached home amidst thunderous applause and the rapturous welcome of the men in blue. As the euphoria settles and the cricketers (a lot richer) and fans (a lot happier) go home, it is time to look back and think about the evolution of the game and its future direction. As ardent followers of the game, it made us think how far we have come from the age of Maharaja Ranjitsinh ji to Kerry Packer to the glam world of the IPL. The history of cricket can only be complete with the history of bloopers, misjudgements and game-changing (quite literally) umpiring mistakes. The love-hate relationship between the Indian cricket team and umpire Steve Bucknor is well known, particularly in the famous monkey-gate test match. We still remember vividly the anger we felt when Sachin Tendulkar was given out LBW in a controversial decision by Bucknor when India toured down under in 2003. However, we have come a long way since then, thanks to the ever-increasing use of technology. The gentleman's game has a rich history of evolution in its rules and regulations, particularly in umpiring. Initially, cricket matches featured just one umpire, but as the game grew in complexity and intensity, it came the system of having two umpires. The second umpire, positioned at square leg, was introduced to assist with decisions that the main umpire at the bowler's end might miss, such as run-outs and stumping, thereby enhancing the accuracy and fairness of on-field decisions. In the 1990s, the third umpire system, enabled by technology, changed cricket umpiring. What the field umpires considered unjudgeable, they could now refer to the third umpire, who in turn can watch theoretically unlimited replays of what transpired before giving a verdict. . . The Decision Review System (DRS), introduced more recently, further revolutionised the game. It allows players to challenge on-field umpire decisions, with the third umpire reviewing the play using various technological aids like ball-tracking and ultra-edge detection. This system has given more power to players and increased the accuracy of decisions. Statistics highlight that out of the 1,201 umpire decisions made during test matches between 2009 and 2014 that were challenged, 310 (25.81%) were overturned by a third umpire. Research that accounted for various match and team factors conducted logistic regressions to demonstrate the following: (1) Leg before wicket (LBW) and caught decisions that are initially deemed "out" by the on-field umpire are more prone to being overturned compared to decisions ruled "not out"; (2) When it comes to both LBW and caught decisions, there is an equal likelihood of the home and away teams winning a reversal by the 3rd umpire.Compared to cricket, sports like football demonstrate a compelling need for on-field officials due to the game's fast-paced nature. Football referees make instantaneous decisions on fouls, yellow and red cards, and offside calls, which are critical for maintaining the flow and fairness of the game. While technology, such as the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), supports these decisions, the subjective nature of many calls—like tackles or handballs—requires the immediate and nuanced judgment of on-field referees. This dynamic is quite similar to cricket, where the on-field umpires' interpretation of situations, like appealing for a catch or judging a no-ball, often involves subjective judgment that technology alone cannot fully replicate.Despite the evident utility of on-field umpires, modern technology has permeated the game so much that the need for having on-field umpires is becoming questionable.
The advancement of technology in cricket umpiring has undeniably enhanced the accuracy of decisions and the integrity of the game. However, technology cannot replace umpires' human touch throughout the game by managing player interactions and upholding decorum. However, the current system of having two on-field umpires now brings an element of redundancy.
One on-field umpire renamed as a referee, supported by comprehensive technological systems and a vigilant remote umpire, could suffice. While the remote umpire can pass decisions aided by technology, the referee could help smooth the conduct of the game and ensure that all the rules and spirit of the game are upheld. This would streamline the officiating process and speed up the game.
This hybrid model that combines the strengths of human wisdom with technological aids could offer the best solution, ensuring the game's efficiency and integrity are upheld. After all, cricket is a gentlemen’s game. It should remain a gentlemen’s game.
(Rahul Pachori is Director, GOI, and Divya Singh Rathore is Senior Policy Specialist, GoI. Views expressed are personal)
