Case of a bad umpire

EVERY sport, of course, requires umpires or referees who are responsible for maintaining order, for ensuring that the game is played according to the rules and that fairplay is administered to all the participants. When these officials fail to fulfil their responsibilities, especially when they allow their own feelings and prejudices to affect their decisions, they not only corrupt the integrity of the contest but they themselves become a disgrace to their occupation and to the sport over which they are supposed to preside. Over the years, in the field of Test cricket, we have seen the West Indies suffer from blatantly bad umpiring decisions but, in keeping with the tradition of “the gentleman’s game” and with the unwritten rule that the “umpire’s decision is final,” we have refrained from making a serious issue of this unfortunate aspect of the game.

But these bad decisions have persisted and, in recent times, have grown even more frequent and ridiculous, to the extent where we must now consider them intolerable, a matter requiring protest action by the West Indies Cricket Board. Indeed, they have become all the more painful for us because Windies captain and record breaking batsman Brian Lara has been the most requent victim of these demoralising displays of umpiring. Now our vexation over this whole question of partial or dishonest umpiring is compounded by the totally absurd conduct of Portuguese umpire Mariana Alves who presided over the quarter final encounter between Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati in the US Open at Flushing Meadows on Tuesday. Unbelievably, on four occasions this umpire ruled unfairly against the defending champion when, at least in three instances, Serena’s return fell clearly and unmistakably on the line or inside the court, and should have been winners.

The situation became almost bizarre when, in the fifth and deciding set, Serena slammed a backhand drive inside the sideline only to hear the umpire declare, “advantage Capriati.” Alves, in fact, had overruled the line judge who had correctly signalled that the ball was in. Not unnaturally, Serena became considerably rattled when her protestations failed to have any effect on the impassive umpire. She went on to lose her serve and the match, but not before falling victim again, for the fourth time, to Alves’s absurd decisions. One of her winners was called wide when a television replay showed it had, in fact, landed on the line. Could the US Open champion have kept her emotionl equilibrium, given of her best and gone for her shots in such a situation? We doubt it. But outwardly, Serena seemed able to regain her composure after her protest and maintained it throughout the rest of the match which, in our view, has done her great credit.

Although after the match Serena said she felt cheated, we would hesitate to assert that she was clearly robbed of the match by these conspicuous umpiring errors. But they may well have contributed to her defeat in a match that was enormously exciting, brilliantly played by both sides and excruciatinly close, a flawed classic. On the other hand, it seemed disappointing that Jennifer didn’t have the quality of sportsmanship to refuse to accept the points which were clearly not hers. Getting back to our central point, we must now ask, what is the difference between tennis umpires such as Alves and those who preside over Test cricket and besmirch the game by their grossly faulty decisions? The answer is this: international cricket authorities show little or no concern over increasing instances of incompetent umpiring or any desire to discipline the culprits while, in the case of Alves, she has been sidelined by the US Open administrators and will take no further part in the tournament. We feel she should have been banned for life, but at least some action has been taken. Meanwhile, back at the ICC it’s business as usual.