Spoiling gentleman’s game

CRICKET became known as “the gentleman’s game” long before professionalism, national pride, television, super stardom and big money turned it into such a fiercely competitive sport. Too much, in fact, now depends on Test results for blatantly bad and incompetent umpiring to be tolerated in gentlemanly fashion as just the inevitable results of human error. The history of the game in modern times is replete with examples of grossly unfair umpiring decisions which have not only robbed players of opportunities to enhance their personal records but actually changed the course of Test matches and even led to distorted results.

For whatever reasons, it seems the particular misfortune of the West Indies is to become the “victims” of such bad decisions and it is time, we believe, for the WICB to call on the International Cricket Council to take some positive action to remedy this aggravating weakness in the “gentleman’s game.” As far as we are concerned, two decisions of Australian umpire Daryll Harper against the West Indies in their first innings at Lords on Friday were so atrocious and strategically damaging that we consider them the last straw. Star batsman Brian Lara was given out caught behind when any normally sighted person could have seen that the ball passed more than an inch away from the bat. Every West Indian watching the match would have shared Lara’s grief and dismay at such an unbelievable decision. With the Windies replying to England’s massive first innings total of 568, Lara’s ridiculously unfair dismissal at 11 by umpire Harper was an acutely painful blow which may well cost us the match.

It is important to note that Lara himself has suffered from several such bad decisions in the past, but this travesty at Lords on Friday must have been the most agonising. His anguish was evident in his startled look at Harper and his reluctance to leave the wicket. One of the admirable traits of WI’s record breaking batsman has always been his sense of sportsmanship which is seen in his unhesitating departure from the wicket, often not even glancing at the umpire, whenever he is legitimately out. His reaction to the umpire’s decision on Friday spoke volumes. Aggravating the pain was the fact that it was Harper’s second blow against the West Indies. Earlier on, the Aussie umpire had sent opener Chris Gayle back to the pavilion on an LBW decision that was dubious to say the least. The tallish batsman stretching forward to sweep one from spinner Giles was hit on the pad by a ball that, as the third umpire later revealed, was clearly beating the leg stump. Even if he was in doubt, Harper should have given the benefit to Gayle but, instead, he produced a decision that was a severe setback for the Windies since Gayle at 66 was in full flight and seemed nicely set for a century and more.

In light of such flagrantly bad umpiring which horribly spoils the “gentleman’s” game, it is our view that the time has come for a more extensive use of the “third umpire” or electronic eye which is now referred to only in controversial cases of stump outs and run outs or to decide on the legitimacy of catches in the field. Technology, it seems to us, can solve this annoying problem; if Harper had called for the “third umpire” before raising his finger at Lara, he would have made the correct decision. Apart from that, we wonder how many bad decisions must an umpire make, how many matches must he spoil, before something is done about him. Should not cricket umpires be subject periodically to tests as football referees are? We expect the WICB to take the appropriate action.