Back to cricket's dark ages

The removal of the umpiring referral system has already claimed its first victim - after a Test series devoid of unseemly incidents, the one-days have already got mired in avoidable controversy with the harsh punishment of Munaf Patel by the match referee for questioning an umpiring decision

The Test series spoilt us: We got so used to correct decisions being made, thanks to a referral system which allowed players to appeal for TV reviews, that the TV audience must have been just as worked up as Munaf Patel, when umpire Gamini Silva gave Kulasekara not out after he was caught plumb in front. It was an in-cutter, and hit the back pad below the knee-roll. What's more, he was involved in a rescue act after Sri Lanka collapsed to 42 for 6. As it turned out, his partnership with Thushara almost saved the day for Lanka, because India eventually won with only three wickets to spare to square the one-day series 1-1.

The umpire being Sri Lankan added to the piquancy of the moment, as Munaf appealed a second time, Yuvraj asked why the batsmen had been let off, and captain Dhoni ran up to the umpires when they got on to the walkie-talkie - not to review the umpire's blooper but to lodge a complaint against the bowler. The injustice of it only got compounded at the end of the day, when match referee Chris Broad slapped Munaf Patel with a level 2 offence and docked 75% of his match fee, despite the bowler pleading "not guilty" to the charge of "using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature…".

Munaf did admit to talking back aggressively, which should at worst have got him a lighter penalty. But the English match referee Chris Broad has a dubious history of handing out harsh punishments to Asian players for things like "excessive appealing", while never having found bowlers from Australia, New Zealand or South Africa crossing the line.

He has also reported five Asian bowlers for chucking, while never doubting the actions of bowlers from Australia or New Zealand. Why he continues as referee despite protests by Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan is another issue.

The point here is that we have just had an example of a Test series where things like the bias of umpires, or racism of referees, and confrontations on the field were largely pushed to the background because players were given a right of appeal against umpiring decisions, and barring one or two cases in the first Test when the system was first introduced, most people would agree that the reviews helped in arriving at the correct verdict. And yet, while the debate goes back on forth on the imperfections in the referral system, we're back to the split-second decision-making and no-questions-asked system that has led to bad vibes between players, officials, boards, fans and even nations.

In an earlier column, I had argued against waiting for the perfect referral system before adopting it. Now there are more reasons for the ICC to move quickly on it, because otherwise, with referees like Broad, another Sydney is just waiting to happen, when a team gets so incensed that it considers pulling out of a tour and puts the ICC's viability itself under a strain, particularly now with the huge success of the league model.

Ironically, the referrals allow umpires themselves to go about their work better without the pressure of the constant scrutiny and criticism of their decisions. In this instance, Gamini Silva might well have thought Kulasekara had edged the ball onto the pad, or that it had struck the pad just outside the line of the off-stump, in which case he was right to have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. With a referral, it would've gone to the third umpire and whatever his verdict after the TV replays, it's unlikely Munaf would've got as agitated as he did, or that Silva's impartiality would've come into question. Best of all, Chris Broad would've been kept out of the picture.

c_sumit@dnaindia.net