Two decisions, one of which reprieved a South Africa batsman, and the other that did not, encapsulated the iniquitous and anomalous nature of the umpire review system currently under trial. The first concerned AB de Villiers, struck on the pad by Graham Onions, vehement in his appeal, but with the umpire, Steve Davis, not sharing his view. England asked for a referral that showed, if Hawk-Eye, the tracking device, is to be believed (and remember it has a margin of error) was hitting leg stump substantially, if not quite to the middle-of-the-ball hitting-middle-of-stump degree required for an unequivocal electronic decision. So the umpire's original decision pertained, as per protocol in so-called fringe decisions, a bonus for De Villiers and tough on the bowler who knows that had it been given out, and the batsman sought clarification, he would have been on the way to the dressing room.
The second involved the left-hander JP Duminy, given lbw to James Anderson, an outcome that prompted him to seek a review. This time, with all other credentials for lbw in place, Hawk-Eye showed the ball shaving the varnish from the bails. So Duminy was out, victim of a ball that was deemed to be hitting significantly less of the wicket than that from which De Villiers escaped. As if the game is not difficult enough to understand already.
The system, driven through with an almost evangelical zeal by the ICC general manager Dave Richardson, South Africa's former stumper, is very much in its formative stages, a principle being established with an opportunity to iron out wrinkles before it becomes standard practice in all international matches. Thus far, the only strong objection (as opposed to natural frustration on the part of bowlers) has been in the length of time taken to decide whether or not to ask for a referral. Dressing rooms get a direct television feed into their laptops and can get instant replays, the result of which could be signalled. If, following an appeal, the clock is put on, for say 15 seconds, it would concentrate the mind wonderfully.
But think for a moment of the effect on the umpires in all this, the fellows whose decision-making it is designed to enhance, but will also serve to expose. There was a time when umpires would be classified as "outers" or "not-outers" and while there was something strangely acceptable in the latter, to be called an "outer" was a pejorative term, implying too much of a readiness to get the game moving along. Consider the reputation of Dickie Bird, perhaps the most famous umpire of them all. With the exception of one gloriously aberrant match between West Indies and Pakistan, in which Dickie and Steve Bucknor were complicit in giving a world record 17 lbws, Dickie made a career out of avoiding controversy. Dickie was safe all right, but might have his reputation pricked by today's scrutiny.
It seems clear, though, simply through those two decisions , that in attempting to rid the game of howlers it might create a new generation of Dickies, umpires for whom the not-out decision is a better challengeable option than the opposite, and one that will increasingly give the benefit of the close decisions to the batsman rather than the bowler. Whether it be for catches or lbws, a not-out decision that is shown to be out is always considered less heinous than the other way round. When a team has used up its referrals, will the umpires be more inclined to give the benefit to the batsman, fearing such scrutiny? It could happen.
Accepting that this is a work in progress, however, and by no means perfect, there are one or two further things for ICC to consider. It seems ridiculous that a protocol designed to eliminate obviously poor decisions does not include an automatic check on each dismissal to see whether the delivery is legitimate, a matter of a few seconds. Second, whatever the drive towards use of technology, every effort should be made to ensure that the standard of umpiring is enhanced, which, given that the technology is designed to rectify mistakes, should include scrapping the notion of neutrality. The best umpires should be allowed to umpire. For the Ashes next winter, England would be more than happy to see Davis and Simon Taufel, two Australians, in charge. Daryl Harper they might blanch at.
