It was a really tense afternoon in Sydney with India trying hard to save the second Test match against Australia earlier this year. Rahul Dravid and Saurav Ganguly were doing a fine job of pushing the match towards a draw when it happened. Andrew Symonds with his gentle off spin got a ball to flip Dravid?s pads on its way to Adam Gilchrist behind the stumps. All of Australia went up in appeal and umpire Bucknor concurred. It was the beginning of the end for India. Questions were asked of Gilchirst?s notion of fair play but in the ultimate analysis this dubious verdict went a long way to giving Australia a 2-0 lead in the series. Interestingly, this wasn’t the only dubious decision. Even worse was the Michael Clarke catch of Saurav Ganguly. Clearly grassed, this signaled the end of India?s resistance. There?s little doubt that had the Sydney Test been played today, Australia would not have won for both these decisions would have been challenged by the Indians. And once challenged, there?s little doubt that both would have been overturned.
Without a shade of doubt then it can be argued that this new law of challenging on field decisions will make the contemporary game all the more fair. At the same time it will add to the respectability of the on field umpires as well. For example, Steve Bucknor who was forcibly removed after a really bad Sydney Test match, had to go back to the West Indies in shame. Had it been the case today, Bucknor would certainly have officiated in the third Test match for all his mistakes would have been rectified within minutes. The argument that the referral system reduces on field umpires to mere puppets is hardly true. Rather, it gives the on field umpires the confidence to officiate without that bit of extra pressure integral to modern sport. If they make a wrong decision, it is now upon the captains to challenge the decision. If the decision isn?t challenged the umpire always has the fall back option to suggest that even the captains believed the decision was correct.
For the players too, the referral is a good innovation. Sachin Tendulkar, on the verge of yet another historic milestone, will surely agree that the 172 runs standing to break Lara?s mark would have been achieved years earlier had this system been in place. The number of times Sachin has wrongly been given out in recent times is astounding. Interestingly, even Simon Taufel, the best umpire in the world, has wrongly ruled him out on more than one occasion. For teams that rely on individual talent more than team strength, the referral system is of singular importance. That one decision against a Tendulkar or a Dravid can swing the match away from India for they have been the key to India?s Test match success for over a decade.
Perhaps the only argument against the system of referrals is that it will rob the game of that element of uncertainty so integral to cricket. In fact, the whole mystique and romance surrounding the game is built on the cardinal principle that cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties and this innovation is actually turning the game into a robotic entertainment. However, when billions are involved and when nationalist fortunes hinge on the outcome of cricket matches, sacrificing romance is only a minor penalty to pay.
(The writer teaches at La Trobe University)