Are TV Replays fair to Umpires and Referees ?
I used to greatly enjoy watching first-class cricket, but the trouble with watching this sport is that most of us just can't spare three or five days at a time to watch a game. I have not managed to attend a match in person since that glorious morning at the Oval twenty years ago when England last won the Ashes. That's if you don't count about half an hour's play of a match against New Zealand which was otherwise rained off.
However, so many of my work colleagues have been raving about how good the present test series is that I have been unable to resist the temptation to watch some of it for myself. Yesterday I was working in my office at home in Cumbria with an internet panel open with the scoreboard. When something really interesting like a wicket or Flintoff's century came up I nipped into the living room to catch the replay on the TV.
I have been delighted to see England playing so well, but could not resist a degree of sympathy for the Umpires. They have to make a decision on the spot, using the Mark One eyeball, at a speed of 1:1 and with no replay. Admittedly one of their options is to refer to the Third Umpire who has the advantage of a slow motion replay and a zoom camera, but if the first two umpires did that all the time the game would slow to a crawl.
If under these handicaps an Umpire or Referee makes a mistake, everyone who watches the TV can see slow motion replays with a zoom lens of what actually happened, and it is very easy to make someone who has made a decision without such advantages look like a twit.
At the start of their first innings yesterday, Australia lost three quick wickets to Leg-Before-Wicket decisions. The replays showed that one of these decisions was almost certainly right, another was probably right, but the remaining decision was probably wrong.
Is it unfair to show this ? Well I suppose it probably is, but I can't see that banning TV from showing the replays is going to do anything but make matters worse. You don't get improvements in performance without watching to learn where you get it wrong, and if the original action takes place in public it is unreasonable to stop people making an assessment in public - of the Umpires as much as the players.
If football and cricket matches are to be decided on the field rather than in law courts, we have to continue the tradition that Umpires and Referees are right even when they are wrong - and if we start trying to suppress the information when a decision is wrong that will simply undermine confidence in referees and umpires.
It is awkward that everyone can see when an Umpire makes a bad mistake, but at least we can also see that they get the majority of decisions right. And if they did not, something could be done about it.
As I write this, England have enforced the follow on against Australia, which is the first time anyone has been in a position to do this to an Australian test side for 17 years. Australia need 37 to avoid an innings defeat with six second innings wickets in hand. I have learned never to make overconfident predictions about sporting events or elections, but that is a good position to be in.
Whether or not we get the Ashes back, my colleagues were right: there really has been some good cricket in this series. Hooray !
However, so many of my work colleagues have been raving about how good the present test series is that I have been unable to resist the temptation to watch some of it for myself. Yesterday I was working in my office at home in Cumbria with an internet panel open with the scoreboard. When something really interesting like a wicket or Flintoff's century came up I nipped into the living room to catch the replay on the TV.
I have been delighted to see England playing so well, but could not resist a degree of sympathy for the Umpires. They have to make a decision on the spot, using the Mark One eyeball, at a speed of 1:1 and with no replay. Admittedly one of their options is to refer to the Third Umpire who has the advantage of a slow motion replay and a zoom camera, but if the first two umpires did that all the time the game would slow to a crawl.
If under these handicaps an Umpire or Referee makes a mistake, everyone who watches the TV can see slow motion replays with a zoom lens of what actually happened, and it is very easy to make someone who has made a decision without such advantages look like a twit.
At the start of their first innings yesterday, Australia lost three quick wickets to Leg-Before-Wicket decisions. The replays showed that one of these decisions was almost certainly right, another was probably right, but the remaining decision was probably wrong.
Is it unfair to show this ? Well I suppose it probably is, but I can't see that banning TV from showing the replays is going to do anything but make matters worse. You don't get improvements in performance without watching to learn where you get it wrong, and if the original action takes place in public it is unreasonable to stop people making an assessment in public - of the Umpires as much as the players.
If football and cricket matches are to be decided on the field rather than in law courts, we have to continue the tradition that Umpires and Referees are right even when they are wrong - and if we start trying to suppress the information when a decision is wrong that will simply undermine confidence in referees and umpires.
It is awkward that everyone can see when an Umpire makes a bad mistake, but at least we can also see that they get the majority of decisions right. And if they did not, something could be done about it.
As I write this, England have enforced the follow on against Australia, which is the first time anyone has been in a position to do this to an Australian test side for 17 years. Australia need 37 to avoid an innings defeat with six second innings wickets in hand. I have learned never to make overconfident predictions about sporting events or elections, but that is a good position to be in.
Whether or not we get the Ashes back, my colleagues were right: there really has been some good cricket in this series. Hooray !
Comments