By Mahinda Wijesinghe
Lately, umpires and umpiring have been much in the news. Unfortunately, all for the wrong reasons. The old story of 'the umpire's word is law' which we learnt as nippers doesn't seem to hold much water today, going by the look of things. No, 'must have a look at the re-play' the housewife and the sweep-sellers, all say. Reminds me of the old cricket joke of the batsman who says to the umpire when given unfairly - he thinks-out, as he walks to the pavilion: "I wasn't out, you know". To which the umpire replies. "You go and have a look in the scorebook, son." Irresponsible comments by broadcasters posing off as cricket commentators who pass sweeping judgements on umpires' decisions have added fuel to an already growing fire.

BETTER TEST SECOND-HAND PARACHUTES
Judging by the slo-mo cameras and the sophisticated technology available today, modern umpires may sometimes feel that it would be better testing second-hand parachutes than donning the white coat at an international fixture. The full-throated appeals from most of the fielders with, sometimes, the home-country spectators joining in, and, knowing that the slo-mo cameras will reveal all can be unnerving to all except the steel-nerved. When players appeal in unison, knowing quite well that the batsman has not committed an error, it is tantamount to cheating. Trying to fool a fellow professional. After all, the players and umpires and deemed professionals. And, dog does not eat dog. Says Steve Buknor, the respected Jamaican umpire: "The level of gamesmanship that goes on is unfair to the game, unfair to the umpires and unfair to the batsmen. Players will appeal for almost anything, knowing that 9 out of 10 decisions will not go their way, but if they think that they can put sufficient pressure on the umpire he may break. I believe that is cheating. If you know the batsman is not out, then you should not ask for a decision to be given against him." Speaking in almost the same vein, England's International umpire, David Shepherd, declares: "If a player knows that he is out and does not leave his ground he is cheating. Some people might say that he has cheated the umpire but he has actually cheated his fellow professionals."

Gone are the days when a batsman 'walks' before the umpire lifts the finger. It is said that the only occasion a modern-day batsman 'walks' would be when his car runs out of petrol!

With so much of greenbacks on offer who would?

RICHARD HUTTON ON UMPIRING
At the same time, is it fit and proper to expect (generally) middle-aged umpires to perform without committing errors in the modern cauldron of international cricket? Let us look at the recently concluded England v South Africa series, which the former surprisingly won 2-1. The umpiring came in for some heavy flak. Here are some excerpts of the reports written on the series by the respected editorial director of the London Cricketer magazine, Richard Hutton, son of the legendary, the late Sir Len Hutton:

"The match was poorly umpired. Disputable decisions were too numerous. There was also a quantity of wide bowling that went unpenalised, as well as two five-ball overs..."

Ramprakash... is adjudged caught behind off his elbow, his reaction to which earns an interview with the Match Referee, a fine and a suspended ban... Thorpe does get an edge but is given not out... England also have the balance of the benefit of the umpiring."

"Kirsten's dismissal is questionable on two counts whether or not the ball pitched outside leg-stump and its height... the loss of Atherton (lbw) to the first ball of the day, beaten by Donald's break-back - despite getting a touch... What South Africa thought of the umpires is probably unprintable. The closing stages are enlivened by a feud between Donald and Atherton, having made 27, not being given out when caught at the wicket off his glove..."

"England, for a change, are the obvious beneficiaries of some doubtful umpiring decisions. Ramprakash... finds himself on the wrong end of an appeal for a catch appearing to come off his forearm..."

But, it was cricket correspondent, Englishmen Ted Corbett who put it most succinctly when he sympathised with the touring South Africans, who lost the series 1-2, by declaring in the Sportstar magazine.

"The tour finished unhappily with the worst of the most bizarre umpiring results I can remember and defeat in a series they should have won 3-0."

CAN THE THIRD UMPIRE INTERVENE?
What is the remedy? Well, the obvious one would be to remove the money from cricket! But, that would be impractical. It would be almost like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube. In July this year, 19 international umpires and 19 Match Referees - including Sidath Wettimuny and Ranjan Madugalle - met in London to discuss their mutual problems. In the absence of an official statement of what transpired at this meeting one cannot comment on the usefulness of such pow-wows.

However, having watched a fair amount of international cricket, especially on the TV and having studied the comments of experts who matter, I am of the view that, if in the opinion of the Third Umpire the field umpire has apparently committed an error, for instance, declaring a batsman out caught when the ball appeared to have touched the batsman's elbow, the former should - in consultation with the Match Referee? - buzz his colleague and ask him to rethink his decision. After all, if technology is available, why not make use of it to obtain the most accurate of results? Presently, the Third Umpire has no such power, but that could be bestowed. After all, if technology can help, why not maximise its uses?