More power to the third umpire

Tony Becca

UMPIRE Doug Cowie will be remembered for a long time - certainly in the West Indies and Pakistan. The New Zealander was the umpire who rejected Pakistan's appeal for a catch at short-leg with the West Indies last pair at the wicket on the fifth day of the third and final Test match.

There was hardly any doubt the batsman, Courtney Walsh, was out; and the television replay confirmed the ball had gone from bat to pad and into Imran Nazir's hand.

As they say in cricket, however, it is all a part of the game: you win some and you lose some.

While that was acceptable in the good old days, however, there is no reason why, in this day and age, you should win some and lose some.

In those days the umpires had no help. There was no one to call on. Today there is a third umpire who is guided by television replays.

The third umpire, however, is called into action only for some dismissals, and that should not be the case. He should be used for all decisions or none at all.

Why, for example, should one batsman's fate be decided by technology and another is not? And why, after using technology to decide who is out and who is not out earlier in a game, should a Test match be decided on a mistake by an umpire?

At the ARG, for example, the third umpire was called on to determine whether Ridley Jacobs was run out or not, and it was so close he had to look at the replay a number of times before ruling the batsman out.

In the same match, however, the third umpire was not called on to give a verdict after the appeal against Walsh, and the batsman survived.

That simply cannot be right, and something should be done about it.

With the umpire involved only calling on the third umpire when he has a doubt, it may not be easy to do anything about it. One suggestion, however, is the third umpire be given the authority to step in and ensure justice is done.

In other words, if a batsman is caught, the umpire says not out, and the third umpire sees that he is out, he should have the authority to flash the light and send the batsman on his way. In the same way, if a batsman is dismissed off a no-ball, as was the case with Sachin Tendulkar in the Bridgetown Test of 1997, the third umpire should be able to intervene.

There are those who believe such a move would make the umpire meaningless, and that, in many ways, is true. Something, however, needs to be done to ensure that when a batsman is out he goes out and that when a batsmen is not out he stays in.

The time has come for cricket to make up its mind: it is either back to the good old days when umpires were in full control or all technology. It simply cannot continue to be a little of one and a little of the other.

Back to Sport