Citing and Referrals

Events in the current Test Series in Australia make it clear that the umpires in televised matches must be given more support wherever possible. Where technology is available, they must be permitted to use it. In international matches today there are four umpires, the third of whom is constantly monitoring play on a television screen. There is no need to change any of the Laws of Cricket for the umpires standing in the middle to consult the third umpire before making a decision.

Last November on this website I made a plea for the match referee to have the power to "cite" players who do not play the game within the Spirit of Cricket and within the Laws (See "Technology in Cricket - Should players be cited?", posted in November 2007). I believe that citing players after scrutinising the replays and also the introduction of "referrals", not by the players, but by the third umpire may well be the only way forward for the international game. Citing by a match referee and the use of referrals by the third umpire would maintain the authority of the umpires and keep the decision-making process where it should be - in the hands of the match officials.

There was a trial in County Cricket in England and Wales in 2007, whereby a batsman or the captain of the fielding team had the right to "make a referral" to the third umpire against a decision made by an umpire on the field. Although there were restrictions put in place to prevent this right being abused, it was not seen as successful or helpful and the trial has been abandoned. I am delighted that this idea has been cast aside, though I am concerned that the ICC Cricket Committee and the MCC World Cricket Committee are considering this again. It goes against the Spirit of Cricket. The Preamble to the Laws states "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture". The players have to appeal in the first place in the case of some dismissals to ask the umpire to make a decision. To have another appeal was always ridiculous. However, there has never been any reason why the umpire at the bowler's end, to whom most appeals are addressed, should not refer to either his partner on the field or the third umpire, if he believes that they can help his decision. Indeed in certain kinds of dismissal it is now strongly encouraged or even mandatory for the umpire to ask for a decision from his colleague watching the replays.

Although it would contradict Law 27.5, regarding the jurisdiction of the umpires, if the third umpire intervened without being asked, it should also be made possible for this official to ask the umpire at the bowler's end to wait before making a decision or on occasions even ask for a "referral" after the decision has been made. Although it would be wrong to change the Laws, which are applicable to all cricket matches at every level of the game, it could be done by means of an ICC Playing Regulation, which would only apply to international matches where television replays are available. It would be infinitely preferable for the third umpire rather than the players to have the chance to question the standing umpire's decision.

Apart from a reluctance to go down the route of technology because it is not always foolproof, there is also a fear that the game would be interrupted too often if every decision were referred to the third umpire. Perhaps the umpires in the middle should be encouraged to consult the third umpire whenever they intend to give a batsman out, rather than after every appeal.

If the game's administrators wish to reduce the amount of dissent on the field of play, they should consider a combination of citing and referrals, which might encourage all international cricketers to play within the Spirit of Cricket.

Roger Knight