Although it has long been entrusted to the on-field umpires to have the final say on LBW and caught behind dismissals, we are now living in a very different technological age to the one in which the rule was first implemented.

The on-field umpires used to have the best view of such incidents and no one could back up their claims of ‘not out’ with hard evidence as they can today. Ironically, it is now the on-field umpires who miss out on the slow motion replays, Hawkeye simulations and snickometer readings that the average commentator and television viewer receives as standard.

Of course, any decision can be referred to the third umpire, who does have access to everything technology can tell him, but unless asked his opinion specifically by the referrals of his on-field colleagues, he cannot intervene on the decisions they make. 

'The third umpire needs to be given power to intervene should he believe an error has been made'


The invention of Hawkeye has allowed viewers a chance to see the umpires’ decisions proved or disproved before their eyes and recognise the dismissals that were incorrectly given, but is it really fair to criticise the umpires for not having the same abilities as a specially designed computer?

The obvious answer is to give the umpires the same resources that the viewers have, but this has already been thought of and implemented in the form of the third umpire, so why does the problem remain?

The fact that the third umpire needs to be asked by the on-field umpires before giving a verdict is where the system is flawed. The third umpire needs to be given power to intervene should he believe an error has been made. Of course, this should only be the case in clear errors, not when Hawkeye shows that the ball may just have clipped the stumps.

A system was trialed in county cricket in 2007 where the captain of each side was allowed to appeal for referrals. The low limit on the number of unsuccessful referrals that could be made meant that they were mostly only used when there was a strong chance of having a decision overturned and also reduced confrontation on field as disputes could be dealt with quickly and professionally.

Refreshingly, the system nearly always backed up the on-field umpires, going a long way to increasing the public’s faith in them. The trial was scrapped at the end of the 2007 season due to lack of technology available to make the system accessible for all matches, but showed promise in the way it was handled and received.

The IPL is a perfect example of an environment in which decisions are crucial and every match is televised, meaning the needed technology for referrals is always accessible. If each side was allowed two unsuccessful referrals per innings, controversial decisions could become a thing of the past.

Instead of allowing ill-feeling to brew, a doubtful captain could ask for a confirmation from the third umpire and either have his mind set at rest or have the decision reversed if it was proved to be an error.

As proved in 2007, this system does not undermine the on-field umpire. More often than not it proved them right, putting an end to any dissent about a decision. If teams were allowed to contest controversial decisions, cricket could rid itself of rows like those which blighted the recent Test series between India and Australia.

It would not be handing over control as such, the umpires work as a team and whether on field or off it, they would still have the last say.