By Chairam Persaud
Really! No kidding! You joking, Maan! That’s right, cricket fans; the New York City Public School Athletic League (PSAL) Cricket Program has not employed the Decision Review System (DRS). However, it seems that two umpires in a recent PSAL game decided to apply their own DRS. The ruling umpire gave a decision in answer to an appeal by the fielding side. The batsman complained to him, with no result. The batsman then complained to the square leg umpire who indicated to the ruling umpire that he should change his decision. Mind you, the ruling umpire did not seek the help of the square-leg umpire. He did not seek to consult with him. The question I have for these umpires is: Why was the decision changed to Not Out, and on what basis?
Let me tell you who I am. I am an ardent cricket fan. I presently play First Division cricket in Berbice, Guyana. I took some umpire seminar courses and at times do umpire some matches. As an umpire, I am quite familiar with the game and rules, and I am presently on a visit to New York City. Being an ardent cricket lover I was watching a few of the high school games. It brought back memories of when I played high school cricket in Berbice. The most recent game was this one on which I wish to make some comments.
I am writing this piece to bring to the attention of cricket fans some wrong actions taken by the umpires in the cricket game between two high schools, played at the Foch Boulevard cricket ground on Tuesday, April 21st. I must say that I enjoyed watching the youngsters going at it, But, I came away from the game convinced that several umpiring errors marred an otherwise exciting game, and may have impacted the results in favor of one team over the other.
I was surprised to see that a bowler was actually throwing the ball, chucking, as we call it in Guyana… and the umpires stood there and did nothing about it. My surprise turned into anger when the same bowler got three batsmen out. In the first out the batsman was bowled by the illegal delivery. I saw the ruling umpire walk up to the bowler, and in my opinion, was demonstrating how to “take his hand around” in a delivery. I arrived at this conclusion because I saw the umpire cart-wheeling his arm around as if bowling a ball. The second batsman was LBW, again by an illegal (chucking) delivery. No umpire’s intervention. The umpire once again spoke to the bowler. Ditto for the third out. A No-Ball was not called on any of these three deliveries; however, the batsmen had to walk.
Later in the game, the ruling umpire gave a batsman LBW. The batsman indicated to him that he had played the ball. The umpire stood his ground. I then saw the batsman showing his bat to the Square leg umpire, as if saying that he had played the ball. The square leg umpire then signaled to the ruling umpire that the ball had played. The Ruling umpire changed his original decision from Out to Not Out. Is this an unofficial DRS system instituted by the two umpires? It would appear so. Between the time that the batsman was given out and the time the decision was negated, close to a minute had elapsed.
Rule 27.6 of Tom Smith’s new Cricket Umpiring & Scoring, states as follows under the caption:
CONSULTATION BY UMPIRES:
Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give his decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining the decision shall be Not Out.
I would agree that umpires are a team and must work together.
Now, let me dissect Rule 27.6 as it applies to the play. At the instance of the appeal the ruling umpire put his finger up. His decision LBW. The appeal was within his jurisdiction and he acted appropriately. He ruled the batsman Out. He remained firm on his decision, even when the batsman approached and indicted that he had played ball. The umpire did not change his decision. (In International cricket this batsman would request a review of the umpire’s decision; the third umpire would resort to the DRS). Of course in PSAL cricket there is no DRS. The batsman then appealed to the square leg umpire. He then acted as the third umpire (DRS use) and deemed the batsman Not Out. At this stage the ruling umpire changed his decision to Not Out. Bad call.
Further on 27.6: …..If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point.
It is evident that the ruling umpire was not “doubtful about any point” when the appeal for LBW was made, because he resolutely and immediately gave the batsman out LBW. I would assume that it was clear in his mind; that there was no “doubt about any point,” because he rendered a decision. If, in afterthought he realized he’d make a mistake, then he should have immediately nullified his decision. It was only when the square leg umpire employed “HIS DRS” that the ruling umpire changed his decision. On the point of “if an umpire is doubtful… (he may consult) the other umpire who may have been in a better position to see…” How on earth can a square-leg umpire be in a better position to see an LBW? If, as the square-leg claimed, it was a played ball, isn’t the ruling umpiring in a better position to see this? After all, the batsman played straight forward and missed the ball which struck his pads. Something is definitely wrong here!
The fact that an umpire gave a decision solely and independently of the other umpire presumes that this umpire was aware of the facts that led to his decision. He did not consult the other umpire prior to his decision. He was sure that he was making the correct decision. Where the DRS is used, if a batsman upon given out believes that he is not out, he indicates that he wants the play checked using the DRS. If after review the third umpire sees otherwise, he advises ruling umpire on his findings. In this case there was no DRS, so it worries me that the other umpire took it upon himself to be the DRS.
I have worked with kids before at various sports. There is no deterrent to a kid’s zest and eagerness for a sport than for someone in authority, in this case the umpires, to “give him the shaft.” In this case the two umpires, without any basis, made a ruling that “shafted” the fielding side. I would hope that the people running the PSAL cricket would take action, in the case of a bowler who is throwing. It would also be beneficial for umpires to undergo training and/or retraining. After all the kid who feels victimized by an official may very well be the future star of tomorrow.
After the game I learnt that the two officials standing in the game were umpire Mustaq, the ruling umpire, and umpire Baksh, who stood at square-leg during these erratic decisions.
The views expressed here are those of the contributor, and do not necessarily reflect those of www.usacricketers.com