Mike Hussey doesn't walk. He made perfectly clear in an interview after Australia's four wicket Triangular Series victory over England on January 19th. While his honesty might be admired by some, the brash admission has added more fuel to the ongoing discussion of umpires, decision making and video technology.
Walking (the act of a batsman giving himself out without need for an umpire's decision) has been a part of the sport since Cricket's earliest beginnings. It is, however, much less commonplace in the modern game. The general trend today is for the batsman to stand his ground and force the umpire to make a decision. Sadly, no matter how good the umpire in question, mistakes can be made and the latest technology used by the media only highlights them further. They say a cricket umpire's job is tough, but it has never been tougher than it is today.
Using Technology
The media and the television viewers get to see every decision from a number of angles and at various speeds. The umpires get to see it once. All they have to go by is what they see, what they hear and the reactions of the players. Their decision has to be made on the spot with the knowledge that millions are watching around the world. It's a position that few of us envy and it's little surprise that umpires get some decisions wrong. There have been calls to give the umpires help using video technology, but maybe that is not the sort of help they really need.
Video technology can, in most instances, guarantee a correct decision. However, that correct decision can also take a long time in arriving. Should the situation ever arise where the on-field umpires refer possible outside edges to the video umpire, you can guarantee long periods of play being lost each day while the third umpire examines footage to ensure an accurate verdict. In addition, if players become aware of the possible use of video technology, the temptation to appeal for “phantom edges” may too strong to resist. Would an umpire be brave enough to turn down an appeal outright, knowing that the technology is there? This could lead to more appealing and more referrals. More widespread use of video technology is certainly a genuine possibility, but most pundits agree that such technology would slow the game down markedly.
Making the Batsman Accountable
At present, there is nothing to stop a player from standing his ground when the opposition are appealing for his dismissal. That is the batsman's right. However, imagine if that all changed. If the batsman were, by cricket law, told that they must walk if they know they are out, how would that affect the game as a whole? Well, firstly (and perhaps most importantly), a great deal of pressure would immediately be removed from the umpire if all batsmen were to give themselves out even for the faintest of edges. The decision would be taken out of the umpire's hands. A correct decision would be guaranteed, without the umpire even being troubled.
This does though raise the question of honesty. Would a player on ninety nine admit to the ball brushing the glove, or would he adopt a poker face and try his luck? That, of course, is down to the individual player, but when you see the levels of sportsmanship shown in the likes of snooker and golf, you wonder why cricket has found itself in a position where dishonesty is acceptable. This, perhaps, is where the technology such as the “snick-o-meter” could come in. Incidents where batsmen have not walked despite vociferous appeals could be examined after the game (with no disruption to the match whatsoever), and if a batsman is found to have been dishonest punishment could be imparted. If offenders are caught and punished with a large fine or a match ban, the temptation to try and con the umpire would diminish overnight.
Did I hit the ball?
Of course, some will argue that batsman don't always know when they've hit the ball. I'd argue that such incidents are incredibly rare. If a batsman gets a nick or a feather off the glove, they know it. Hussey knew he'd hit it; his interviews were telling. Any batsmen away from the media spotlight would admit to the same thing. If the threat of a fine or suspension was hanging over their head, it would be interesting to see how many batsmen suddenly start realising that they did hit the ball after all.
Cricket umpiring is a tough enough job as it is without the cloud of dishonesty and gamesmanship. Perhaps if the cricket world wants to see less bad umpiring decisions then the players should be taking more responsibility themselves. Unfortunately, it's hard to envisage them doing it willingly. Perhaps that is the true “bad decision” in this situation.
