An Australian newspaper summed up the excitement of the Headingley Test thus: “Ben Stokes was out, so third Test heroics should not have counted”. What a joyless, miserable existence some who write on sports lead! England and Australia play out one of the great Tests of recent years, the former squaring a series that was about to get lopsided, and it is all down to the umpire? How short-sighted!

The argument was that with two runs to win, Stokes was leg before to Nathan Lyon; the umpire said it was not out and Australia had no reviews left. If all sports were to be decided by what should have been, we might have to change the results of most finals. On the other hand, while perfection is something to strive for, it is the imperfection — from umpires, from players — that is the basis of discussions across generations!

Impossible always

Just the other day Stokes took England to a World Cup win, inadvertently deflecting the ball to the fence in the act of diving for the crease. The batsmen may or may not have crossed before the fielder threw the ball. But it is impossible to always get the batsmen, the fielder and the camera in a straight line to make such a call.

We scream, therefore, that the umpire made a mistake. It is the most convenient excuse in all sport. What if, as has been suggested, Stokes was not leg before after all, the deflection off his front pad having been missed by the ball tracking technology? We are less tolerant of human beings than of machines.

Stokes was quoted as saying, “DRS got that completely wrong. It flicked my front pad first and didn’t spin. I thought as soon as it hit me it was sliding down.”

When the DRS was introduced, the third umpire was expected to behave like a well-brought up child, and speak only when spoken to. Umpires across the world are agreed on one thing: however they do it, and whether the matter is in their do’s-and-don’ts book or not, the aim is to arrive at the right decision.

At the international level, umpiring has become a team activity, having evolved from a jurisdictional one. The on-field umpires are in regular communication with the third umpire who often tips them off on possible areas of dispute — for example, a no-ball when a bowler cuts the return crease. The signals among umpires are subtle and not usually picked up by the cameras or commentators. But they are effective and don’t interfere with the flow of the game.

TV Directors are advised not to rush into replays so the third umpire can sometimes tip off the on-field umpire while a team decides whether to go for a review or not.

Unwritten rule

The question, after the two incidents involving Stokes is: can a third umpire intervene to give a decision without being asked by the on-field umpire? According to the rule book, the answer is no. But, as in so many things in cricket, umpires have worked out their own protocol that goes beyond what is written, to ensure that in the end, the decision is the right one.

On-field umpires usually “go upstairs” (as the horrible expression used by commentators has it) only on appeal, or spontaneously for double checking boundaries, low catches, stumpings and run outs. In the World Cup scenario, did Stokes and Rashid Ali cross before New Zealander Martin Guptill’s throw ricocheted off Stokes’s bat? Yes, assumed the on-field umpire, giving England six runs. No, said experienced umpire Simon Taufel. Should the on-field umpires have checked with the third umpire? Perhaps they should have, in keeping with the unwritten rule that above all, the goal is to get it right.

The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), custodians of the laws of the game is set to review this next month.

Little sense

As for the Stokes leg before at Headingley, it makes little sense to give a team any number of reviews. There will always be one decision more than reviews available that could be crucial.

Perhaps once the reviews are used up, the third umpire can enter the picture on his own, and either endorse or overrule a decision. The argument against this has been that it will mean more time wasted. But even assuming it takes a full minute, it will probably mean five or six minutes wasted in a whole match. Remember, we are speaking here only of the marginal cases. Getting it right is worth the time.

Umpiring has been in the news recently, as usually happens, for the wrong reasons. The Ashes has seen howlers, some of which were corrected. Not all bad decisions are howlers, though.

Perhaps it is time for cricket to give the third umpire a bigger role to play. Teamwork is as important among umpires as among players. I like what Taufel once said, “There are three teams that play the game of cricket, and only one that doesn’t care who wins. That’s our team.”