In a brilliant bit of PR work which only shows how superior their white-collar bureaucratic instinct is to their ability to play spin bowling on the pitch, the England captain and coach went and met the match referee Javagal Srinath. After this meeting, they put out a statement which ought to go down as a classic
"The captain and head coach acknowledged the challenges the umpires faced and asked respectfully that in making any decisions there was consistency in the process. The match referee said the captain was asking the right questions of the umpires."
Translation: “We went to the headmaster and he said we are right to feel the way we do.”
Srinath’s response reminded me of stories and advice columns which are published on a weekly basis to help harassed parents who are coping with the new reality of having to deal with their small children at home 24x7. Here’s an example. It says
“The number one thing to do when your child is throwing a tantrum or a fit is to give your child a chance to speak and feel heard. Before you go fixing the situation, identify, empathize with their feeling and then go on to pacify them.”
What are these specific frustrations? The England spokesperson’s statement does not say beyond some vague stuff about “consistency of process”. But England opener Zak Crawley (he made a stroke filled 53) spoke to reporters after the day’s play and said the following (as reported by ESPNCricinfo’s George Dobell above):
"When we batted, Jack Leach had a similar sort of one [low catch, similar to the Stokes dismissal] where it didn't quite carry and it seemed like they looked at it from five or six different angles," Crawley said. "When we were fielding it seemed like they looked at it from one angle.
"That's where the frustrations lie. I can't say whether they were out or not out, but I think the frustrations lie with not checking more thoroughly."
So what’s the fix? It lies in the rules. The rules for an umpire review for a catch require that the umpire requesting the review make a soft-signal indicating what he or she thinks the provisional decision is. In the case of both Stokes’s catch off Gill and Pujara’s catch off Leach, the soft-signal by the umpires was “Out”. This means that, absent conclusive evidence to the contrary, they would give it out. The TV Umpire’s job is to look for conclusive evidence for reversing the decision.
It follows from this that in cases where the umpire fails to find conclusive evidence, more replays, more video angles, and more time would be required. In cases where conclusive evidence is available, that’s the end of the matter. As the rules say “The third umpire shall determine whether the batsman has been caught”. The algorithm is “keep looking until you see something conclusive. If you have exhausted all available data, and can’t conclude, report that your inquiry was inconclusive.”
So Srinath would have to patiently explain to England that in both cases, the TV Umpire was doing his job properly by looking for conclusive evidence to reverse the provisional decision. In other words, Srinath might add for effect, by looking long and hard in the Pujara case, the TV Umpire was looking for evidence which might help the batsman - Leach.
This joke stops being funny though because the English Test team are not small children throwing a tantrum (however close this resemblance might appear to be). They’re a cunning, sophisticated, competitive outfit which knows that given the unique situation (created by the covid-19 pandemic) which makes neutral, third country umpires an impossibility, they have essentially a free hit at the umpires in this series.
They can continue to cultivate the impression which thus far has been masterfully nourished by the visuals of several genuinely great players - Joe Root, James Anderson, Stuart Broad, and Ben Stokes - surrounding the umpires in prolonged conversation as pictures of close decisions flicker on the screen, and an informal army of English cricket journalists and ex-players lend a hand with their words, tweets and videos, that the umpiring is sub-standard at the very least, or biased at worst.
Now, England are a professional, competitive team. And they’re within their rights (if you ask me) to push for every advantage they can. And if they’re in trouble on the pitch, they’re going to fight harder and dirtier. This is entirely legitimate. I’m not one to expect fair play from competitors. I expect competitiveness from competitors. All teams do this.
But what’s the excuse of for the rest of us who are watching? Consider the BBC’s Day 1 match report. It makes no mention of the umpires other than to say that “England's frustrations over umpiring decisions were perhaps misplaced”. But this stands in stark contrast to the relentless complaints about process on their day long live blog and podcast. They speak from both sides of their mouth as it were.
What is the consequence? The consequence is that when the history of this series is written, there will be the inevitable line about “the visitors unhappiness with the home umpiring”. And there will be the inevitable picture showing several top English players surrounding the umpire on the field. That is the seed which the visitors have sought to plant, on and off the field. And they’re going to succeed (even though the umpiring has been magnificent in this series). It is a deadly, destructive business. It must wear the umpires down.
Unlike small children, England are not going to move on to the next shiny thing and be brilliant and funny again. If they can’t win, then with their willing partisan allies like Agnew and others on the red top tabloids with their vast circulation, they’re going to wrestle the opposition into the mud and leave a permanent stain next to the result. Its not a pretty sight. The English players enthusiasm for such skulduggery probably does not match that of Agnew and co. In this, the players do actually resemble small children closely - they are brilliant and funny and get angry and laugh. They’re also ridiculously good at cricket.
All that can be done by cricket fans, I suppose, is to read the rules properly, and keep insisting that unless people show where the rules have been broken, they haven’t got a case. Further, that unless they can demonstrate a pattern, they haven’t got a general case. There has been one umpiring mistake in this series. Umpire Chaudhury made a mistake in the TV booth to incorrectly give Ajinkya Rahane in. Other than that, the umpiring has been superb. Marginal decisions have gone both ways. Zak Crawley, for example, survived a very marginal LBW appeal against Ashwin during his 53 on Day 1.
What happened in the case of Rahane in the 2nd Test at Chennai? The referee (using discretion he probably didn’t have under a strict reading of the rules), reinstated England’s review. Srinath’s parenting skills are clearly second to none.
The first few camera angles on the Leach dismissal could not clarify if the catch was clean. only the stump cam gave a clear view of Pujara's hand on the grass that indicated that the catch was clean. So, if we had to take a decision based on only the first few angles, the benefit of doubt would have probably gone to the batsman-- Leach. The umpire was NOT hunting for camera angles to aid Leach. it was to justify the catch. It was also the right decision. Now if only they did the same for the stokes catch. The umpire didn't even bother looking at the complete catch in that single camera shot he reviewed. If he was patient enough to watch the whole thing, we 'd have clearly seen Stokes drag the ball through the grass -- as was shown in the replays later . Ironically, that would have cleared any doubts in any player's mind about the legitimacy of the decision. The review was not thorough. It was rushed.
It's ok to liken the English to children, but at least pick the right examples.
There is no doubt that the English pundits have been pushing this prejudiced narrative or spinning pitches being bad. That they are using the pitch to justify their poor performances. that they think the toss was important in the 2nd and 3rd test (which is ridiculous, the toss was more influential in the First test!)
But can we also stay clear of our sweeping assumptions? In an attempt to defend against their biases, we don't need to cultivate our own.