To err is human, of course rarely, which is pardonable, but when it occurs repeatedly it amounts to cheating and mischief and is unpardonable.
Umpiring in sports, particularly in cricket, is sacred as the competing teams repose their confidence in the integrity and dignity of those supervising the match, who turn the tables and a near-win contest into defeat.
Some two decade ago, such incidents of umpiring gimmicks were rampant, but with the appointment of neutral and third umpire and introduction of technology, such incidents have minimised.
However, the home umpire, standing alongside the neutral umpire, appointed by the International Cricket Council (ICC), never misses a chance to favour his team by giving wrong decisions.
The winning team captain knows better who played havoc with the "game of gentlemen", and the losing side can do nothing but to express its reservations about the outcome of the match.
Such sad moments are recorded in the form of protest against the gimmicks of the men in black and white.
The decisions of field umpires are considered final, but when it is deliberate, it certainly puts cricket into disrepute.
To put an end to this unethical practice by the field umpire, President of the then Board of Control for Cricket in Pakistan (BCCP), Air Marshal Nur Khan (retd)floated the idea of neutral umpire appointed by the ICC with a view to saving the game from disrepute and controversies.
He was later joined by Pakistan's former captain Imran Khan to demand appointment of neutral umpire.
The BCCP approached the ICC, which showed reluctance in accepting the idea. But on repeated persuasion, the ICC accepted the idea of appointing neutral umpires alongside one home umpire.
Following introduction of television and showing of replays of controversial decisions, the ICC appointed third umpire and match referee, whose verdicts were taken as final.
Pakistan are no exception to these gimmicks, especially of the jugglery of Indian and Australian umpires, about whom, it is said that their teams play with 13 players.
While umpires in all the cricket-playing countries have always been in the news, Pakistani umpires, by and large, are considered the best and their decisions and always appreciated by the touring teams. There is not a single decision of Pakistani umpires which has ever been challenged by the touring teams.
As against them, men in black and white from India and Australia have always been known for monkey-tricks.
Examples are many, but here one may recall some prominent Indian umpires like Ganguly, Joshi, P. D. Reporter and Jay Prakash. They were never liked by the touring teams, especially Pakistan. They were followed by Australia's Tony Crofter and Daryl Hair, who was notorious for his bias against Shoaib Akhtar and Muralitharan and tried his level best to destroy their career.
When his argument onthe both bowlers are "chuckers" was referred to the ICC experts, they were cleared of the charges.
Pakistan will never forget the 1999 tour of India when a debutante umpire demonstrated his "jugglery" in the third Test at Feroze Shah Kotla ground in Delhi.
Umpire Jay Prakash, in his debut in the international cricket, played havoc with Pakistan when he gave all the 10 Pakistan batsmen out from his side. He did not even seek the help of the third umpire and used his authority as field umpire and helped spinner Anil Kumble to get his name registered in the record book. The result was obvious - India won convincingly.
Despite Pakistan team management's protest and media criticism, Jay Prakash justified his decisions and put the blame on Pakistani batsmen for not reading the movement of Kumble's balls.
In the recently-concluded three-nation One-day International (ODI) series in Amstelveen, Holland, when Pakistan met Australia in the final, they lost the final because of two wrong decisions of umpire David Shepherd and Pakistan were deprived of Pakistan strongly protested against Shepherd's decision, which were also criticised by chief selector Wasim Bari.
But unlike Jay Prakash, who did not feel sorry for his jugglery, umpire David Shepherd was courageous enough to accept his guilt and offered apologies.
It is interesting to mention here that the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) has always been under pressure of the sponsors, who wanted the ACB to ensure Aussies victory against the visiting teams.
Similarly, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) always succumbed to the pressure of its crowd. In case of series against Pakistan, Hindu extremists' pressure was an added factor.
In West Indies, the crowd has always been hostile to the touring teams. They go berserk when the home team loses the match and manhandle the umpires, players and even put the houses of umpires on fire.
In this situation, the home umpires, willy nilly play tricks and help their teams win the matches.
With the introduction of technology and appointment of third umpire have minimised the chances of errors, but only if the doubtful decisions are referred to the third umpire, who after seeing action replays, gives his verdict.
In the case of final decision by the man in black and white, it cannot be challenged. There are examples when the aggrieved team management pinpointed such unilateral decisions after being highlighted in the television replays, and lodged protest with match referee.
Anyhow, since such umpiring notoriety is part of the game and the players are very well aware that they would be facing such odds, they should, therefore, not forget that they are professionals and are paid to play in condition not even favourable to them.
However, Pakistan's senior-most and respected umpire Mahboob Shah, in an article on umpiring published in an English daily, expressed his reservations about the role of third umpire and technology in cricket umpiring.
He said actually the third umpire was to ensure minimising the incidents of doubts so that no undue advantage was passed on to the batsman simply because corroborating evidence was not accessible.
Mahboob Shah was of the view that the technology was not applied to its full potentials, hence the decisions like calling of no-ball, answer to the appeal for leg before and caught behind are still outside its preview.
The veteran umpire suggested separation of sounds like bat-and-pad, bat-and-ball, ball-and batsman to identify the snick.
About appeals for leg before, Mahboob Shah said the use of graphics, now being used to depict the line of a delivery after interception seems to be quite close to actuality, but still it needs to be perfected.
Concluding, Mahboob Shah expressed the hope that with the perfection of technology, the chances of umpiring errors would be minimised.
In view of Mahboob Shah's observations about the role of third umpire, technology and even the ICC-appointed neutral umpire, the conduct of home umpire, who would not bother to refer his decision to the third umpire, will remain questionable.