"To err is human," but it is a mischief when repeated. Supervising a match is sacred and those who are assigned to this important job are required to be neutral and unbiased.
But this very important task in sports has always been controversial. Just one wrong decision turns the table, bringing disgrace and insult to the men who are supposed to be impartial.
Unlike football, hockey and other games, there was no concept of neutral umpires and match referees in cricket till the eighties. It was Pakistan's former captain Imran Khan, who was worried over the controversial decisions by the umpires, floated the idea of neutral or third country umpires. He convinced the chief of the then Board of Control for Cricket (BCCP), Air Marshal Nur Khan (retd), and Secretary Arif Ali Khan Abbasi on the necessity of third country umpires.
Nur Khan, who was also chief of the Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF), was quite convinced with Imran's suggestion, advised the BCCP Secretary to consult the cricket authorities of other cricket-playing countries.
Following a positive response from other countries, the BCCP approached the International Cricket Council (ICC) with the proposal to appoint neutral umpires in the Test and One-day International matches to avoid controversies about wrong decisions of the field umpires.
The ICC, after a long debate, accepted the idea and agreed to appoint neutral umpires in the Test and One-day International matches. In the beginning, the ICC agreed to appoint one umpire to supervise the match along with the home umpire. Later, the ICC formed a panel of umpires, selected from among the cricket-playing countries, and appointed both the field umpires from the third country.
TECHNOLOGY:
With the growing success of the technology and vast coverage by the electronic media, which detected even the minor flaws in umpiring, the ICC went ahead with the appointment of TV umpires and match referees with a view to lessening the chances of wrong decisions.
Despite appointment of TV umpires and match referees, the decision of the men in black and white on the ground was final. The match referees acted only when the doubtful decisions were referred to them by the field umpires.
With the exception of umpires like England's Dickie Bird, David Shepherd and the West Indian Steve Bucknor, decisions of the third country umpires like Australia's Darrell Hair and Simon Taufel have always been controversial.
During the current Pakistan-England series, especially in the second Test at Faisalabad, the two Australian umpires played havoc with Pakistan.
Taking advantage of the ICC rules on the bowling action, Darrell Hair challenged the bowling action of all-rounder Shoaib Malik and Shabbir Ahmed, who was a month ago cleared by the ICC on the reports of Australian experts Professor Bruce Elliot and Darryl Foster.
As regards Darrell Hair's bias towards Asian cricket-playing countries, especially Pakistan and Sri Lanka, is no secret. One may recall that it was Darrell Hair, who challenged the bowling action of Sri Lankan spinner Muralitharan, who had till then captured around 300 wickets.
Though the appointment of neutral umpires and framing of new ICC rules on the bowling action in the international matches was good, these men in black and white with their biased attitude played havoc with the bowlers, affecting the results of the matches.
Surprisingly, the whites have monopolised the institution of umpiring. Of the seven-member panel of ICC umpire, there are only two non-whites - Alim Dar from Pakistan an Steve Bucknor from the West Indies.
The controlling body of world cricket has done a lot to enforce discipline among players, but it did nothing to check the wrong doings of its umpires, who brought disgrace to the integrity of those whose integrity and impartiality should have been beyond criticism.
MALCOLM SPEED'S VIEWS:
Instead of accepting the biased attitude of neutral umpire and the ICC rules, ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed has defended the central role of umpires in the decision-making process.
In a keynote speech at a "Sport and technology" conference in London recently, Speed said the ICC was at the forefront of debate in balancing opportunities presented by new technology with its potential impact on the substance and spirit of international game.
He said: "The ICC is not afraid of challenges the technology presents. It systematically analyses new technology to assess advantages and disadvantages of these innovations by testing them.
He argued: "If some of the current innovations were brought into decision-making process, they could have a dramatic impact on the way the game is played. It is the international governing body's role to get this balance right.
"Since the ICC first made availability of a TV referral process for line decisions part of its standard playing conditions in international cricket in 1995, we have reviewed, tried and tested many innovations and evolved our viewpoint along the way," said the ICC Chief Executive.
Speed said over recent years, the ICC had reviewed the technological developments in Umpires' earpiece technology, stump microphones, line decision and boundary TV referrals, LBW TV referrals, catch TV referrals, including super slow motion, off-field no-ball decisions, hawkeye, pitch mats.
HUMAN, NOT ROBOTS:
But he made it clear the ICC had to develop a clear position on technology.
Not caring about the biased and wrong decision of field umpires, Speed said: "We want humans to umpire the game, not robots. It is essential that umpires are in control and not simply glorified coat stands," he added.
The ICC has framed a number of rules with a view to enforcing discipline among players and making the game more attractive, but it ignored the most important aspect of the game, umpiring.
Since there is no concept of accountability, one cannot expect transparency and impartiality from umpires like Darrell Hair and Simon Taufel, the game of gentlemen will continue to be polluted by biased and partial attitude of the field umpires.
Despite Speed's argument that "humans and not the robots should umpire the game", the so-called neutral umpires, who are beyond accountability, will continue to pollute the game with controversial decisions.
However, it is for the game's international governing body to look into the conduct of umpires and make good use of technology to ensure neutrality and impartially in decision-making.
Moreover, the ICC should include more umpires from the non-white cricket-playing countries, especially from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, to save the game from controversies.