Tony Becca, Contributing editor

IT HAD to happen one day and it has finally happened. The power of the umpire is being challenged.

Following the decisions by umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove to abandon the fourth and final Test between England and Pakistan recently, the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Sri Lankan Cricket Board have not only called for the removal of Hair from the ICC's Elite Panel of umpires - they have also called on the ICC to lessen the power of the umpire and they are now being supported by the Indian Cricket Board.

According to Niranjan Shah, the secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, "For the sake of spectators, television viewers and the game's sponsors, no match should be called off and certainly not by the umpires. Any decision to forfeit a Test should be made by the match referee or the International Cricket Council," and based on the manner in which that match at The Oval was called off, on the arrogance exhibited by Hair when he walked up to the stumps, removed the bails and threw them to the ground, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Shah and his colleagues on the Indian Board have a strong case - and particularly so in this day and age.

Changes needed

Regardless of what the ICC has said and has been saying, regardless of what its chief executive officer, Malcolm Speed, has said and has been saying, things have changed right around the world and in many ways, in some aspects, cricket needs to change - to fall in line with what is going on around it.

The ICC, for example, still talks about the umpires being in control and that their word, their action, is final, and Speed recently said, not only that the umpires are in control, but that they have been for 300 years and he would want that to continue.

Referring to the abandoned match that was awarded to England, Speed, in his wisdom, uttered these words: "The umpires are in control, that's been the case for 300 years and I'd want that to continue. I can't judge the on-field situation, or overturn their decision that the match was forfeited. If it's their decision to forfeit the match, then it's forfeited."

And then he went on, obviously referring to the fact that Pakistan, after their sit-in protest, had come out ready to play: "They didn't believe it was appropriate to overturn their decision - and I can't force them to do it."

All decisions are final

While the umpire must be respected as the one in the middle to insist that the laws and the conditions of play are adhered to by the players and while, as things now stand, his decisions are final, there must be someone above him to whom he is answerable.

If that is not so, then not only is the umpire the most powerful man in cricket, probably in the whole wide world, but it also means that something is wrong with a game that wants things to remain, as Speed would like, as it was 300 years ago.

Maybe that is the mind-set why the ICC has refused to make more use of technology in order to get the umpires to make less mistakes.

While soccer is thinking seriously of bringing television cameras to determine whether a ball has crossed the goal line or not - to determine whether something as important as a goal has been scored or not, while tennis has started, in some tournaments, to allow players to challenge a line call, just recently the ICC turned down a proposal that players be allowed, three times in an innings, to appeal an umpire's decision.

According to the ICC, the proposal, the suggestion, was rejected on the basis of the impact it may have on the authority of the umpire and the spirit of the game.

According to Ehsan Mani, the president of the ICC, "The board was concerned about the impact of the trial on the spirit of cricket and the effect it might have on the integrity of umpiring at all levels."

If that was the thinking 300 years ago, it may have been OK for that time. For today, however, in this age of professional sports and professional sportsmen and sportswomen when there are ways to prove, for example, whether a man is out or not out, it just does seem right that such an important decision, a decision that can determine the career of a player, should be left entirely in the hands of one man simply because of the impact it may have on the spirit of the game, and on the integrity of the umpire - a man who himself is a professional or should be a professional and who, instead of worrying about his integrity, should be expected to behave as a professional.

One would believe that in today's world the right to appeal, on or off the field of sport, is the right of everyone.

Protection

Well, the move by Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and now backed by India may ensure that regardless of the ICC, everyone may have the right to appeal the decision of the umpire for the simple reason that he may shortly lose his total independence and the protection of the laws of the game which, really, are there to protect the players, but which, based on what happened at The Oval two Sundays ago, based on the ICC's stance since then, are there to protect the umpires - even when they make decisions without proof, even when they make decisions without due consideration of the consequences as they did at The Oval when they accused Pakistan of tampering with the ball and then abandoned the match.