Waist of an opportunity: Why the third umpire shouldn't be kept at bay

Cricket matches, especially of the 20-over variant, can often be decided by the slimmest of margins. A brilliant catch here, an excellent stop there, one timely big hit somewhere else – these are elements on which outcomes of matches hinge, all of which carry a distinct cricketing tinge.

Then, there are other factors that come into play. Such as a waist-high full toss which, based on the perception of the square-leg umpire, could either bring an extra run and the resultant free hit if it is called a no-ball, or goes into the score book as just another delivery if the decision-maker lets it slide.

It’s notable that one such delivery played such a massive part in India’s four-wicket win over Pakistan at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on Sunday night. That it came in the last over of a pulsating contest, and carried the potential for a touch of controversy, has reignited the debate over whether, or why, such calls should be referred to the television umpire, who can make a studied call based on the video evidence available to him, instead of the square-leg umpire who has to decide in real time and might not always get it right.

Pakistan, to their credit, haven’t made an issue of the full toss from Mohammad Nawaz that was deemed above waist height by South African Marais Erasmus, standing at square-leg. Contrary to motivated opinion, Erasmus did not signal a no-ball upon Virat Kohli’s urgings. The moment the ball left Kohli’s bat, the South African had his right arm extended parallel to the ground, indicating to his partner Rod Tucker at the bowler’s end that it was an illegal delivery which came with the added penalty of a free-hit ball, off which the bowler could not dismiss the batsman.

Here’s the context: Chasing Pakistan’s 159 for eight, India are 147 for five after 19.3 overs, needing a further 13 runs off three deliveries for the most improbable of victories. In a futile bid to break the 113-run fifth-wicket alliance between Kohli and Hardik Pandya, Babar Azam has bowled out his three frontline quicks, leaving left-arm spinner Nawaz to defend 16 off the final over.

Nawaz concedes three runs off the first three deliveries and picks up the wicket of Pandya, pushing India to a corner with only half the over left.

Then follows the fateful fourth ball which wasn’t, a juicy full-toss, that Kohli despatches over the square-leg fence. As he whirls around towards Erasmus to look for the no-ball, he is greeted by the sight of the portly Protean already making the signal. Kohli pumps his fists, knowing that six off three is most definitely manageable.

Pakistan make a token protest, no more, at the no-ball call. Their contention is that the call is marginal, and even though their objections aren’t vehement, they seek the television umpire’s intervention. The problem is, the TV umpire isn’t allowed by the laws as they exist to step in and adjudicate one way or the other.

In a nutshell, that exposes the idiosyncrasies of cricket, steeped sometimes in baffling conundrums that defy logic and explanation.

After all, when a batsman is dismissed off a full toss that may or may not be above waist height, there exists a provision for the call to be referred by the square-leg umpire, for the TV umpire to go through the pictures and relay the information on whether the ball was a legal one or not. Why can’t that same protocol be extended to merely ascertain the same, irrespective of whether a wicket has fallen or not? The entire process will take a minute, at the most, so loss of time cannot be put forth as a reason, given that at the most, there might be two or a maximum of three such deliveries in an innings. And yet…

Emotions and passions have been stoked by ill-informed tweets from former internationals insistent that the television umpire should have overturned the no-ball call. How can he, even assuming that Erasmus’ call was erroneous, when he doesn’t have the jurisdiction to do so? Shouldn’t former players like Brad Hogg be more sensible when taking to social media to espouse their ignorant views?

That’s another matter altogether, though. The bigger, more impactful question is: Should the decision-makers unbury their heads from the sand and embrace common sense, ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done?

There are pros and cons to the involvement of the television umpire in such cases. If it is a marginal call, then the TV umpire’s decision too is open to scrutiny. Privately, some of the decision-makers have argued against the use of technology in such instances, pointing out that human error adds to the drama and colour so long as the call isn’t blatantly wrong. There’s merit to that line of thinking because cricket isn’t strictly a game of black-and-white, the isolated pockets of grey areas lending greater charm and allure to the sport.

Pakistan’s equanimity in accepting the on-field decision was in stark contrast to the ungainly scenes during IPL 2022, in a match between Delhi Capitals and Rajasthan Royals. With the game evenly poised, Delhi believed an Obed McCoy full toss to Shardul Thakur was clearly above the waist and that the umpires should have penalised the West Indian left-arm quick. When a no-ball wasn’t called after protracted arguments, Capitals skipper Rishabh Pant first threatened to call Thakur and Kuldeep Yadav, the two batsmen in the middle, back to the dugout, thus all but forfeiting the match. Assistant coach Shane Watson intervened – head coach Ricky Ponting was in isolation after a close contact tested positive for Covid-19 – to prevent a walkout but an adamant Pant almost pushed Pravin Amre, another assistant coach, into the field of play to question the decision.

As a result of the unpleasantness all around, Amre was banned for one match, and both he and Pant were docked 100 per cent of their match fees, penalties that were seen as too lenient. Hats off to Pakistan for not making a song and dance in this instance, especially given the stage, the occasion and the opponent.