Live With Cricket

After a couple of months on the back burner, an enhanced version of the Umpire Decision Review System came into effect in November. Reduced to two referrals per team and giving the third umpire even more assistance with the HotSpot and Snicko, it was widely hoped that all the problems that caused widespread unhappiness during the initial launch had been ironed out.

ICC general manager Dave Richardson proclaimed the technological tweak will be a success, stating "the system allows television technology to be used in a way that will not result in too many delays, will not de-skill the umpires and will take some pressure off the umpires. The fact is that trials showed that the system improved player behaviour and led to a significant reduction in the number of umpiring errors."

Barely two weeks later, Richardson's bold statement has already been proved wrong on a number of accounts.

"The system allows television technology to be used in a way that will not result in too many delays," Richardson was quick to insists.

However, the Australian commentators timed one of the reviews during the West Indies series and found that it took Darren Sammy about 90 seconds to deliberate about whether or not he was going to refer a decision, which was clearly out.

Richardson's claim that "the system improved player behaviour" also couldn't be further off the mark.

Ricky Ponting and Doug Bollinger's attitude after the third umpire decided not to give Shivnarine Chanderpaul out on day one of the second Test in Adelaide was a disgrace and they were all too happy to show it to everyone who was watching.

Also, his point that the system "will not de-skill the umpires and will take some pressure off the umpires" has also proved to be inaccurate. This is perhaps most worrying as the system and players' antics appear to have placed an extra burden on the on-field umpires.

The Sunday Times reported that umpire Mark Benson - who officiated day one of the Test between the Australia and the West Indies in Adelaide - is on the verge of quitting the game as 'he was upset at his treatment on the first day when a number of his decisions were challenged under the controversial new referral system.

'One of them triggered a string of complaints from Ricky Ponting.'

It's a sad day for cricket when an umpire is ready to throw in the towel over the behaviour of players.

Yes, the umpires are still making mistakes, but the players are making a mockery of the system and their attitudes stink when something goes against them.

The abuse of the system was there for all to see during the two Test series involving the Aussies and Windies and New Zealand and Pakistan.

In the first Australia Test it appeared the visitors decided that their two main batsmen - Chris Gayle and Chanderpaul - should claim sole use of the reviews. Then in the New Zealand-Pakistan clash in Wellington it was obvious that the first review was fair game for the top-order as they used it even if they were blatantly out.

If there were any reviews left when the tail-enders were batting, then they also used it despite plumb decisions.

I thought the system was implemented to cut out the glaring umpiring errors, not to ask for a review in the hope that maybe the ball was marginally missing the stumps, or perhaps the bowler overstepped the popping crease.

If this system is to be a success, then the players need to take responsibility and stop making frivolous requests for a review.

If not, then the teams' request for a review should be taken away from them and the officials should become the sole users of the system. If an on-field umpire is uncertain about an edge, he can ask the third umpire for a review. Or if the third umpire spots an obvious error with a dismissal he can refer it to the on-field official.

Should players not accept that it is time to change their mindset about the system, then cricket isn't quite ready to for the use of this technology.