Not picture perfect

It is now being said though that video replays of often crucial line decisions are not quite what they seem. The implication here is that it is all a 8216;8216;nationalistic plot8217;8217; to feed wrong information to the umpire manning the TV monitor when the home team is involved.

A member of the International Cricket Council8217;s elite umpires panel has, it is believed, sent a letter of complaint to Dave Richardson, the ICC8217;s general manager, cricket. The former South African Test wicket-keeper is responsible for handling all gripes involving the elite umpires panel members.

Mark Harrison, the ICC8217;s communications manager, today said there was no official comment to make as 8216;8216;there has been no official report from either the umpires or match referee8217;8217; who were involved in the recent two Tests between South Africa and Sri Lanka. The umpires were Australian Daryl Harper and Zimbabwe8217;s Russell Tiffin, while former India Test player Gundappa Viswanath was the match referee.

Though no one is saying who compiled the report, the word is that the TV replays viewed by the third TV monitor umpire in the Tests at The Wanderers or Centurion, were not what was expected. Video material of decisions against South African batsmen, or those when South Africa were in the field, did not always give what was felt to be 8216;8216;the true picture.8217;8217;

It was claimed some time ago in a media report emanating from Australia that line decisions of matches in South Africa involving South Asian sides could no be trusted because of the 8216;8216;racial bias8217;8217; as the cameramen were white. Several South African-born cameramen of Indian descent and those of coloured origin strongly refuted the claim as being 8216;8216;generally anti-South African8217;8217; as it was based on ignorant assumptions. Now it has been suggested that the production team is at fault and that the producer is biased towards the home side when video replays are sought.

This was first noticed, it was said, in Australia last year during the Perth Test between New Zealand and Australia where the Kiwis would have won but for several bad decisions made by Rhodesian umpire Ian Robinson. What has been claimed from that episode is that the third umpire was given a selection of certain angles; those which showed a catch being taken or a clear picture of a run-out were not given what the umpire checking the monitor calls the 8216;8216;best option angle camera8217;8217; feed.

Whether the Channel 9 producer of that Test made other 8216;8216;best option angles8217;8217; available is another matter. But you can guarantee that such claims have been refuted. Richard Parker and Mike Demain, the two producers of the South African company AirTime, which had the rights to screen the South Africa-Sri Lanka Tests and limited overs internationals, have angrily denied the claims.

8216;8216;It is such a biased statement that it doesn8217;t deserve a response,8217;8217; Parker said when asked to comment on the report, said to be sent to the ICC. 8216;8216;We have been feeding video material for a number of years and this is the first time anyone has complained. I refute such claims as they carry a large degree of ignorance regarding the technology involved and are irresponsible. We can give the umpire whatever feed he wants and from whatever angle he desires,8217;8217; said Parker, who was in charge of the production of televising games in Sri Lanka in 1999 and 2000, and also in Zimbabwe later in the year. Parker was also in charge of the production team during India8217;s tour of Sri Lanka in 2001 and the triangular series involving New Zealand the same year.

John Reid, a former ICC match referee, is convinced that the 8216;8216;best option angles8217;8217; are not always made available. The former New Zealand captain and world-class all-rounder in the 1950s and 1960s, said there were times when he had suspicions that production team8217;s favoured the home side when it came to marginal line and catch decisions.

Known for his no-nonsense attitude Reid often created problems for hidebound officialdom when culprits were caught on camera doing something which infringed one of the sections of Law 42 fair and unfair play. Ball tampering was one of the acts. Swift in his reaction to obvious malpractices, he had those culpable fined as well as docked some of their match fee and banned for a match or two.

Waqar Younis, the current Pakistan captain was one of those who found himself a little lighter in the pocket when after being warned he was caught fingering the ball again. Pakistan officials complained that Reid was a racialist and should be removed. Ball tampering? Oh dear me . . . no . . . Waqar would not do that.

Yet when the Younis8217; finger work on the ball in Galle and later Kandy in 2000 is examined and that of Sachin Tendulkar at St George8217;s Park, the difference was obvious to the trained eye. Tendulkar was wiping muck off the seam. His misdemeanor was not to go to the umpire; the result of that was a Test which has been removed from the records.

Reid also complained of video replay problems and line decisions in the first Test of the 2000 series between Sri Lanka and Pakistan at the Sinhalese Sports Club and a week later at the Galle Esplanade ground. He was unhappy that replays of incidents which could have been used, as line decisions were not made available to the TV umpire. At the SSC the decisions favoured Pakistan; in Galle it was Sri Lanka who gained from the replays. Sri Lanka lost both Tests.

According to the producer, the cameras used for the two incidents were the hand-held mobile variety and not linked to feed into the match recording programme system. The British TV company Sky used this method to show up several controversial decisions during the Millennium Test series between South Africa and England. The matches involved with the second Test in Port Elizabeth, the third in December at Kingsmead in Durban and the fifth in Centurion.

On each occasion South African batsmen were, it was felt, fortunate to get away with being given not out. Yet the accusation of 8216;8216;home bias8217;8217; was heard for if Sky TV camera could pick up the incident, why not the official TV crew? Total incompetence was put down to the run out debacle involving Jacques Kallis in Bloemfontein when another TV company screened the New Zealand-South Africa Test series. The official excuse was that the video replay tape had jammed. Later it was discovered that the producer was unable to find the correct section of the tape as the rewind had gone too far back. In panic the tape was seriously damaged. Later it was leaked how the air in the production unit was thick with explicates as those controlling the video replay panicked. New Zealand were at the receiving end of this production cock up, but what did it matter; who were the Kiwis anyway? They would just have to accept an apology.

Rudi Koertzen, the TV umpire, realised something was seriously wrong when it took more than a minute to replay the incident. What he eventually saw was not a side on camera view as expected but a sloppy angled shot from about the extra-cover boundary and which indicated nothing at all. It was all a matter of not having enough cameras available because of so-called cost factors. In a radio interview on Wednesday night, Richardson, said that there were always going to be problems until the ICC were able to afford equipment to cover all Test and LOI series at any given time. When this is likely to happen is uncertain.

There is a pre-World Cup series soon to start in Zimbabwe between Kenya and Zimbabwe and where no TV replays are available at all. Richardson said that one of the problems regarding video replays of line decisions is that the ICC are unable to dictate to TV companies screening matches how to give the umpire the best angles for line or catch decisions. It was a tricky business.

So, does this mean that the TV umpire is placed at a disadvantage because of what they see is a feed which is reliant on a producer who has a hidden agenda favouring the home side? Billy Doctrove seriously erred in not giving out a batsman last year in the Test series between West Indies and South Africa because he was uncertain what he was seeing was a clear enough picture to make a decision.

There was a similar incident involving India and the West Indies this year. It begs the question of just how admissible is the TV video replay evidence in making a fair decision? If a Test or a LOI series has reached a crucial point and the umpire is asked to make a decision on what is a tight line call, the production manager can call the shots over what camera should be given. Where a lot of money is involved manipulation is easy enough if the decision favours the home team.

As it has been suggested, while some of it is speculation, it may also be a matter of being the tip of the iceberg. As in match fixing, a lot more than money is involved. And as usual, the umpires are the sitting ducks being accused of getting it wrong when, in fact, they have no control over what they do and do not get to see.