It would be a good idea to first employ the UDRS and then make an effort to make it as perfect as it can get © Getty Images

The ball hits the edge of the bat before crashing into the pads. The fielding team appeals vociferously and the umpire adjudges the batsman out. Haven’t we seen such inaccurate judgments being pronounced time and again?

They are far from being an aberration, and the argument is that the umpires are humans and can err too. Point taken. But what happens next depends on that single decision the captains would have taken ahead of the series. For example, if you happen to be involved in a series where the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) is not being used, you must make your way back to the pavilion without even breaking into a frown. For a frown or a shake of the head might be considered ‘showing dissent’ and could attract a summons from the match referee or even a fine.

But if the UDRS was in use, you could make the ‘T-sign’ and the matter would be referred to the third umpire, if your team hasn’t already exhausted two unsuccessful challenges. India and Sri Lanka were the first two teams to experiment with the UDRS two years ago. Since then, both teams have taken radically different approaches. While Kumar Sangakkara believes the UDRS should be mandatory, MS Dhoni believes that there’s no point in using it until it’s foolproof.

Evidently, these reactions are based on their experiences. While Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka’s captain when India toured Sri Lanka in 2008) got it right almost every single time, his counterpart, Anil Kumble, got it wrong more often than not. But isn’t it inappropriate to blame the system for not getting your judgement right? The reason the Indians struggled the first time UDRS was brought into play, was because Kumble was at mid-on or mid-off which isn’t ideal to make a call. And hence he had to rely on Dinesh Karthik for inputs, who, unfortunately, got it wrong and so did Kumble. Jayawardene was always in the slips, had a better view, and hence had the advantage of calling correctly.

I’m not saying this system is absolutely correct but does that mean you refuse to use it until it’s perfect? Would it also not mean that Test matches, around the world, will then be played with different rules?

We all remember that infamous Sydney Test between India and Australia. I will refrain from going into the murky details of the sordid affair, yet the issue got instigated with Andrew Symonds not given out off Ishant Sharma. Pity; it was visible to everyone except the umpire that he’d nicked it. Had there been the UDRS in place, the matter would have been settled there and then. And perhaps matters wouldn’t have escalated to such extremes.

Yes, there’s a lot that can be done with the current UDRS, like giving the third-umpire more power and responsibility. He should be given the right to inform the on-field umpires immediately if an error is committed. Why wait till the session gets over or till the players appeal? The idea is not to undermine the role of the on-field umpire but to empower him to make the right decisions. In fact, everyone else except the men who have to make decisions have access to the technology, to assess if the evaluation was correct or not. Every error is magnified with the TV coverage and followed by intense scrutiny from the media and people alike.

I don’t know of a batsman worth his salt who likes to be given out when he is not and the same goes for the bowlers with regard to their dismissals. So, instead of being reluctant, a good idea would be to employ it first and then make an effort to make it as perfect as it can get.

	Everything to do with umpiring is now under the purview of the umpires’ coach© Getty Images

Dear readers,

How many times have we sat in our drawing rooms and been irked by appalling umpiring decisions! You wouldn’t believe me then, if I were to tell you that, once upon a time in domestic cricket, the umpires used to be bullied by captains! Trust me, as blasphemous as this sounds, it is true. Indeed it was a “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” situation. In those days, the quality of umpiring was judged by the "captain’s report". The report required captains to mark umpires on various performance parameters such as their control over the proceedings, their positioning, decisions etc. A lot of players knew the power at their disposal and used it to suit their needs. They would write favorable reports only if the umpires obliged on the field. Some even went to the extreme of letting the umpires know that their scores in the report would depend on their on-field decisions.

Thus came in the match referees to put an end to this underhand practice. The captains continued to write their report at the end of the match though it wasn’t the final word on the umpiring anymore. All was not bad with the captain’s report. Firstly, not everyone was bullying the umpires and secondly, all umpires were not bad and hence didn’t give in to such pressures. The report also kept the players involved and allowed them to write their comments in case something went extremely wrong. It was followed up by annual meetings of captains with board officials. This provided an opportunity for the players to air their views and for the board to get first-hand information on what was ailing domestic cricket and how to work towards improving it.

Now, with the advent of the cameras (six cameras are installed in all games), the concept of “umpires’ coach” has been brought into the scheme of things. His role is to monitor every single decision made by the on-field umpires. He has access to the video coverage throughout the game. Everything to do with umpiring is now under the purview of the umpires’ coach, and other issues fall in the match referee’s domain.

This restructuring has put an end to the captain's report, which in my view had some positives. Completely doing away with it has taken an important right away from the player.

Logically, the presence of the umpires’ coach would have ensured that captains wrote a fair report. After all, whatever they wrote had to be backed by video evidence. This would also have kept a check on the captains’ credibility. No longer could you say that the umpiring was poor just because your side lost the game.

I would propose a different kind of captains’ report. Instead of giving the umpires marks, it could rank the facilities on offer. It could have a column to address any special issue that a team may want to bring to the board’s notice. There are incidents when teams feel the need to voice their unhappiness over certain issues but there’s no platform to voice them. Captains’ report has the power to put things in perspective - in black and white.

	We do have to make peace with the fact that the man standing 22 yards away is also human and can commit mistakes © Cricinfo Ltd

Dear readers,

We, Indians, are always looking for divinity in everything. We make Gods out of normal human beings and treat the game as a religion of sorts. Following the same trend even deeper I can clearly see divinity at work in first-class cricket. They say 'To err is human, to forgive divine’ and that's concretely manifested in almost every first-class game played in India.

Take the ongoing Ranji Trophy final for example, whether it was Wasim Jaffer on the first morning or Zaheer Khan on the second. Both of them erred in judgment and nicked the ball to the wicketkeeper but the umpire standing 22 yards away forgave their human follies and divinely granted them some more time to improve on their game in the middle. On the other hand both Ajinkya Rahane and Mohammad Kaif had to turn to their divinity when the man 22 yards away erred disastrously and gave them out when they clearly weren't.

The standard of umpiring in first-class cricket has been below-par for as long as I've been playing the game but rarely do we see people talking about it, apart from the affected players that is. The reason being that the matches were never shown live and hence there was never enough evidence to attract criticism. Now that the matches are shown live and they happen to be really high-profile games, the mistakes are glaringly visible and the consequent criticism very vocal.

I'll avoid sounding like a cynic and hence will mention only a few incidents and leave it to the readers to make up their minds. Not so long ago, in a Duleep Trophy game, we heard someone talking at square leg. Initially, we though the fielder must be chatting with the umpire, which happens quite often, and was a little too loud. But to our utter disbelief there was no-one fielding in the vicinity and the umpire was standing alone. Was he talking to himself? Further inspection revealed he was busy talking on his mobile phone, a fact he vehemently denied, but the next phone call gave it away. It was on silent but the vibrator mode's buzz was rather audible.

Then there was this incident when a bowler bowled six front-foot no-balls in an over without getting called for any one of them. I was at the non-striker's end and kept drawing the crease to attract the umpire's attention but to no avail. I did improve my drawing skills, though, and I can proudly say that drawing a straight line with my bat is not an issue any more!

On many occasions, the umpires walk towards covers or mid-wicket before adjudging someone leg-before wicket. A few of the decisions might have been correct, but as a batsman you don't want to see the umpire moving sideways to decide whether the ball was hitting the stumps or not.

Before you start blaming the BCCI for everything, let me tell you that efforts are being made to improve the standard of umpiring in the country. There are six cameras installed for the duration of every first-class match played in the country. There's an umpire's coach who gets the live feed and monitors their performance. Based on the video evidence he rates the umpires for their competency, decision-making and proper implementation of the rules. Since this started only last year, there is still some time before we start reaping the benefits of the exercise.

Please don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of umpires who have gained a lot of respect from the players and are very competent. Umpiring goof-ups happen in international cricket as well so first-class cricket can't be foolproof. As long as the human element is involved in the game, which I think should be there forever, mistakes are going to be made. Don't we as a batsman or a bowler make mistakes? Since we, cricketers, also make plenty of mistakes on the field, regardless of however much we crib and cry, we do have to make peace with the fact that the man standing 22 yards away is also human and can commit mistakes. After all "to err is human …"

Cheers

PS: I know it might sound like a plug but I'm also human and hence allowed to err … My book is out in stores and I'm waiting for some honest feedback.