30 March,2022 11:06 AM IST | Mumbai | Team mid-day
Former international umpire MR Singh
Umpiring is a mighty challenging job. Whatever the level of cricket, one has to be a master of all rules and regulations. A batsman can play a false stroke and get away. A bowler can err in line and length and pay for it in terms of runs from the opposition. But for an umpire, a slip-up could mean no further opportunities.
In the midst of all this, umpires need to exchange notes among themselves off side and share their experiences to benefit each other. mid-day decided to facilitate such an exchange through our Masterclass series. We chose MR Singh, 67, a popular umpire in Mumbai, who first umpired in first-class cricket in the 1982-83 season, 10 seasons before he made his international debut in the India v England ODI series. Singh recently published his book, The Laws of the Game Simplified.
Edited excerpts from the conversation.
On his new book, The Laws Of Cricket Simplified:
Right from the time I was first appointed by the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) to teach the laws of cricket in Mumbai, I believed that the laws needed to be a lot simpler for the layperson to understand. The club cricketer, the lay person, studentsâ¦if you ask anyone of them to pick up that blue rule book, I bet the person will throw it away after a few minutes unless they have some serious interest in cricket. So, I set about doing this after I quit my job and the COVID-19 lockdown happened. I targetted the base level of aspiring umpires and the base level cricketers, who need to know the laws of cricket. My belief is that knowing the laws of cricket improves you as a cricketer too. For that reason, I believe that every coaching camp should have at least two or three sessions on the laws. Everyone doesn't need to know all the laws, but at least some people like the captain, vice-captain and coach should know a lot more because not many know the technicalities of the game. The game has become very technical with things like run-rates and so many other permutations and combinations. Sometimes people don't know the simplest of things. I came up with this book because I felt they [laws] need to be more user friendly.
On why many former players don't take to umpiring:
If I recruited umpires, I'd look for future umpires among past cricketers because they've been in the middle and they know the tricks of the trade. But it's not always necessary that all former players will become good umpires. I think the reason most former players prefer to get into coaching or commentating instead of umpiring is because that's a lot easier. Umpiring is a bit of a grind, which they might not want to go through. Also, until recently, umpiring did not pay as well when compared to commentating, and money attracts everybody. But now, I feel there are more and more [former] cricketers coming into umpiring. There is no substitute for experience in my view. But this has to be dealt with carefully. They have to be given the knowledge appropriately. You can't directly push someone into the deep end as there might be calamities. We have seen situations in the past where some former players were pushed too early into umpiring and then you just didn't see them anymore.
On the increasing use of technology in the game, the Decision Review System and the contentious Umpire's Call:
One of the most common questions that I would be asked early in my career was if I thought that the use of technology undermined the authority of umpires. I believe that ultimately the purpose [of technology] is that we should be making the right decision. I remember I was umpiring in an Australia v South Africa match at Faridabad [in 1996]. There were two run-out decisions. In the first, my colleague, who was at the bowler's end, moved and there was a quick run out. I could see that he was hesitant to go for the third umpire, but eventually he did and it was given out. Then, I was involved in a run out appeal against an Australian batsman. Without the help of the technology, my initial decision would have been out. However, I referred it to the third umpire and he gave it not out. My colleague standing at square leg later asked me what my decision would have been without technology and I told him that I would have given it out. So, these two decisions made it clear in my mind that technology is a good thing. Now, coming to Umpire's Call in DRS. It started with the umpire needing to give some initial decision. If there is an appeal, he just can't go to the third umpire because he is also being evaluated. So, he needs to first tell the third umpire if his decision is out or not out. So, this was only for the evaluation purpose earlier. But later, it was changed. The umpire gives his decision based on what he sees on the field of play without the benefit of technology. But Umpire's Call says that if a third umpire cannot find anything concrete to reverse the on-field umpire's decision then we should stand by the on-field umpire's decision. There has been a lot of acrimony and I would like to see a modification in this. I feel that if the third umpire cannot give a decision despite his access to technology with slow motion cameras, hotspot and sound effects, etc, then the final decision has to be not out regardless of the on-field umpire's initial decision.
Hawk Eye and (right) Ball Tracking. Pics/Getty Images
On technology often leading to controversy:
Technology does not create any problems in tennis because people accept line calls. However, in DRS, the main problem is Umpire's Call. I also felt that in some decisions, maybe two or three decisions this year, technology was not properly used. There was a decision involving Virat Kohli [during a Test against Sri Lanka]. I wouldn't want to be critical of any umpire, but that decision created a lot of controversy. The straight view of the camera clearly showed an edge and even when you see at regular speed, the deviation from bat to pad is clearly visible. There was no need for the on-field umpire to refer to technology and check for sound.
On the concept of Mankading and MCC's move to remove it from the Unfair Play list:
I don't see why there should have been any uproar about this in the first place. Once the bowler starts his run-up, the ball is in play and if you don't allow a run out then a batsman will do anything, stand anywhere. You have to allow the run out. Also, there is no question of the bowler being required to give the batsman a warning. If the bowler does it, it's great and he gets some applause from the galleries, but he's not required to warn anyone. It's the batsman's fault that he's out of his ground while the ball is in play. So, it's the batsman, who is acting unfairly, not the bowler. I understand that there is a lot of stigma attached to this, so what the lawmakers did was put it in the Unfair Play list just to give a general impression without calling it unfair. The title used to be âbowler runs out the non-striker in his run-up.' In 2000, they changed the title to indicate more clearly that the non-striker was leaving his crease before the delivery, thereby putting the onus on the non-striker. And now, a new body of lawmakers has taken it off the Unfair Play list which means the non-striker is liable to be run out. But I'm sure that the next time it happens, there will still be controversy. The non-striker is taking an illegal stand, so that's unfair. We have seen in the IPL, some of the batsmen [non-strikers] have been two yards out, when the bowler's front foot has landed. This is grossly unfair and only a run out or the threat of a run out at the bowler's end can stop this.
On the importance of fitness for umpires:
I used to have my step counter as a matter of interest and I used to walk eight to 10 kms a day to keep fit. You have to be pretty fit, though not as fit as a football referee because he/she is running throughout the game. But standing for over eight hours can be tough and your fitness determines your performance later in the day, so that's crucial.
