NEWS
MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
DEAR REDIFF

The Cricket Interview/John Reid

'Venkataraghavan, David Shepherd and Steve Bucknor are the three top umpires in the world today'

Do you support the idea of the third umpire?

Very much so. I think the third umpire plays a very big part in the game. There are some decisions, given now, that would not have been given earlier. Makes for fairer play, justice. The third umpire's decisions get respected, and hey, we all of us look at the green and red lights with bated breath, don't we?

What's your take on the general standard of umpiring today?

I think it has improved, tremendously. There are more professional umpires now, all over the world. We didn't have professional umpires in New Zealand earlier, for instance, but we've got some now. Some countries have semi-professional umpires, but even they have to keep up with the prevailing standards.

In an era of stump cam, stump mikes, slo-mo and such, are the umpires under pressure these days?

Again, yes, very much. On every ball, they are judged -- by television commentators, even by the public sitting in their living rooms. So yes, it is hard on umpires, and that's why I understand their problems.

When I led New Zealand in 34 Tests, I tended to leave the umpires alone, pretty much. Only if there was some decision I didn't like, would I argue and then walk off. But ever since I've been a match referee, I know much more about umpiring than I ever knew before. You got to figure they too get out of bed the wrong side sometimes, like you and I do, they too can have a spell of nervousness at the start of a game, they can have their good days and bad days -- they are like you and I, actually. And we just have to accept that they are human beings, they too can make mistakes.

Look, it's just like the players -- a top class batsman makes an error of judgement and is out first ball, same way, a top flight umpire can make a mistake, too. I understand this, and make allowance for human frailities.

How about the monetary part, do you believe umpires and players should be at par?

First, I believe payment rates should be consistent. Right now, it depends where you are from. The umpires from England get the best deal, Indians, or Pakistanis, or Sri Lankans and West Indians, don't get paid as much. That's because the English players and umpires are professionals, they work at it every day through the season, unlike umpires in other part of the world. But yes, I agree that a way should be found to put wage scales for umpires more on par with that of the players, and also uniform through the cricketing world.

In your own playing days, did you feel the need for a match referee?

No. We didn't have this excessive gamesmanship, all this abuse, dissent. Then again, in my time there wasn't a lot of money in the game, today there is. Sure, we did have some odd comments happening during my playing days -- like, if the batsman snicked and it went over our heads in the slips, we might say, 'Lucky bugger!' - but that is all there was, we didn't carry it on and on. And you didn't get down to sledging, like I've seen some Australians do to Glenn Turner.
That sort of thing started in mid-1970s, with the Ian Chappel era. Ian Chappel, in fact, has got a lot to answer for. Around the same time, we also got the slow over rate situation, orchestrated by Clive Lloyd and his five fast bowlers who bowled only 10, 12 overs an hour. Well, that's not fair to the public. When these things began happening, they necessitated the match referee. I would say in my time, we played the game in the spirit it was meant to be played in.

You mentioned sledging -- could you, as match referee, define it for us?

Anything that looks like bringing the game into disrepute is, in my book, sledging. It's not just a verbal thing.

Such as.....?

Body language, for instance. I can't hear everything that is said, but then I don't have to. I mean, if a bowler gets hit for four and he stands on his head and says something to the batsman, I am pretty sure he is not saying "well done, well played", right? He is abusing the batsman and that is not on.

Trial by television?

Sure, and I tell everyone that. Body language is taken into account, certainly. Today, if you see, at all the junior games, club matches, that kind of thing, all the kids follow their heroes. So I tell the players that they are role-models to the young generation, they must remember that and behave accordingly. Yes, it is trial by television -- but then again, because of television, millions of people watch what is happening out there, and the players therefore have to behave themselves even more. And if they don't, well, I'll take some of their money away by way of fine, or punish them worse.

Is a fine that big a deterrent? I mean, you sledge at the right time, disturb a key batsman, you end up getting him to lose his head and make a silly mistake, the team benefits...?

Then, next time he behaves badly, I take the next big step, suspension. If the fine doesn't work -- and it doesn't in some cases, as you said - the fear of getting suspended for a few matches will. And I make it very clear, in advance, that suspension is always a possibility, the players know this before the match begins.

When you look at cricket as it is played today, what irritates you the most?

Hey, that's a good question, I never thought of it that way before. Actually, I don't get irritated much, I like watching cricket, I think I've got the best job in the world, I am actually paid to sit in the best seat in the ground! I get to travel round the world, get to meet and come to know players from all over. So yes, I am pretty much enjoying it all. If I had a thing that worries me, it is the crowds -- they behave very irritatingly at times.