THE TROUBLE WITH UMPIRES so the other day i was batting. batting well, mind you. nice crisp compact strokes, nothing extravagant. i was settling down to a nice long satisfying innings. and then it happened. the ball was pitched up. not really a juicy half-volley, mind you, but driveable. i took a good full stride to the pitch of the ball, and brought my bat down. and missed. the ball came in and hit my leg. the bowler appealed, half-heartedly. and the umpire, he raised his finger. i was out. now, he was wrong. absolutely in the wrong. i was struck outside off, and i was playing a stroke. no way i'm out. but i was. such is the authority of the umpire. the life of the gladiator depends on the caeser's thumb.... if that finger goes up, your going down. you see, we're all humans umpires are supposed to be impartial, but sometimes they aren't. after all, they're only human. not avatars of the god of fair-play. the bad umpire may come in many guises he may favor one side because they are his friends. he may single out a single player for an unjust decision, because they like the same girl. maybe it is not his fault. he is trying hard, but his eyesight is failing. or maybe he is just dosent care about the game. the last type of umpire gave me out he just wanted to go home. he figured the way i was batting, that might not happen too soon. so he gave me out. "i was bored" was what he told me. controversy in international cricket umpiring a technological marvel called hawk-eye has the potential to revolutionize umpiring. it is software adapted from tracking ballistic missiles to tracking a cricket ball. considerably more accurate than the human eye. if properly used, it can just about eliminate human errors. yet, it's implementation is being met with resistance. opponents have a myriad of arguments one such opponent says that 'cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties'. it is, indeed, a game of glorious uncertainties. however, this misses the point. the game is glorious. however, there is nothing glorious about an umpire mistakenly giving a batsman in full-flight out. for any reason. there is yet another faction. the 'good old days' people. the ones who say that umpires have always been there, and replacing them by gadgets would remove the soul of the game. to them, i say they do not understand the role of the umpire. the umpire is there to ensure the game is played according to the rules. thus, removing human fallibilities from decisions is to be desired. and then there are those who dont understand the technology. or make any effort to understand it, for that matter. they insist that there is no way hawk-eye is better than the human eye. there is no way these new-fangled notions are better than the trusted ways of yore. but, would you still use a candle if you can read by electric light? and then there are the umpires who believe they will be replaced. does anything need be said of them? during the 1992 cricket world cup, an element of technology was tried out. the third umpire. to help the two officials on the ground, television re-plays were used to adjudicate run-outs and stumpings. there have been some problems, that is to be expected with something new. but no one in their right mind would suggest that we revert back to the old system. it is patently obvious that these changes have made the game fairer. it is true that in the end, the umpire will remain. even with technological aid, we still need someone to send the batsman marching. but the umpire need not be human. flashing lights and mechanical pointing devices are just as effective as a finger. thats what i think, anyways. please feel free to disagree