Cricket World Cup: Commentators should be allowed to criticise umpires

When we were young, we are taught not to question the referee’s or umpire’s decision. He or she, but let’s stick with “he”, wasn’t to be accused of incompetence or bias. It wasn’t always easy – indeed it was often bloody difficult – to obey this instruction when we were schoolboys. You have never had to be John McEnroe to conclude that the only proper response to some decisions was an angry and anguished “you cannot be serious”, though a more engaging one was offered by the cricketer who borrowed a dog from a spectator and presented it to the umpire, telling him that all he needed now was a white stick.

Spectators of course enjoyed rather more licence than players and abuse of the referee has been usual at football and rugby grounds. I have always relished the memory of the fine old lady at Mansfield Park in Hawick who expressed her disapproval of a referee by shouting “when Bob Burrell of Gala has been hangit, ee’ll (you’ll) be the worst referee in Scotland”, while there can scarcely be any football referee who hasn’t been advised to visit the optician.

Most of the time however we try to be understanding and to remember that umpires and referees have a difficult job. They have to make immediate decisions on what they see and, in cricket also on what they hear, and it is inevitable that sometimes they make mistakes, and mistakes have generally been accepted as just part of the game.

Their job in the upper reaches of many games is more testing now than it was when I was young. TV cameras, action replays (in slow motion as well as real time) and computer devices like Hawk-Eye, Hot Spot and Ball-tracking mean that we all have more information after the event than the referee or umpire had when he made his immediate decision. So it is often clear now when match officials have got it wrong and criticism of decisions is both frequent and justified.

This raises difficult questions.

There were a number of umpiring mistakes, several overturned on reviews in the World Cup match between Australia and West Indies. Michael Holding, the former West Indies fast bowler who is now one of the best and most highly respected members of the Sky commentary team, was sharp in his criticism of the umpiring. He may have gone a bit far. I don’t know because I wasn’t watching the match. But what followed rather changes the debate about the propriety of criticizing umpires – or of course referees.

Mr Holding has now been rebuked, had his fingers rapped like a naughty schoolboy in the distant days when such finger-rapping was permissible. He has been reminded of “the importance of maintaining the highest standards and upholding the game’s best values and spirit while covering the tournament.”

This reminder came from Huw Bevan who is the Production Head of ICC’s Rights partner, Sunset & Vine. The company has a big contract with the ICC, now extended to 2023. Among other things it will be responsible for coverage of both the Men’s and Women’s WorldT20 and the inaugural World Test Championship. So it is understandable that its Production Head should be anxious to avoid anything which might be disagreeably controversial and so perhaps damage Sunset & Vine’s happy and profitable relationship with the ICC.

Bevan went on to say: “Inherently in live television there are occasions when on-field decisions cause reason for discussion or debate, but as ICC TV host broadcasters our (Sunset & Vine) duty is not to judge or highlight mistakes.”

The word “duty” is the giveaway. He isn’t saying, “look here, Michael old boy, remember the Spirit of Cricket, and don’t knock the poor old umpire”; that’s what an old buffer in a striped blazer might say. On the contrary, his call to duty is different. He is saying, “you must say nothing that might offend the ICC by suggesting that their World Cup is anything but absolutely splendid”. At least that’s the message I get. “You are employed, Michael, to promote the tournament, and don’t you forget it.”

Well, happily, Michael Holding has responded as he might have done when a batsman nicked an edge through the slips for four.

“Commentators,” he says, “are being more and more compromised by controlling organizations to the point of censorship”.

This, I should say, has sent Bevan’s middle stump cartwheeling.

Of course, one can see why Bevan is a bit ratty.  Consider what I suppose he might call the mission statement delivered some time ago by Jeff Foulser, Chairman of Sunset & Vine: “ICC and Sunset & Vine are on a journey to set the bar on cricket broadcasting and deliver a truly world-class product for broadcasters and cricket fans.”

You, my fellow cricket fans, may not care to think of a cricket match as a “product”, but then you are not in the same business as Sunset & Vine.

Commentators on any subscription Channel are in a difficult position. They are employed because of their knowledge of the game. They are sharing their knowledge and, by a natural corollary, their opinions with us, the viewers. We respect them for their expertise and because of who they are. They are also employed to sell the product. Accordingly, as Mr Bevan elegantly puts it, they have “a duty not to judge or highlight mistakes”, a duty to pretend that everything is wonderful and that this soap powder will wash whiter than any other. Even to hint that the product is shoddy may have viewers cancelling their subscription. So of course it is their duty to exercise self-censorship. They don’t have the freedom of a print journalist who can say that this was a very boring day’s cricket or a dreadful match, and who may say with impunity that this umpire or referee had a bad game.

You may of course think that the rebuke delivered by Bevan is a bit stupid. A bit of argument or controversy may actually help to sell the product. I’m sure that many tune into Sky’s Cricket Debate because they know that the Grand (and Grumpy) Old Man Bob Willis will most likely have some sharp things to say. Likewise it’s daft to employ a commentator as intelligent as Michael Holding and then seek to gag him.

As to criticism of umpires and referees: yes, we should recognize the difficulty of the job and exercise a degree of tolerance. Nevertheless in professional sport they too are professionals, part timers at lower levels, quite well-paid ones now at the upper and international level. Criticism should be tempered but not go unvoiced, any more than a foolish stroke by a batsman is passed over without a word.