Rain rules... and Barry Jarman dictates...

Prem Panicker

The gruelling South African safari is over. And as I sit here thinking of the past couple of months, my first recollection is of a Star Sports promo hyping the tour.

It showed Allan Donald, in cowboy hat and boots with spurs, standing in the midst of a downpour... and the words, delivered with slitted eyes and imitation cowboy accent: "In South Africa, it always rains before a battle!"

Prophetic, except that in actual fact, the rain came down during the battle - both in the third Test, and two of the one-dayers.

And that inevitably brings up the subject of rain rules...

The rain it raineth...

Do you remember the comic verse which went "The rain it raineth on the just/And also on the unjust fella/But mostly on the just, because/The unjust steals the just's umbrella!"???

Nothing, to my mind, typifies the international rules in case of rain interruptions than that little bit of doggerel.

Funnily enough, the first modern instance of stupidity, more than rain, marring a contest occured way back in 1992 - and on that occasion, South Africa ironically were the sufferers. In the semifinal of the 1992 World Cup, played in Sydney between England and South Africa, England batting first made 252/6 in 45 overs in a rain-affected innings. Followed SA's turn to bat, and when it came to the death, the side needed 22 off 13 balls with Brian McMillan batting 21 and Richardson batting 13. Came the rain, for a brief spell - and when it cleared, the umpires reduced two overs from the South African side - which meant that SA, resuming its innings, had just one ball left to play. And at the same time, the reduction in runs was just ONE - which meant that the asking rate, from a gettable 22 off 13 with four wickets standing, had been brought down to 21 off one ball.

And if you know of any example that matches that for sheer stupidity, I would love to hear it.

It was following this, that the ICC decided to change its rules in regard of rain interruptions. And what they came up with was a formula that goes by the name of Clarke's Curve. And since said curve was employed twice in the just concluded SBI ODI series in South Africa - once in the India-Zimbabwe league game in Centurion Park and the other in the replayed final of the series, between India and South Africa on February 13, maybe it needs some explaining here.

Okay, this is the how of it: Basically, the Clarke's Curve looks at it from the point of view of fairness to both sides. It has been suggested that the best way is to use the run rate to compute the revised target. By that argument, if SA scores at say 5 an over at the end of 50 overs to get to 250, then India's target in 40 overs should be 40x5=200+1 to win.

But there is one thing wrong with that. The side batting second gets an unfair advantage, in that its 10 batsmen have to bat only 40, and not 50, overs, and therefore can afford to throw their bats around more than if the match had lasted the full distance.

And it is for this reason that the Clarke's Curve was introduced. Basically, the formula is a computation that calculates what the side batting second should get for every over from 25 (which is the minimum needed for a match to be considered complete) onwards. While I won't go into the whole thing here, you should get an idea of how it goes from the fact that the Curve dictates that if the side batting second gets only 25 overs, then it has to score 66.7 per cent of the total made by the team batting first; in 30 overs, that is 76 per cent; in 35, it is 84 per cent; in 40 it is 90.7 per cent and in 45, 96 per cent.

These computations have been accepted by all cricket playing nations, and therefore the revised target for India is perfectly legitimate - to raise cries of "unfair" is, therefore, just not on.

Having said that, I do need to raise two questions. One - why, if we are playing a day-night match, must the overs be curtailed at all? Especially if it is a matter of squeezing in just 10 more? Surely, if the game is being played under lights, there is no question of the light deteriorating - so why doesn't the ICC think of adding a clause to the rain rules, which dictates that if the game is played under lights, then play should go on for the full 50 overs, provided play doesn't extend beyond midnight?

Another question I would dearly love an answer to is this - both at Centurion Park, when Zimbabwe beat India in the rain-marred league game, and at Durban, when South Africa beat India, the official announcement was that the winning team had taken the game on superior run-rate. "South Africa has won on superior run rate" is, in fact, the official verdict on the final.

Huh? At Durban, South Africa scored 278 in 50 overs, which gives them a run rate of 5.58 per over. India scored 234 in 39.2, which is a run rate of 5.95. So how do you mean, SA won on "superior run rate"? Some guy, a decade down the line, reads the scorecard of the game and that announcement and gets to wondering - when the simple thing to do would be to say that SA won by 17 runs, which is what actually happened.

But then, if we stated simple things simply, we wouldn't be human, would we?

Barry Jarman rules, okay!

The more I see of Mr Barry Jarman, the more I wonder what, precisely, the rule of match referee is.

If Jarman's performance is any indication, then the role can be defined as follows: "Firstly, and at all times, the match referee shall ensure that the incompetence of umpires is never questioned by anyone even remotely associated with the game. And secondly, he shall also strain every nerve to ensure that while both teams in a contest are treated equally, some teams are more equal than others."

Sounds harsh? Okay, check out the latest from said gent. Jarman summoned Indian manager Sunil Dev for "breaking ICC rules", specifically clauses three and eight. The first relates to "bringing the game into disrepute" and the second to "making statements on umpiring decisions".

This is why Dev attracted Jarman's wrath. On television, the Indian manager was being quizzed about matters cricketing and, almost inevitably, the question of the Jonty Rhodes catch, in the abandoned final on February 12, to get rid of Azharuddin came up. "Under the circumstances," replied Dev - said circumstances being that neither the straight nor square leg umpire was in a position to say whether the catch had been completed fairly - "I think the umpires should have called for a TV verdict. If they can call for TV replays on boundary decisions - and catches - then surely they could have done so in this instance. Neither umpire was really in a position to make a snap decision."

By saying that, how did Dev "bring the game into disrepute"?

Is it denigrating cricket, to suggest that since technology exists - and in fact is being increasingly used to determine even whether a ball landed inside or outside the boundary line, which is much simpler for the umpires on the field to do than determining whether a fielder, who has his back to them when completing a catch, has taken it fairly or not - it should be used in such marginal cases?

Okay, assuming it is just that. Then is it punishable only when an India official or player does it? Mr Jarman was the match referee for the Indian leg of the South African tour in late 1996 as well, if memory serves. And I don't remember him thinking that both SA coach Bob Woolmer and captain Hansie Cronje had brought the game into disrepute when, after the first Test at Ahmedabad, both dismissed the pitch as a nightmare and the umpiring as incompetent.

Hey, by what yardstick does a Dev bring the game into disrepute by suggesting that technology should be used to adjudicate on marginal decisions, but Woolmer doesn't bring the game into disrepute when he suggests the umpiring was flawed?

Okay, let us stay with this business of bringing the game into disrepute for a while longer. Before the SA leg of the tour, friend Jarman specifically said that the hand bent at the elbow - the classic "Up yours!" gesture - was not on, that both teams had been warned about that, and that any such gesture would be punished. Okay, so what did Shaun Pollock do when he got Mohammad Azharuddin in that famous incident? The selfsame gesture - caught live, and in all its graphic glory, on television. Yet Pollock was not, in Jarman's own words, questioned, because the match referee did not think it was necessary. Why not, pray? Because Azharuddin told him that Pollock hadn't said anything abusive. So? Does that condone the gesture, outlawed by Jarman himself?

Okay, fine - Pollock gets away without a stain on his character because he hadn't said anything abusive. What price Allan Donald? When Dravid on drove him for a six, Donald responded with a bouncer, then came down the pitch to tell the batsman something that, most definitely, was not "Hi, how are you?". Next ball was another short-pitched ball, and after Dravid fended it off, he got another mouthful from the bowler - both instances, obviously abusive, and prompting Sachin Tendulkar, the non-striker, to draw umpire Cyril Mitchley's attention to the incident.

By what reckoning, by what yardstick, does Jarman not take action in this instance? Unlike Pollock, Donald most definitely said "something". Jarman, like the proverbial three monkeys, however sees no evil, hears no evil... except when the man in question happens to be Sunil Dev.

Not just Dev, though. In an earlier game, Azhar is booked for "dissent", right? And what did Azhar do to deserve that? He gets a decision so badly flawed - I mean, the guy had all three stumps showing when he got a ball on his back pad, by what law was he out LBW? - and promptly walks. Pollock helps him on his way with the famous gesture - at which point, Azhar glares at the bowler, and on his way back to the pavilion, turns round a few times to throw stares at Pollock. By what definition is it "dissent" to stare at an opposing player?

Alternately, remember the famous instance in the Test series when Gary Kirsten got one on his pads, the ball ballooned up, Dravid from short square dived forward, taking Kirsten with him, and came up with the ball and the batsman was given out? Kirsten stood there, first pointed to his pads, then shook his head at the umpire and all through his painfully slow walk back to the pavilion, kept shaking said head at said umpire. If a look is "dissent", then repeated shakes of the head is not? Is sauce for Azhar's goose not, in Jarman's view, sauce for Kirsten's gander?

Pankaj Dharmani and Saurav Ganguly are docked 25 per cent of their match fees for "intimidatory appealing". Okay, they both rushed up to close to the umpire, asking for a decision. Very bad behaviour, admittedly - and in total contrast to that shown by the South Africans in India - each time a ball was taken or it hit the pads or a throw hit the stumps, the South Africans would of course turn very politely to the umpires and ask, in the politest of tones, "How is that, umpire?" And if the appeal was turned down, they would trot back to their places, meek as Mary's Lamb, and get on with the game - under the benevolent eye of no less than the selfsame Jarman.

Sheesh!

Okay, clause eight - questioning umpiring decisions. As pointed out earlier, Dev's "questioning" was much milder than what Woolmer indulged in, in India. That apart, if an umpire goofs, what then? The player can't look at him because he is guilty of dissent. Neither player nor official can comment about it afterwards because it is against the norms. And the match referee won't take any action against umpires guilty of repeated errors and just plain incompetence - whether said umpire happens to be a Willey, a Hair or a Bansal.

All very cosy for the umpires, certainly, but what of the players?

Hey, it is being suggested that umpires are, after all, human. Right - and the players are not? A batsman - whether it is a Kirsten or an Azhar makes no never mind - plays his heart out, employing every skill at his command to do well for his side. And then gets a decision that is not marginal, but downright stupid and untenable - and he is expected to display the patience of a saint. Because, see, umpires are human!

The ICC - the game's highest authority - stamps its seal on the umpires who form part of its neutral panel. In other words, the likes of Bansal, Hair and Willey are all sanctified by the game's governing body. Is it not then in the ICC's best interests to ensure that the highest standards are maintained by these individuals? Is it not the obvious move to ensure that the match referee must, at all times, include in his reports detailed analysis of the performance of the umpires officiating in the various games? Does it not make sense for the ICC's umpiring committee to then review these reports and to weed out umpires who are consistently found guilty of being "human"?

Hey, that "human" thing is a laugh - last I checked, the likes of David Shepherd and S Venkatraghavan were human too. So how come their decisions are rarely, if ever, challenged even with the aid of innumerable replays? Simple - the likes of Shepherd and Venkat are competent - and the least that any player, any side can expect of the person adjudicating on a side's fortunes is competence.

And it is the ICC's business to ensure that its panel is manned by competent umpires. Not to protect incompetence, which as far as I can see appears to be the main duty of the match referee.

The ICC owes it to itself, and to the game, to do some hard thinking and introduce, ASAP, some sort of standard for international umpiring. I do not presume to think that umpiring can be made absolutely error free - but it is surely not too much to ask for basic levels of competence from those tasked to referee the game at its highest level?

If the ICC fails to clean up its act in this regard, then it is the ICC itself - and not poor Sunil Dev - who should be held guilty of "bringing disrepute to the game".

Postscript: Convention, at the end of a series, is to look back with a chartered accountant's eye, to tote up the pluses and minuses. Such an exercise is all the more urgent given that India - now playing two one day games in Zimbabwe - will, on February 23, fly to the Carribbean for an arduous three month tour encompassing five Tests and four one-dayers, besides the tour games.

However, I'll postpone that exercise to Monday, as in my reckoning the questions addressed above are far more urgent.

Meanwhile, love to hear from you out there - what, do you suppose, have been the gains for the Indian side on this tour? And what the shortcomings? Mail me your views... and stay smiling!