What's the catch?

Sourav Ganguly's dismissal in the second ODI against South Africa has raised a question about the role of the third umpire. Should he only be called in to decide run-outs and whether a fielder has touched the rope while attempting to cut off a four? Should he be allowed to overrule the onfield umpire?

Talking about Ganguly's dismissal in his post-match interview, South Africa captain Shaun Pollock differed with the Indian captain on the issue and said the standing umpires' decision should be considered final.

"Catches when referred to third umpires can cause a lot of wrong decisions. I think umpires, standing in the middle, should use their judgement as often as possible," Pollock said.

Isn't this a stupid comment from any educated cricketer, especially from a captain of a top national team? How can third umpires make wrong decisions on catches when they can automatically make only the right decisions on run-outs?

Either the ball touched the ground or it didn't before the fielder was in full control of it. That's all that matters. Period.

If third umpire, with the use of all the available technology at his disposal, cannot make a clear call, then the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman.

What difference does it make to a batsman whether he is given run-out or caught out or stumped out or given out wrongly? The only decision to be made is whether it is a legal OUT or NOT OUT, according to the rule book. Everything else is just peripheral !!!!

Lack of technology or an abundance of it should not be the limiting factor! The only factor we need is our constant and unadulterated desire and direction to get the right decision.

We have, let me say, had and are having umpires in the middle because players always need an authority in the middle to ensure that everything is conducted as per the rules and regulations of the game, and so that players do not get heated up and become runaway trains of verbal abuse and improper conduct on the field. Batsman will always claim they are not out when they are (in doubtful circumstances). Only few batsman have walked off or been recalled by sporting oppositions in the long history of cricket whatever the level of the game. So, why, then, is the desire to keep umpires from being overrun by technology more stronger than the desire to getting the right decision?

Umpiring errors are acceptable as long as there is no viable alternative. Now we have proven technology and let us put to use what science has given us.

Pollock said that not for once did he think the catch was not picked up clean by Kallis. "I haven't seen the replays - I didn't find anything wrong with the chance."

Whose fault is it that Pollock had not seen the replays? Why is he opening his mouth and spouting ignorance? How is it that you can use technology to improve your performance but not for adjudication of decisions?

He said that in such doubtful cases there is no option but to believe what the fielders themselves say and go by the decision of the umpire.

"I would go by the cricketer's word," said Pollock. "In any case, umpires are there in the middle to make a judgement on it."

Why should we believe the fielders? Why not believe the batsman when a run-out is appealed against him. A batsman is no less a cricketer than the fielder and bowler!

Either let the umpires make all judgements and live with it, or refer all decisions to technology. Where is the clear cut rational justification to apply technology selectively?

"I saw the catch had been grassed and indicated so to the umpire but I didn't want to press on," Ganguly said, after the match.

"I was scared of the match referee. Such (wrong) decisions have happened so many times to me in the last few matches. It was one more occasion," he said.

I watched this game live with my friends, and, must say, Ganguly walked off as soon as the catch was taken. Nobody at that time seemed to know that the catch was not right. He never knew he was not out until he went back and saw the replay. He's so childish. Shows a lack of grace even in victory! Even as our 'inimitable, irritatingly non-stop, entertaining' television commentator 'Sherry' i.e. Navjot Singh Sidhu was heaping and showering encomiums on the brilliant catch taken by the slip fielder in question, the replays which came up after a minute showed that there was a clear grounding of the ball on one side when the catch was taken. Sidhu was stupid to say that there should have been a third umpire referral. And then, Sunnybhai immediately countered with something to the effect that there is no law in place right now to refer catches to third umpire and this is a dilemma the ICC is facing right now.

So what's the solution to such blunders? Should batsmen be made to suffer for no fault of theirs?

Isn't it time that those that make the rules allow the third umpire to intervene in the case of doubtful catches too?

Editor's note: Rediff believes that like its own editorial staffers, readers too have points of view on the many issues relating to cricket as it is played.

Therefore, Rediff provides in its editorial section space for readers to write in, with their views. The views expressed by the readers are carried as written, in order to preserve the original voice.

However, it needs mentioning that guest columns are opinion pieces, and reflect only the feelings of the individual concerned -- the fact that they are published on Rediff's cricket site does not amount to an endorsement by the editorial staff of the opinions expressed in these columns.

Mail Sri Baghavan