In the recent India-England series the umpires have often been found wanting. Though it is customary to dismiss mistakes of umpires as "human", it is necessary to reward good umpires with a recognition of their own.

I therefore suggest that there should be a "rating for Umpires". The way I suggest how this rating should be done is that there should be a panel of three observers for each match who would watch the umpiring decisions with reference to the TV replays, snickometer readings etc and give a rating on a scale of -5 to +5 on every significant appeal.
An insignificant appeal and an appeal which leads to a most obvious decision would get a score of zero.
A very good decision ..say a not out decision for a confident appeal or an out decision where the obvious decision could have been otherwise could be given a score of +5. A horrible decision would be given -5.

This score should be computed for each match and accumulated over a period of time to find out who is the real good umpire in the world. This can also evaluate the "trend" for a particular umpire ..whether he was good at a point of time but now has lost the instinct etc .

I hope umpires would also look at this as a positive measure rather than a "Criticism".

As in all such cases the good umpires will welcome the move while bad umpires would be uncomfortable.

I think this system would be far better than the "Captains's Reports".

I also think that this system can even be implemented by the TV channels if not ICC or ICL.

Naavi

August 12, 2007