'Technology will not be introduced at the umpire's expense': Richardson
When Dave Richardson joined the ICC as general manager he wanted to be involved with the game on a much broader scale than he had done previously as wicketkeeper for South Africa
Nagraj Gollapudi
11-Jul-2003
When Dave Richardson joined the ICC as general manager he wanted to be involved with the game on a much broader scale than he had done previously as wicketkeeper for South Africa. Now more than a year into his job, Richardson refuses to be caught offguard and - like his safe pair of hands - cautiously deals with thorny matters like greater use of technology in the game, umpiring errors, chucking and sledging. He presents his views on all those and more issues in this exclusive e-mail interview to Wisden CricInfo. Here are the excerpts:
You have been with the ICC for more than a year now. At the outset you had said that unity among the member countries was the most pressing issue. Is that still a concern?
This is an issue recently echoed by Ehsan Mani in his first speech as ICC president, where he said: "Over the past year there have been issues in the game and decisions taken that have tested the unity of the ICC and its members. Over the coming months, one of the key roles for me will be to ensure that cricket is able to resolve these issues and move on from the disputes that have arisen. The ICC will continue to act fairly and impartially in addressing any issue."
This is an issue recently echoed by Ehsan Mani in his first speech as ICC president, where he said: "Over the past year there have been issues in the game and decisions taken that have tested the unity of the ICC and its members. Over the coming months, one of the key roles for me will be to ensure that cricket is able to resolve these issues and move on from the disputes that have arisen. The ICC will continue to act fairly and impartially in addressing any issue."
It is often felt that the ICC is a body which is reluctant to take a tough stand on critical issues. What kind of problems is the ICC facing?
This is an outdated and inaccurate view of the role and remit of the ICC. Over recent years, the ICC has grown as an organisation and will continue to grow with the support of its members, acting as the driving force in international cricket. Over the course of my time at the ICC, the organisation has been faced with a number of cricketing challenges but through the recruitment of specialised and experienced staff, it is better equipped than ever to deal with these issues. The ICC has proved itself capable of tackling the often complex and difficult cricketing issues in an impartial and rigorous manner.
This is an outdated and inaccurate view of the role and remit of the ICC. Over recent years, the ICC has grown as an organisation and will continue to grow with the support of its members, acting as the driving force in international cricket. Over the course of my time at the ICC, the organisation has been faced with a number of cricketing challenges but through the recruitment of specialised and experienced staff, it is better equipped than ever to deal with these issues. The ICC has proved itself capable of tackling the often complex and difficult cricketing issues in an impartial and rigorous manner.
In the Cricket Operations area alone we have introduced the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC umpires. This is the starting point for improving the standard of umpiring. Methods for the proper assessment and training of umpires have been introduced for the first time ever in world cricket. Other problem areas such as illegal deliveries, technology, safety and security have not been swept under the carpet but are being addressed. We are constantly reviewing policies and regulations and then putting in place measures to enforce these regulations.
The recent verbal brawl between McGrath and Sarwan raised serious questions about how effective the ICC's Code of Conduct actually is. What has the ICC done to ensure that the errant players are punished for their misdemeanour?
The Code of Conduct sets the expected standards of behaviour and has recently been strengthened to provide more powers for umpires and the ICC chief executive to lay charges after an incident has occurred. With the standards in place, the focus must now be on ensuring match officials apply the code where necessary.
The Code of Conduct sets the expected standards of behaviour and has recently been strengthened to provide more powers for umpires and the ICC chief executive to lay charges after an incident has occurred. With the standards in place, the focus must now be on ensuring match officials apply the code where necessary.
Why has the ICC opted against greater use of technology in the game?
Cricket is a game. Human error in the decision-making process of officials is part of all games. Why should cricket be any different? It is important to the fabric of cricket that the sport is umpired by humans, not robots, and the ICC has no interest in our umpires becoming glorified coat hangers. We will look at any technology on its merits but it will not be introduced at the expense of the umpire's status as the key decision-maker in relation to the rules and regulations.
Cricket is a game. Human error in the decision-making process of officials is part of all games. Why should cricket be any different? It is important to the fabric of cricket that the sport is umpired by humans, not robots, and the ICC has no interest in our umpires becoming glorified coat hangers. We will look at any technology on its merits but it will not be introduced at the expense of the umpire's status as the key decision-maker in relation to the rules and regulations.
The Champions Trophy was a successful experiment in terms of use of technology. Why wasn't it continued?
The trial in Sri Lanka achieved exactly what we wanted it to: it gave us an insight into the use of certain technology under match conditions. What it did highlight was that there was no compelling case at this time to rush into introducing greater technology into the sport. Particularly as a number of practical problems emerged such as the consistency and reliability of some technology.
The trial in Sri Lanka achieved exactly what we wanted it to: it gave us an insight into the use of certain technology under match conditions. What it did highlight was that there was no compelling case at this time to rush into introducing greater technology into the sport. Particularly as a number of practical problems emerged such as the consistency and reliability of some technology.
Doesn't technology take away from the authority of the umpire? Also, the ICC had recently claimed that more than 90% of decisions made by umpires are correct. Doesn't that seem an exaggerated claim?
Technology alone does not make a mockery of umpires. In many cases it highlights just how difficult a job the umpires have and how well they perform this task. The figure of 90% is based on the analysis of all games we review and of all decisions umpires are required to make in a game.
Technology alone does not make a mockery of umpires. In many cases it highlights just how difficult a job the umpires have and how well they perform this task. The figure of 90% is based on the analysis of all games we review and of all decisions umpires are required to make in a game.
The referral of catches to the third umpire provides a good example of the dangers of rushing to introduce new technology. When it was brought in, people thought it would solve a particular problem. Instead it made it worse. The technology proved fallible and we've now moved away from this and given the power back to the on-field umpires. The lesson here is that we need to be cautious about technology. There are other steps that we are trialling to assist umpires such as pitch lines that should be closely examined before charging blindly down the `more technology' path.
Why can't HawkEye be used as a tool to assist the umpires?
Hawkeye is a broadcaster's tool designed and used to enhance television coverage and plays no role in the umpire's work. It is a decision of the broadcasters if they want to use it. The use of this tool also gets back to the basic matter of principle - do you want human umpires or robots?
Hawkeye is a broadcaster's tool designed and used to enhance television coverage and plays no role in the umpire's work. It is a decision of the broadcasters if they want to use it. The use of this tool also gets back to the basic matter of principle - do you want human umpires or robots?
At the ICC's recent conclave in London, there was a proposal to introduce a third on-field umpire to spot no-balls. Why can't the TV umpire be entrusted with the job?
This proposal was a side reference and has not been subject to any scrutiny. The point of raising it was to highlight that there are other, more human, alternatives that should be looked at as well as those proposed by people that think technology is the answer to every question.
This proposal was a side reference and has not been subject to any scrutiny. The point of raising it was to highlight that there are other, more human, alternatives that should be looked at as well as those proposed by people that think technology is the answer to every question.
Prominent cricketers like Bob Simpson and Michael Holding have pointed out that chucking is prevalent in the game today. Why can't the ICC take a firm stand on the issue. Is it afraid of legal action being taken by the individual boards or the accused player? Or does it think that charging prominent players who are the brand ambassadors of the game might result in a loss of revenue?
All of the above. The issue of illegal bowling actions is clearly a highly emotive one and no-one should lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with people when we deal with this issue. When I started at the ICC there was a three-stage process, it's currently two-stage and there is a review underway to see if it can be more effective by becoming a single stage process.
All of the above. The issue of illegal bowling actions is clearly a highly emotive one and no-one should lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with people when we deal with this issue. When I started at the ICC there was a three-stage process, it's currently two-stage and there is a review underway to see if it can be more effective by becoming a single stage process.
In the ideal world it wouldn't be an issue at the international level because any concerns would be addressed before players reached this stage and there is work to be done in all countries to detect and address any problems well before a player makes it to the international level. As it stands, there are clearly defined steps in place to deal with this issue and umpires and referees are instructed to apply the laws of the game and ICC Playing Conditions evenly and without fear or favour.
Moving forward we are working with the national boards to ensure that they are able to implement policies and strategies that effectively deal with this matter domestically as well as internationally.
Some umpires have reportedly stated that the ICC has instructed them not to call players who have illegal bowling actions. Is there any truth to the statement?
I am unaware of any such instructions from the ICC or indeed the comments from these umpires about such ICC instructions and I would be pleased if you could give me some sense of where these comments have been made. As I have already said, the only instruction given to our umpires is to apply the rules fairly, without fear or favour and to the best of their ability.
I am unaware of any such instructions from the ICC or indeed the comments from these umpires about such ICC instructions and I would be pleased if you could give me some sense of where these comments have been made. As I have already said, the only instruction given to our umpires is to apply the rules fairly, without fear or favour and to the best of their ability.
If a bowler has a congenital deformity in the bowling arm and his action is not in conformation with the laws of bowling, shouldn't (a) it be called illegal or (b) the law be amended to accommodate these bowlers?
All international umpires are aware of the Laws of Cricket and the process for the review of bowlers reported with suspect bowling actions that supplements Law 24. The match officials are entrusted by the ICC to apply these provisions where appropriate. It is important to recognise that it is far harder for an on-field umpire to be sure that an action is suspect with the naked eye than it is with the benefit of a slow-motion replay. It is therefore unsurprising that recent incidents have tended to be reported after the close of play when umpires have had an opportunity to analyse match footage.
All international umpires are aware of the Laws of Cricket and the process for the review of bowlers reported with suspect bowling actions that supplements Law 24. The match officials are entrusted by the ICC to apply these provisions where appropriate. It is important to recognise that it is far harder for an on-field umpire to be sure that an action is suspect with the naked eye than it is with the benefit of a slow-motion replay. It is therefore unsurprising that recent incidents have tended to be reported after the close of play when umpires have had an opportunity to analyse match footage.
The actions of bowlers with suspect actions need to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. If there is a physiological reason that explains the action then this needs to be taken into consideration.