Umpire Decision Review System:

A Sri Lankan idea

Rudyard Kipling's cryptic observation that 'The East is East, The West is West: Never the Twain shall meet' may well be said to be applicable in a similar sense to the connection between the concepts of cricket and prejudice. In an ideal sense both concepts stand remote and far apart. The similarity to Kipling's adage ends there. The ground reality is however vastly different.

This social reality i.e. the role that cricket plays in the life of a nation and particularly in moulding values and the development of the cultures of the former colonies of the British Empire is well documented in the classic autobiographical book 'Beyond a Boundary' (1963) written by C.L.R. James, the celebrated West Indian writer.

He argues that what happened inside the 'Boundary Line" in cricket affected life beyond it, as well as the converse. The book is the origin of the famous phrase, "What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?".

It also provides an insight into the dark side of cricket especially in the colonial phase of the Caribbean nations and the bitter struggle that descendants of former slaves had to endure to overcome prejudice and gain selection into teams of prestigious cricket clubs more or less run by the then white colonial establishment.

Latest victim

The latest victim of what appears to be unashamed racial prejudice and indefensible conduct on the part of the old guard of the international cricket establishment is our own Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna who has laid claim to authorship of the key elements of the new adjudicatory mechanism in Test Cricket i.e. Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS).

Supported by incontrovertible evidence comprising publications in leading international cricket journals and newspapers. Weeraratna has been successful in convincing several independent cricket observers and writers, including members of the Interim Committee of the Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) that the core mechanism of UDRS is basically Weeraratna's own brainchild.

Conceived in 1997 Weeraratna attempts to resolve a vexed problem in cricket due to umpiring errors by proposing a fundamental change in the manner of adjudication. Driven by his legal training and a keen sense of righting wrongs, Weeraratna called for the use of the third umpire in an appellate capacity with powers to entertain direct appeals from a player dissatisfied with the decision of an on field umpire. 12 years later after much debate across the cricket world ICC finally relented and encapsulated the Weeraratna proposal in what is now known as the UDRS. It came into effect as a rule applicable in Test Cricket from October 1, 2009.

Authorship

ICC however has left one important issue unresolved i.e. Recognition of authorship. Feeble attempts to source it to instant replay in tennis have been unconvincing and have failed. Neither has the international mass media i.e. western press, with its overarching reach been any helpful in respect to identifying the concept's true origin and giving due credit to the author of the new Rule.

Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, two Englishmen, are constantly projected by the international media as having devised the Duckworth Lewis Rule applicable in rain affected one-day matches, Stuart Robertson, the former Marketing Manager, England and Wales Cricket Board, has been hailed as the founder of the Twenty 20 Cricket format. Unfortunately, Weeraratna appears to be unmarketable as the innovator of a revolutionary concept in cricket for reasons best known to the European mindset still in charge of the ICC.

Fair play

The reticence of the ICC on the matter of attribution of credit to Senaka Weeraratna is a disgrace. It is contrary to the spirit of cricket which enshrines values of fair play and justice both within and beyond the boundary.

It smacks of Euro - centrism, a pathological condition afflicting a particular group of the human race.

In the new world that is emerging with China and other Asian countries at the helm, there will be no room for old colonial and racial stereotyping in international sport institutions. ICC must wake up to the new geo - political realities now on the upsurge in the cricket world.

In our own country too it must be noted that recognition for innovation of this rule has been slow in coming.

The saying that the prophet is never honoured in his home country is amply manifest in this context. In another society the likes of Weeraratna given the significance of his contribution towards improving the degree of accuracy in the adjudicatory process of a nation's king sport would have had high celebratory status by now.

Responsibility

SLC has a heavy responsibility in this regard. If the stance of the ICC continues to be negative on this issue without a 'just cause' and proper explanation, then in that event SLC must not hesitate to lobby other cricket playing nations particularly in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean towards condemning this blatant injustice and ensure that due recognition is given by the ICC to the author of the concept underlying the new Rule.