Flip through the latest issue of Gulf Weekly.
The second Test between Australia and India has once again rekindled the debate over using more technology in cricket.
Both teams had every reason to be sore. Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds even admitted that he was out caught behind when he was on 30. The umpiring blunder cost India 132 more runs from the batsman.
Australian skipper Ricky Ponting was declared not out when he was. Later he was given out when he was not.
There was a rare instance when even the third umpire's decision looked doubtful. Symonds once again had Lady Luck on his side.
The question these blunders raise is: Do we need to remove the human element and make the game totally technology oriented?
It won't work. There is the time factor which will make cricket 'stop start' like American football. And with the excessive amount of appeals which are being made in modern-day cricket, it will be a miracle if the game progresses at all.
Umpiring blunders have been part and parcel of the game since time immemorial. However, with time these blunders have been reduced through better education of umpires.
The entry of umpires, who have been former players, has also improved the situation. The use of neutral umpires has reduced the chances of bias.
Technology has reduced errors by a considerable margin. Run outs have been ruled more precisely. Batsmen have been given out stumped even if a fraction of the foot is above the crease.
Disputed catches have also been resolved in a better manner. However, leg before decisions will always be difficult because the course of the ball can never be judged precisely by technology.
Teams must just get on with it if they get bad decisions. The rough and the smooth always even out in a game. Yes, there will be the occasional heartbreak when a major blunder could cost the team the match. It has happened many times before and it may occur again.
Let's look at the brighter side. Before the use of technology, there was always a hint of suspicion existing between the players and the umpires. Not everybody was a David Shepherd or a Dicky Bird. There were characters like Shakoor Rana from Pakistan who were a blot on the game.
Some of the worst umpires were found in the Sub-Continent, particularly in India and Pakistan. They had their own interpretation of the rules, particularly leg before decisions.
An umpire from the Sub-Continent was even alleged to have been taking instructions from the team captain before the start of play each day.
At least that has been weeded out with the International Cricket Council's (ICC) elite panel. Now only the best available umpires get the big matches.
The players must appreciate that. Like the players themselves, the umpires too have a bad day.
They must realise that the umpires are under a lot of pressure, particularly now. Excessive appealing has become a fashion. Players appeal for anything at any time.
There is no more of the polite 'howzzat'. Blood curdling sounds and baritone vocals have replaced that.
When Monty Panesar or Muttiah Muralitharan appeal, the umpire may feel that he is in a horror film rather than the cricket field.
The noisy crowds and colourful backgrounds have also not made the job very easy. There are times when snicks cannot be heard due to the constant beating of drums and blaring of horns in the stadium.
The ICC could play a crucial role striking a balance between technology and umpires. They should allow the third umpire to intervene judiciously if the decision is blatantly wrong.
Like tennis, the players should also be allowed a minimum number of appeals against an umpiring decision.
The ICC must also penalise umpires who make blatant errors in judgement. The players are fined for even the slightest show of dissent so why not the umpires.
This means that the ICC will have to get into action quickly, which is something which they rarely do. Knowing the ICC, nothing will happen until something really major breaks out.
Till then, let the game go on. Every game needs a twist, however blatant or bizarre.
