Fourteen years ago I sent written communication to the International Cricket Council in England suggesting measures to be taken to protect batsmen against wrong decisions by umpires in Test Cricket. The ICC acknowledged my communication and said it
would be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. When 5 years later, in 2008, the ICC introduced exactly what I had recommended,

no mention was made of whence the suggestion had come. I sent a reminder note to the ICC, but such communication was ignored.
Following is the text of the letter sent to the ICC on May 13. 2003. The system of dismissal referrals to a Third Umpire was introduced
in 2008… and the ICC ignored my inquiries as to why no credit was accorded me. The letter to ICC with the suggestions was also shared with the Barbados Nation newspaper and celebrated cricket journalist Tony Cozier. I might also have sent it to Joseph “Reds” Perreira.

THIS IS THE LETTER EXACTLY AS IT WENT BY E-MAIL TO THE ICC…
A FEW POINTS FOR THE ICC TO PONDER
(Tuesday, May 13, 2003)
Occurrences during the Australia-West Indies Cricket Test Series which concluded today at the Antigua Recreation Ground (ARG) have deepened my concern over the rules governing two critical areas of this great game. I am therefore proposing:

1. Greater recognition of the rights of batsmen, for batting remains the soul of cricket; and
2. Greater recognition of the rights of bowlers, for bowling remains the heart of cricket.
There may seem contradiction in the statements above, but not really.
First, the rights of batsmen, with specific reference to umpiring decisions.

When in April 2002, the International Cricket Council (ICC) abandoned traditionalism and appointed an Elite Panel of Umpires for Test Matches, its expressed expectation was that the change would ensure the highest possible standards and guarantee impartial adjudication.
The concept of impartiality is a difficult one. However, what is of greater import, and has been proven repeatedly, is that even impartial umpires make grave errors. Impartiality does not always guarantee justice, or excellence.
Indeed, it has long fascinated me that in a game where great players are considered old in their mid-30s, presumably because of failing eye-sight, impaired hearing and reflexes, and so on, umpires are expected to be at their best when old; whereas, so much hangs on acuity of sight and hearing.

This is not to condemn current umpires, for I believe even graver errors have been made more frequently throughout the history of Test cricket, a fact which many batsmen would have known, and cursed their ill luck for being on the receiving end of an umpiring howler.
The new exposes are because of the television camera and skilled technicians.
Use of available technology has been a considerable advance, as an adjunct to impartial adjudication and towards ensuring the highest possible standards, all-round, in Test cricket.
On several occasions during the Aussies-Windies series, and too often at crucial times, the technology has been an embarrassment to the umpiring. The rules must now come into step with the technology.

Earlier, I gave batting primacy over bowling in the order of precedence in cricket. All things being equal, every team member is required to bat during a match, without necessarily having to be a good batsman; not every team member bowls. For some reason, a great batsman always carries greater gloss than a great bowler.

Yet the game’s current rules favour bowlers: they can scream appeals as often as they like, justifiably or not; and it is not unknown in Test cricket for an umpire to be intimidated into a yes decision because of a prolonged and vociferous appeal from a bowler.
In the recent series, batsmen on both sides suffered from questionable, and sometimes palpably wrong, umpiring decisions. It takes professionalism and human fortitude for a batsman so wronged not to whack the stumps with his bat or hurl his cap to the ground in disgust, or even spit a few expletives. Were such done, it would no doubt be infringing the ICC’s rules of conduct pertaining to bringing the game into disrepute, and result in penalties.

My suggestion regarding batsmen’s right is that the batsman, like the bowler, should have the prerogative of appeal. The bowler appeals to the standing umpire. The batsman should be allowed to appeal to the third umpire.
If a batsman edges a delivery onto his pads and is adjudged LBW, he should have the right, by raising his hand, to compel a television review by the third umpire, who would then adjudicate.

If, as happened to Ridley Jacobs at a critical time of the West Indies second innings, the ball cannons off a forearm and is caught, injustice should not prevail and the right to a review should be entrenched.
But the new rules should have safeguards against abuse. For any ill-founded appeal exposed by the television review, a batsman should be heavily fined (perhaps, a quarter of his match fee). I doubt there would be many, or any, such groundless appeals, for batsmen know if, or not, they knick, even only slightly, and the replay would show the change, or not, in trajectory.

Cricket is still the gentleman’s game and I very much doubt any of today’s Test players would risk their team-mates’ opprobrium and public condemnation in trying to stay there on a spurious appeal.
So, I repeat: The ICC should seriously consider including within its rules a batsman’s right of appeal against mistakes by standing umpires.
Now, to the bowler’s rights. As did the Jacobs catch off the forearm which strengthened the case for batsmen, this Test match produced new evidence (again involving Ridley Jacobs) of what is, in my view, a traditional and continuing transgression of bowlers’ rights.

Brett Lee bowled a superb delivery, brilliantly fielded a defensive prod down the wicket by Jacobs, and in a flash hit the middle stump with his throw to trap Jacobs out of his ground. Lee got the crowd’s applause, but not the wicket.
Yet, had Jacobs snicked the delivery behind to be caught by Adam Gilchrist or hit it into the covers to be caught by Steve Waugh, the wicket would have been added to Lee’s dismissals.
With the intervention of other players, the bowler gets the credit, but when effecting a dismissal all on his own, he gets none. Strange!

Through the years, I have seen similar dismissals, by Vivian Richards, by Roger Harper and by exceptionally agile players from other countries, without the results of their great displays being reflected in the bowling statistics.
I am contending that in the special circumstances of such run-outs, the bowler should be awarded the wicket.
This is a matter to which, I submit, the ICC should accord serious consideration.
In both of the situations upon which I have made submissions, I can foresee the difficulty they might present the ICC.

In the first instance, the ICC might wonder: would such increased use of the technology embarrass its elite umpires, following as it would a dismissal decision already made? And in the second instance, a whole new area of debate would be ignited over correcting the statistics of bowlers past.
I would think that neither the prospect of embarrassment nor the igniting of heated debate should stand as barriers to progress, if the ICC’s objective in governing this great game is to guarantee fair (not only impartial) adjudication and to ensure the highest possible standards in world cricket.