In its effort to get the correct decisions after an appeal in a Test match, the International Cricket Conference (ICC) has come up with a trial system, known as the referral system, in which the two teams in a match can request a review, by the third umpire, the TV umpire, of a decision by one of the on-field umpires.

Apart from the length of time it takes for the third umpire to come up with his findings after starting the query, apart from the fact that there are many players who are not in favour of the system because, in their opinion, it is not foolproof, it is confusing to the fans, many of whom, it appears, simply do not understand how the system works.

The system was used during the first Test between the West Indies and England at Sabina Park. But because of the change of venue after the second Test at the Vivian Richards Stadium was abandoned and the difficulty to set up the television cameras in time, it was not used for the third Test. It was used for the fourth Test at Kensington Oval, and it is being used for the fifth and final Test at the Queen's Park Oval.

The questions continue, however, not only about the reliability of the system but also how it works.

The England players and their fans, for example, did not understand how Ramnaresh Sarwan escaped during the first Test at Sabina Park, just as the West Indies players, and their fans, did not understand how Daren Powell was ruled out in the West Indies innings in that Test match, and how Devon Smith, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, and Brendan Nash were ruled out leg before wicket in the fourth Test.

Sarwan was ruled out leg before wicket by the umpire on the field, the batsman asked for a review, this was relayed to the third umpire after which the on-field umpire changed his original decision and Sarwan was allowed to continue batting.

Powell, on the other hand, attempted to hook, the England bowler and fielders appealed for a catch at the wicket, he was given out, the batsman asked for a review, and after receiving word from the third umpire, the on-field umpire upheld his original decision.

What the fans want to know include the following: how long should it take to make the request, can the player, the batsman, for example, get help from the dressing room before asking for the review, can a request be withdrawn and, most important, how does the system work?

According to the playing conditions governing the trial system, the rules include the following:

The total time between the ball becoming dead and the review request being made should be no more than a few seconds, and if the umpires believe that a request has not been made promptly, they may, at their discretion, decline the request to review the decision.

Discretion

Although the captain may consult with the bowler and the batsmen with each other, if the umpires believe that the captain of the fielding side or the batsman has received direct or indirect input emanating other than from the players on the field, they may at their discretion decline the request for a review and, in particular, so signals from the dressing room should not be given; and a request for a review may not be withdrawn once it has been made.

On top of that, and according to the playing conditions, no replays, either at normal speed or slow motion, should be shown on a big screen to spectators within a few seconds of the ball becoming dead.

What is interesting, what is begging for trouble, however, is that instead of stating a specific time, 10 or 15 seconds, in which the request for a review should be made, instead of saying that if they believe that a request has not been made promptly the umpires shall refuse to grant the request, the ICC, in its playing conditions, talk about "no more than a few seconds" and about "at their discretion".

"No more than a few seconds" and "at their discretion" can mean different things to different players and to different umpires.

The big question about the system, however, is this: how does it work, and, more important, can, or should, the third umpire make any suggestions to the standing umpire?

After getting the request from the on-field umpire, and again this from the playing conditions, the third umpire must work alone, independent of outside help or comment other than when consulting with the on-field umpire; a two-way consultation process should begin to investigate whether there is anything that the third umpire, the TV umpire, can see or hear which would indicate that the on-field umpire should change his decision.

The consultation should be on points of fact and possibly phrased in a manner leading to "yes' or "no" answers - such as, was it a no-ball; questions requiring a series of judgements, such as "do you think the ball was going on to hit the wicket" are to be avoided; and the third umpire shall not withhold any factual information which may help in the decision-making process, even if the information is not directly promptly by the on-field umpire's questions.

Playing conditions

The playing, conditions go on to state that "If, despite the available technology, the TV umpire is unable to answer with certainty or with reasonable confidence a particularly question posed by the on-field umpire, then he should report that the replays are inconclusive."

The rules state simply that the consultation should be on points of fact, that where possible the questions from the on-field umpire should be phrased in a manner leading to "yes' or "no' answers, and that questions requiring a series of judgements are to be avoided.

In the case of Sarwan at Sabina Park, for example, the questions which should have been asked were these: was it a no-ball, did the ball pitch inside the line of the leg-stump, did the ball hit the pads outside the line of the stumps - outside the off-stump or outside the leg-stump, and did the ball hit the bat before hitting the pad?

Based on the television replays, the answer to all four questions was no, that is why the England players were mad, that probably is why the third umpire did not interfere with the dismissal of Smith, Chanderpaul, and Nash, and that, probably, is why Sarwan, after moving from five and on his way to 107, had said, with a smile, "I'm not a big fan of it, but today I'll take it."

In the case of Sarwan, the third umpire, it seems, ventured an opinion as to whether the ball would have hit the stumps. He should not have done so, and that was the problem.

On the other hand, the decision which sent Powell packing was the correct one, and it was correct for the simple reason that the third umpire, unlike many, many others who saw the replay over and over, was not sure, was not conclusively certain, unbelievably so as it might have been, that the bat did not touch the ball.

It is also important to note that during the review, the TV umpire, the third umpire, may notify the on-field umpire of conclusive evidence of other modes of dismissal beyond that initially reviewed.

Referral system

The referral system is not perfect. As far as an attempt to get correct decisions in cricket goes, however, it is a start, and as slow as it may be, as confusing as it now is, and despite the poor decisions which have continued to plague the game, although it needs some fine-tuning, it is worth it.

What is important is that the third umpire remembers that he is not the umpire, but that he is there to support the standing umpire - to ensure that the standing umpire does not make a mistake.