The case for the neutral umpire

The first Test match provided further evidence, if it were needed, of the advantages of having one neutral umpire. During the first three days there were three decisions all of which went England's way and all of which, with the advantage of hindsight, and television replays might have gone to India.

On each occasion, Darrell Hair, the umpire from Australia, was called upon to adjudicate. All three decisions left the Indians shaking their heads in disbelief, but drew no accusations of bias.

The first moment came on Thursday when Nasser Hussain, who was on 14, fended at a lifter down the leg side from Javagal Srinath and there was a huge appeal for a catch behind. Umpire Hair immediately shook his head. It was a definite not out decision rather than a "I don't know and therefore not out" decision.

The replay showed that Hussain had almost certainly gloved the ball. Of course, the umpire does not have the advantage of these replays and with only one look at the incident at full speed it is never easy for him.

If this decision had gone the other way it would have been possible, if not probable, that India would have won the match. The obvious conclusion may seem to be that the third umpire who has the advantage of the replays should have been allowed his say. I do not agree with this although the role of the third umpire could still be usefully expanded and redefined.

Trying to judge catches - whether or not the ball has hit the bat or glove rather than the ground - is not an exact science in the way that judging a run-out or a stumping is from a replay. Even if cameras do not actually lie they can certainly distort.

If the third umpire is allowed to intervene on everything, the absurd situation would in theory be arrived at where there would be a need for only one umpire in the middle and his only job would be to count the number of balls in the over.

Yet, if the game was to be held up more than it is while the third umpire watches innumerable replays and still at the end of it has to take what can best be described as an informed guess, the game would be worse off than it is now. A quick mistake is better than a slow one.

The other two controversial decisions were of less importance than Hussain's. Vikram Rathore was "caught" at second slip on the first bounce by Graeme Hick - this is a decision that a third umpire should be brought into because he is being asked a question to which a replay can give a definite answer.

Mike Atherton was then given the benefit of the doubt over a close leg before wicket decision which can never be the business of the third umpire, because camera angles and the absence of the third dimension - depth - can distort. The third umpire should never be asked to answer a question that can never be more than his personal opinion.