Standard of umpiring, video referrals questioned

Prabhjot Singh writes from New Delhi

Standard of umpiring and video referrals in the 12th World Cup Hockey Tournament here have been generating controversies. Pakistan, for example, has mixed reaction to introduction of video referrals as it has been both a beneficiary and a loser. While Pakistan benefited when the first goal scored against them by England was disallowed, they were adversely affected yesterday when a goal scored by Sohail Abbas off a penalty corner against South Africa was disallowed by the video referee.

There are a number of other decisions, especially about award or denial of penalty corners that have been altered by the video umpire. This has set in motion a serious debate whether hockey umpiring also suffers from consistency and uniform interpretation of rules and regulations of the game.

While video referee upheld award of goal by a German forward who even after ducking had held his stick higher than shoulder level to deflect a rising shot into the Korean goal. Intriguingly England was denied an “awarded” goal for tapping of ball into goal coming from height that was above shoulders while Germans were beneficiary by the total contradictory interpretation of the same rule.

In the same Korea-Germany match, a penalty corner awarded to Korea by using advantage rule was reversed by the video umpire thus bringing to surface inconsistency in implementation of the rules. Advantage rule may be losing its significance as the video umpire, even after being briefed by the umpire, cannot comprehend, the exact situation the game was in before electronic referral was asked.

Even if comments by the team officials of both India and Pakistan are put aside, those by some of the games’ greats like Richard Charlesworth cannot be ignored. Incidentally, the Tournament Director also comes from the country of Richard Charlesworth. Richard Charlesworth who watched the game against Spain from stands felt that award of three of seven penalty corners against his team yesterday was unjustified.

He also complained of inconsistency in umpiring decisions. Interestingly, he maintains he has neither anything against field umpires nor video referrals but stresses “uniformity”. Many veterans, including Olympians, want the video referral system to be studied and improved further so as not to affect the flow of the game.

Since hockey is a fast game and ball runs from end to end in a matter of seconds, a few seconds delay in asking for a video referral can change the complexion of the game. A team defending a penalty corner can be in a scoring position seconds later before the game is suddenly stopped for a video referral. Tempo built for an offensive cannot be resumed after video referral confirms field umpire’s decision.

Because of introduction of video umpire, the matches take longer to finish thus denying the teams scheduled to play subsequent matches little time for warm up. India and England got only 21 minutes for warm-up before their game on Saturday night.

Other area of reservation has been the advantage rule. Some more home work needs to be done to make video umpire coherent, effective and an asset for arriving at correct decisions. Video umpire in cricket and hockey should not be compared.

In cricket, it is the end of a sequence that is challenged. Here it is the flow of the game that is challenged and stopping the game affects the flow or continuity of the game. One must not forget that even electronic eye or camera too has its limitations and cannot capture the intent or imagination of a hockey player.