Third umpire trial suggests there is no need for change

It was hoped that the International Cricket Council's decision to experiment with the further use of technology during this month's ICC Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka would take a large slice of human error, and thereby controversy, away from the decision-making of the umpires.

And in general, allowing the two umpires in the middle to refer decisions they were not 100 per cent sure about to a third official watching video replay, has helped. However this trial, under the restraints put in place by the ICC, has in several respects further complicated the situation.

Up until this tournament the third umpire has only been used for run-outs, stumpings and to see whether catches have carried. But with spectators getting a better view of events than those in the middle, the game has been pressurised into using the advances made in cricket's coverage.

For the first time the two umpires in the middle can now ask the third official if the ball hit the edge of the bat, if it hit the pad first, and whether it pitched outside leg stump or in line.

In general this has reduced the number of mistakes, but the England captain Nasser Hussain has not been alone in wondering whether things have gone far enough. Unbelievably, the question an umpire cannot ask is the most important one. Was it out?

And here, because the ICC do not wish to undermine the confidence and authority of the umpires in the middle, lies one of the problems of not handing total control of decision-making to the official off the field. Even now, watching on television after witnessing the umpire give a batsmen out having received an answer to his question from the third umpire, we still find ourselves thinking, 'Yes, it struck pad first, but it hit him outside off stump. He should not have been given out'.

And why are some decisions referred to the third umpire and others not? Several times in yesterday's semi-final between Sri Lanka and Australia we witnessed appeals turned down by the umpire only to see on replay that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps.

If this is the right road surely every appeal should go to the third umpire, otherwise it is all still too subjective and mistakes will continue to be made.

And the uncertainty over the level of scrutiny is why we should not go any further down the line with technology than we had before this tournament. If taken to its natural conclusion, the technology-driven approach would change the feel of the game forever.

Bowlers will appeal for absolutely everything, knowing they have nothing to lose, causing games to come to a grinding halt. At their best, all sports flow; they have a rhythm about them and the constant stop-start that multiple referrals will bring to the game will not only infuriate the players, but eventually lead to spectators staying away. Because even with huge TV screens showing replays at the ground, they will have the least idea of anyone as to what is going on out in the middle. The best seat will be that in your lounge.

Another inevitable consequence would be more batsmen being given out. As an old bowler who has begrudged batsmen anything, I should find this an attractive proposition – but it will lead to shorter games which will cost the game something it can ill afford at the moment – money.

Wickets will also be taken at a far cheaper rate, and a line would need to be drawn in the history books acknowledging figures and averages achieved after these amendments to the rules were made.

Views on the format have not just been restricted to the players. A year ago Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, proposed that each side should be allowed to refer two decisions each session to the third umpire. This would mean limited intrusions, but what if there was a third poor one after the initial two calls?

We all search for perfection, but is it the end of the world if the odd error is made? Cricket, like other sports, would be dull if players or officials never made a mistake – and what would we have to write about or talk about in the bar?

Using this competition as a trial has been beneficial, but the best change to be made after it would be no change at all.