This is the normal reaction from the Western media, as also from their cricket players and officials. Yet, the fact remains that Pakistan has been the pioneers in several issues related to umpires. In the mid-Eighties, for instance, the then Pakistani cricket captain Imran Khan Niazi insisted that neutral umpires be appointed for the home series against the powerful West Indians. John Holder from England and V.K. Ramaswamy from India officiated in the series, which ended in a draw.

Imran Khan, at that point, was sick and tired of accusations of biased umpiring whenever Pakistan won a cricket series at home. So, while the rest of the cricketing world pussyfooted around, he had neutral umpires for the home series. That year, there were no derisive comments when Pakistan held its own against the mighty West Indies. The other countries then followed Pakistan's example.

The Pakistan Cricket Board's (PCB) decision to axe umpires 'with bad reports has come not a day too soon. Such a move should be introduced in other countries as well. Internal umpiring, despite the functioning of neutral umpires, is on the decline. If left unchecked, the game will be seriously affected.

Take the cricket series in England this year. In the six Test matches against India and then Pakistan, both English umpires and the neutral ones came out with several doubtful decisions which were roundly criticised in the media.

The worst offender was the notorious Darryl Hair of Australia. Now, Australian umpires do not enjoy a high international reputation and Hair, it was felt, had been included in the international panel only because he had godfathers on the Australian Cricket Board.

It was Hair who unjustly called Sri Lankan offspinner Muthiah Muralitharan for chucking, and was also involved in several controversial decisions against the visiting Sri Lankans. Unfortunate- ly, his performance had not improved by the time he came to Eng- land, and he was responsible for several bad decisions in the two Tests he umpired against India.

The Test matches and one-day international in England this summer proved that big names are no guarantee of infallibility. Dickie Bird, in his last Test appearance at Lord's, and the ebullient Steve Bucknor of the West Indies are well-known umpires. Yet, both of them were involved in controversial decisions in the matches they officiated in.

This was particularly true with reference to deciding lbw victims. There was no rhyme or reason in judging appeals for lbw, particularly when batsmen padded up and did not offer a stroke to balls which came into them from outside the off stump.

Cricket commentators, mostly former Test players, are now openly criticising what they felt were 'bad' decisions. Of course, the commentators had the benefit of slow-motion action replays involving high tech equipment, a facility denied to the umpires.

Thus in the Oval Test between England and Pakistan, commentators criticised the lbw decisions against English batsmen Nasser Hussain (given by umpire Cooray of Sri Lanka) and John Crawley (by Mervyn Kitchen of England - in this case, the appeal was turned down when the England batsman was plumb in front to Wasim Akram). Even though some of the cricketers-turned-commentators such as Ian Botham and Allan Lamb were heavily biased against the visitors, their observations on the umpiring decisions merited attention.

At present, the rules in most games were quite strict on the issue of indiscipline by players. This is more so in tennis where swear words, gestures and talking back to referees are punished with heavy fines. Cricket continues to be a gentelman's game, and players do not flout rules so regularly. Yet, both in tennis and cricket, it is the players who have to pay for the incompetence of the officials. The 1996 Wimbledon was marred by numerous bad decisions by linesmen and referees. Players who questioned these were summarily punished, but what about the errant officials? Should they continue to operate and make a mockery of the game?

Under such circumstances, I fully support the decision of the Pakistan Cricket Board to keep a watch on umpiring decisions and weed out the bad ones. Today, much depends on the captains' reports at the end of the match - but the time has now come to appoint an independent body which would study controversial decisions and judge the performance of various umpires. A bad umpire, despite being on the international panel, can ruin a good cricket match.

Of course, there are also umpires of the ilk of David Shepherd or Srinivasan Venkataraghavan - people who are always in control of the game and who can be expected to come out with fair decisions. But several others on the panel are not of the same calibre. If players who stand to lose most from poor umpiring can be punsihed for registering protest, the men in white who give such decisions should not be allowed to go scot free. The stakes in international cricket are high. Can we estimate, for instance, how much the Sri Lankans lost out in the triangular series against the West Indies and Australia last year Down Under? With better umpiring, they would have walked away with the trophy and the winners' cheque. But thanks to Hair and his cronies, they had to be satisfied with the runners-up berth. No wonder Ranatunga, when asked before the World Cup what he thought of Australia's chances, snapped, ``Nil. They are playing with neutral umpires, not their own men.''

that the Pakistan proposal to root out bad umpires should be taken up at the next meeting of the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Umpires found guilty of incompetence and/or bias should be sacked - in the process, the beneficiary will only be the game of cricket itself.

Copyright 1996 Rediff On The Net All rights reserved