A study of cricketing data is needed to conclusively nail that. In the meantime, closer electronic scrutiny of umpires will check poor decisions against players, especially from India and Pakistan.
A study on bias in cricket is long overdue. The sport is data rich – names of bowlers, batsmen and umpires are readily available. Crunch all that data and it won't be hard to figure out if umpires are handing down tricky decisions based on race, colour and country.
International cricket today resembles a geopolitical battleground rather than a contest between willow and leather. The latest flashpoint was the high-octane 2011 World Cup game between India and England during which umpires Billy Bowden (New Zealand) and M. Erasmus (South Africa) and TV umpire R.J. Tucker (Australia) ruled an England player “not out” even after the electronic review system ruled in India's favour.
The controversy would have died out as the tournament progressed but then Dave Richardson, the stuffed suit at the ICC, reignited it by criticising Indian captain M.S. Dhoni for disputing that decision. Richardson, a servant of cricket’s governing body, was clearly out of line here by blathering off against Dhoni, cricket's most valuable player.
The fact is that the fine print in the rule book is called into play only when Indian and Pakistani players are involved. In fact, players from the two countries are consistently handed out heavy fines or match suspensions or both while for similar offences, players from, say, Australia, England or South Africa get a mere warning or at worst a reprimand. Basically, a wink and a nod.
If you are not convinced there is bias in cricket, perhaps you should look at a study on racial bias in baseball by Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas, Austin. Among sports, baseball comes closest to cricket in the manner of play, terminology and gear.
After analysing 2.1 million pitches in Major League Baseball from 2004 to 2006, the study says that the highest percentage of fair calls occur when both umpire and pitcher (bowler in cricket) are white, while the lowest percentage is when a white umpire is judging a Black pitcher. The results showed that in about 1% of the pitches thrown, an umpire was more likely to rule in favour of the pitcher if both were of the same race or ethnicity.
What? A measly 1! Well, look at what the study says next: “At first, this effect may seem trivial, affecting on average less than one pitch per game. The indirect effect—when players anticipate the effect of a biased umpire and strategically alter their behaviour—may, however, have an even larger impact on outcomes.”
Baseball, like cricket, is a very closely played game. If a pitcher suspects his questionable throws may be called good, he’ll throw more aggressively. But if he knows the umpires are biased against him, he might be forced to throw directly at the plate, making it easier for the hitters to clear the park.
Two such situations in cricket can be recalled here. One was the 2008 Sydney game where Australia, knowing that umpires Mark Benson and Steve Bucknor were handing down a spate of poor decisions against Indian batsmen, went for the offensive after being in hopeless situations several times.
Again, in a 1978-79 series in Pakistan, Indian legend Sunil Gavaskar remembers Pakistan pace bowler Imran Khan consistently overstepping the crease. Gavaskar, who was at the non-striker’s end, pointed it out to the umpires who ignored his protests and allowed Khan to get away with his no-balls.
Baseball is not the only arena where racial bias has been discovered.
Economists Joe Price of Brigham Young University and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania studied NBA data and found that during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players.
They went on to claim that the different rates at which fouls are called “is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game”.
The results are also troubling because it hits the players where it hurts most. Because a baseball pitcher’s salary is negotiated based on his success on the field, and because close to 90 per cent of umpires are Caucasian, then pitchers who are a minority are also at an economic disadvantage.
The bias in cricket is not just white and black, of course. Bucknor, who is of African origin, had given unfair decisions against Indian players for well over two decades before he was kicked out in 2008. And strangely, Sri Lankan players, who have suffered extreme racism from the Australian Prime Minister down, have, after becoming match officials, penalised Indian players severely while letting off Australian and English players with mere warnings. Two Lankans who consistently offended are Ranjan Madugalle and Roshan Mahanama. They once fined an Indian bowler for “over-zealous celebration”.
So what’s the way out? Despite India’s aversion – in hindsight, justified – for the electronic review system, the way out is better technology and closer monitoring. The American studies established that bias disappears under two conditions – when the game’s attendance is high or electronic review technology is used.
“When you're going to be watched and have to pay more attention, you don't subconsciously favour people like yourself. When discrimination has a price, you don't observe it as much,” says Hamermesh. A parallel study at McGill University supported the findings. Bias is magnified in situations where there is comparatively little scrutiny on the umpire – in stadiums that are not equipped with computerised monitoring systems, it says.
To be sure, most umpires do not intend to be biased before a game. As the American researchers argue, bad decisions appear to be the result of “implicit bias” – subtle mental associations that surface when people are forced to make snap judgments.
Only foolproof technology can be the game changer that negates the role of bias in cricket. For, as Bowden, Erasmus and Tucker show, there are a lot of fools out there.
(ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Rakesh Krishnan Simha is a features writer with Fairfax New Zealand.)