The sport of cricket at a professional level is supervised by a range of trained officials both on and off the field. The on-field officials are called umpires, whereas off the field, both umpires and referees adjudge the proceedings of the match.
Every single ball of a cricket match, right from the bowler’s runner-up till the end of an event on that ball is observed with a keen eye by the umpires. There can be instances when umpires might face difficulty in making a decision. This usually occurs in closely contested cases of run out, leg before wicket, boundary line catches, catches taken close to the ground, etc.
Most of these scenarios involve the batter’s dismissal. Law 31.6 of the Marylebone Cricket Club’s rules of the game states that, “If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out.”
This means that at the end of the consultation with fellow umpires, if a conclusive decision still cannot be made, the umpire can give a ‘benefit of doubt’ to the batters. Popular opinion suggests that the reason behind giving the batters a benefit of doubt is that batters get only once chance to bat, whereas bowlers can have further instances to bowl to the batters.
The benefit of doubt has come under scrutiny many times. It has been criticised for being biased towards the batters. However, in an era of the decision review system, the benefit of doubt rarely gets the limelight and is seldom a matter for further appeal.
