Johan Cruyff the incomparable Dutch footballer pioneered the concept of Total Football about four decades ago. He thought it necessary that a "good" footballer should be able to venture out of his special skill and be able to play at all positions to be called "great". Football thereafter changed the skin for the better nay the best. Cruyff himself was great and his concept greater.

The move to introduce "referral" system during India's tour of Sri Lanka on an experimental basis on the part of International Cricket Council (ICC) is just as potential. Put this referral system into perspective and you will find it can instill total awareness about the game in cricketers - present and future. Gone are the days when a cricketer on the ground - whether as a batsman or a non-striker or a bowler or a wicketkeeper or a close-in fielder - simply did his respective duty and was done with the job. The system demands that a cricketer - whichever capacity he is performing in on the field - must be "aware" of many things beyond the normally expected responsibility on his part. This is equally applicable for the umpires on the field and even for the third umpire who is the essence of this referral system. Let's examine a few examples and the system in toto.

Today the batsman has to necessarily attempt to play the ball with a lot more awareness and not simply play on the front foot expecting to enjoy the benefit-of-the-doubt against an LBW shout. If you play on the front foot normally the umpires - world wide - would give you the benefit-of-the-doubt nine out of ten times. However Rahul Dravid found out the evil of the referral system during second test match. He did not merely play on the front foot but in fact attempted to sweep Muralitharan. The on-ground umpire ruled him "not out". But Murali was damn sure about the trajectory and asked his captain to review the decision. Dravid was declared out by the third umpire.

Sachin Tendulkar's dismissal in the first test match highlights the importance of this system further. Murali's delivery touched the back of Sachin's glove as he tried to paddle-sweep him. This could not be spotted by the on-ground umpire. However the close-in fielders were sure enough to make Jayawardene refer the decision to the third umpire who in turn ruled Sachin out.

The referral system shunts the benefit-of-the-doubt concept to wasteland well almost

The system affords three referrals each to the batting and fielding side per innings. A team would continue to enjoy the three referrals until the referrals are successful. However an unsuccessful referral would cost the team one opportunity meaning after three unsuccessful referrals the team cannot make use of the system in that particular inning. The use of discretion has to be judicious !

As the fielding side can refer the decision to the third umpire when they think that the on-ground umpire has erred the batting side too can do so for the similar reason. This is where the non-striker comes into play. If an LBW appeal has been upheld by the on-ground umpire and the non-striker - who is in great position to see the trajectory of the delivery - feels that the ball could have missed the stumps he can ask the batsman to refer the decision to the third umpire. Its here the non-striker is expected to get out of his role and observe things that would be normally beyond his purview.

The system demands likewise from the bowlers fielders and the wicketkeeper. The bowler should not only keep the trajectory of the delivery in mind but also consider the bounce that is being afforded by the pitch when an LBW shout is referred. Mind you the bounce off the track on the first day and the last day will never be the same. And like the bowler the third umpire too must be mindful of it while dishing out LBW decisions. Though of course the hawk-eye cannot read and differentiate between the bounce on the first and or the fifth day am sure a sharp-minded third umpire should be able to nullify this particular shortcoming.

The intent of the system in my opinion is not to expose the errors of the on-ground umpires but to help the game run with minimal mistakes. The system makes each and everyone play and or administer the game in as fair a manner as possible. The system demands much more awareness from all involved with the game.

That Anil Kumble and company were ignorant and careless of the demands of the referral system is amply clear from the statistics. In all the Indians "referred" 21 decisions to the third umpire and were able to get only one nod. Callous should be the word to describe Indian cricketers' approach towards this new system. They certainly need to chew the system a bit more !

The Sri Lankans - who are less celebrated as compared to the pompous Indians - adapted to the demands much better. They got 11 nods in their favour from out of the 27 referrals made by them. Their batsmen bowlers close-in fielders and the wicketkeeper; all appeared "well educated". They knew precisely "when" to ask for a review. Not for no reason they won the series 2-1.

And it's not over! The ICC has decided to continue with the experiment for some more upcoming series before its actual implementation.

There is a lesson to be learnt for sure by the present as well as the future cricketers. And isn't it better to learn a lesson than being taught one! (Ends).