The Board of Control for Cricket in India and then Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni had faced plenty of flak due to their long-drawn opposition to the Decision Review System rolled out by the International Cricket Council.
More than a decade has gone by since it was first introduced in Test cricket, though it was made to wait until November 2017 it to be made mandatory in T20 internationals as well. But the system seems have raised more questions than answers it was expected to provide!
The welcome return of international cricketing action at Southampton saw West Indies claim a most deserving victory over a shaky-looking England side, but the biggest talking point from the needle contest was the abysmal standard of umpiring. And that too by members of the ICC Elite Panel.
It was only made worse by the ridiculous interpretation of the DRS rules, leaving the game the poorer for it.
Thin edges and leg before are the two types of dismissals that see the maximum use of the DRS, apart from the run-outs and stumpings where umpires seek help from technology to arrive at a decision rather than players seeking a review!
Added to that the fresh salvo fired by ICC to let the TV umpire call the no-balls which all but makes the role of the on-field umpires just a bit farcical!
On so many occasions the "hot spot" technology, borrowed from games where only point of impact counts, has been found wanting when the naked eye and the sound waves both show connection between bat and ball. That often raises unnecessary doubt, mostly leaving sides fuming for being denied justice.
Leg before and the umpire's call bit is far more perplexing, possibly even to the officials themselves.
There are two things in the leg before decision review that are beyond the purview of the match officials.
First is the pitch mat which designates the stump line. It is fixed by the TV production crew and appended to a fixed camera at each end. But even a millimetre's deviation on the camera lens, out in the open exposed to the elements, can wrongly mark the landing spot of the ball within or outside the legitimate area!
Then comes the more controversial ball tracking which essentially is guessing where the ball would have gone if it had not made impact with the batsman's pad! Again the production crew holds full control of the computer simulation that decides whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps at all. And if yes, how much of it would have made actual contact!
All in the dimension of speculation which again leaves one side less than satisfied!
After all, the side denied a favourable verdict when reviewing a decision has reasons to feel aggrieved when the matter rests on the "umpire's call". A review may not be lost but the fact remains that the side opting to use the DRS was not satisfied with the decision in the first place. So when the same is retained for want of clear evidence, then calls for improvement become inevitable.
The current scenario where cricket is forced to be played behind closed doors, TV becomes the only medium to reach fans. And when decisions, despite extensive use of technology do not meet approval of all parties concerned, its about time the authorities woke up to reality.
It will yet be some time before the neutral umpires start officiating in international contests due to the travel restrictions worldwide. ICC must get its act together and prod the owners of the technological aids to provide better solutions.
After all its a question of credibility
More than a decade has gone by since it was first introduced in Test cricket, though it was made to wait until November 2017 it to be made mandatory in T20 internationals as well. But the system seems have raised more questions than answers it was expected to provide!
The welcome return of international cricketing action at Southampton saw West Indies claim a most deserving victory over a shaky-looking England side, but the biggest talking point from the needle contest was the abysmal standard of umpiring. And that too by members of the ICC Elite Panel.
It was only made worse by the ridiculous interpretation of the DRS rules, leaving the game the poorer for it.
Thin edges and leg before are the two types of dismissals that see the maximum use of the DRS, apart from the run-outs and stumpings where umpires seek help from technology to arrive at a decision rather than players seeking a review!
Added to that the fresh salvo fired by ICC to let the TV umpire call the no-balls which all but makes the role of the on-field umpires just a bit farcical!
On so many occasions the "hot spot" technology, borrowed from games where only point of impact counts, has been found wanting when the naked eye and the sound waves both show connection between bat and ball. That often raises unnecessary doubt, mostly leaving sides fuming for being denied justice.
Leg before and the umpire's call bit is far more perplexing, possibly even to the officials themselves.
There are two things in the leg before decision review that are beyond the purview of the match officials.
First is the pitch mat which designates the stump line. It is fixed by the TV production crew and appended to a fixed camera at each end. But even a millimetre's deviation on the camera lens, out in the open exposed to the elements, can wrongly mark the landing spot of the ball within or outside the legitimate area!
Then comes the more controversial ball tracking which essentially is guessing where the ball would have gone if it had not made impact with the batsman's pad! Again the production crew holds full control of the computer simulation that decides whether the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps at all. And if yes, how much of it would have made actual contact!
All in the dimension of speculation which again leaves one side less than satisfied!
After all, the side denied a favourable verdict when reviewing a decision has reasons to feel aggrieved when the matter rests on the "umpire's call". A review may not be lost but the fact remains that the side opting to use the DRS was not satisfied with the decision in the first place. So when the same is retained for want of clear evidence, then calls for improvement become inevitable.
The current scenario where cricket is forced to be played behind closed doors, TV becomes the only medium to reach fans. And when decisions, despite extensive use of technology do not meet approval of all parties concerned, its about time the authorities woke up to reality.
It will yet be some time before the neutral umpires start officiating in international contests due to the travel restrictions worldwide. ICC must get its act together and prod the owners of the technological aids to provide better solutions.
After all its a question of credibility
No comments:
Post a Comment