Putting Pressure on the Institution of Umpiring
Things are tight at tea on the 4th day of the England test match number 2. However, having been through the first two sessions play, one cant help wondering what the impact DRS and technology that has come in cricket is having on the nature of verdict giving in cricket. In the first session today, after England had exhausted their reviews, saeed ajmal got one from monty on the pad while playing forward and there was a vociferous appeal for a leg before. However, to the surprise of many it was given not out. Pakistan still had a review in hand. When contemplated upon, the thought creeped into my head about what such a situation would make the umpire do. He’s been under severe pressure on a spinning wicket with quality spinners and out of form batsmen on both sides. The team appealing for an lbw doesn’t have any reviews left so they cant challenge the umpires decision whereas the batting side can. As an umpire, would you risk being challenged have to your name an incorrect decision to be a successful DRS review to be attached? Theres no doubt that successful / unsuccessful reviews against each umpire are now tracked and after all the umpire is also a professional and has to have a certain performance in his career.
Similarly, in the last innings of the match, strauss was caught at short leg by azhar ali off abdur rehman. The Pakistanis appealed but the umpire instead of giving a decision walked to the leg umpire to ask if it was a clean catch taken. This obviously meant that the umpire had no doubt in his head that he had nicked the ball; his only doubt was on the carry. The third umpire, Billy Bowden, took his time playing the replay from different angles and viewing from hot spot screen too. It was evident to all, including the two Pakistani commentators that it was a clean catch. However, to the shock of all it was given not out.
Where does umpire accountability come in? How could an obvious truth caught on camera be so blatantly ignored? Why shouldn’t someone in the dressing room who has the chance of viewing replays while they are being watched to reach decision be challenged further.
The introduction of DRS is, in my opinion, a good for the game. This is despite the strong argument against it from some quarters who maintain that while faster sports such as soccer have historically been shy of adopting technology just so that the pace of the game doesn’t get affected, cricket, which is already slower paced relatively, just keeps on getting slower and slower. However, I think the unofficial tracking of successful/unsuccessful reviews of umpires is not good for the institution of cricket umpiring. If the tracking through technology (such as hawk eye, hot spot, replays etc) was for ALL decisions that an umpire gives, it would have been a different thing, but that doesn’t seem to be practical (at least for now). Similarly, there has to be some means of challenging the decision of the third umpire sitting off field who has increasingly been making wrong decisions one after the other despite conclusive evidences.
Comments
Post a Comment