Umpires go scot free

Now that the dust has settled, hopefully the genuine cricket followers can make their voices heard. The hullabaloo that followed the Smith incident at the Bangalore Test completely derailed the main issue.

Ironically for days together the cricket experts, commentators and writers et al went to town discussing the Decision Review System. To begin with, no one asked for the DRS and the procedure was not in operation.

Some critics decided that it was a case of Smith versus Kohli. While others thought it was an issue between BCCI and ICC. Cricket connoisseurs around the country were quite aghast to find that the primary consideration was blown off in the whirlwind of one-upmanship.

Thanks to repeated television coverage everyone saw that the Indians appealed for a leg before wicket decision against Smith and the umpire ruled in India’s favour. Smith looked towards his non-striking partner for his view. The non-striker gestured to him to look towards the Australian dressing room to confirm the decision.

 Accordingly Smith did look towards the Australian dressing room as both Kohli and umpire Llong rushed towards him to warn him that it was against the spirit of the game.

It goes without saying that what Smith did was against all norms and codes of cricket. Thankfully Smith apologized as did his batting partner for their misdemeanor.

BCCI sent a note to ICC as a charge as is the procedure. But within a few days BCCI withdrew the charge as well!

Here the point to note is that the umpires should have laid a serious charge against Smith for what he did. And on receiving the charge the match referee would have acted on it and penalized the Australian captain.

Whether Smith has apologized or not is not an issue at all. Why the umpires refrained from raising a charge is the primary and the only issue. A conscientious match referee would have asked the umpires to put up a charge and acted on it.

If some people have seen the shadow of racism in the outcome I personally cannot blame them because over the years the ‘white’ players have got away with murder. If an Indian cricketer had done something similar hell would have been created.

 No ‘white’ critic has found any serious fault in Smith’s behavior. This typically racist approach is an obvious off-shoot from a group that includes Darren Lehman, the Aussie coach. Lehman, if one cares to remember, was charged for making a serious racist allegation in the past.

Neither the umpires nor the match referee have been hauled up for avoiding their respective responsibilities. This is a matter of serious concern. Is this also a case of racism to save the failures of ‘white’ match officials?

                                             

India's acceptance of DRS

Would like to highlight two cricket issues for genuine cricket followers. One on India’s acceptance of DRS and the other on ‘ball going out of shape’.

After retirement from active cricket, Sachin Tendulkar has had a rethink regarding the functioning of the Decision Review System (DRS).Today he has acknowledged that the DRS may be accepted. This is indeed strange. All along during his playing career he was insistent that the DRS should not be allowed.

DRS, as all cricket followers are aware, is for the players on the field to request the field umpires to refer their own decision to the 3^rd umpire for a review. In other words, the team which is unhappy with the field umpire’s original decision can appeal again for the 3^rd umpire to take another look at the original decision.

 The 3^rd umpire on his part takes his time to have a good look at the incident from various camera angles. He has the advantage of observing umpteenth replays on the television screen in the privacy of his own room. Then he conveys the final decision through the use of lights or through the field umpires.

 Both the batting and the fielding sides have recourse to two positive decisions. That means if the team is successful in its appeal for a review, then the scope to appeal remains at two as before. But if not successful, then the scope to appeal is reduced by one. Whether batting or bowling, no team can have more than two unsuccessful appeals.

 India and Sri Lanka were the first nations involved when the functioning of the DRS came into operation in 2008. But the Indians were not happy with some of the decisions going them. They had every right to feel hurt. If the system adopted is not in proper order, why should we accept it all?

Sachin Tendulkar’s and his mates contention all along was that hot-spot, snicko-meter and ball tracking devices were not hundred per cent foolproof. Hence there was no reason to adopt a system that that had inherent flaws in it. Sachin’s view, later endorsed by skipper Dhoni, was accepted by BCCI. BCCI informed ICC that India would not accept the DRS in any of its series, whether at home and abroad.

So powerful was the Indian lobby at the ICC at the time that the latter immediately complied with BCCI’s wish. Thus cricket around the world came to be played under various special regulations. While other Test-playing nations accepted to play with the DRS in operation, in matches involving India the DRS was dropped!

There are of course many pros and cons about the system. This is not the platform to discuss its merits and demerits. Suffice is to say that BCCI’s recent change of heart has confounded the cricket followers.

Personally I have always felt that DRS, if accepted at all, should be restricted between the umpires only. If an umpire has any doubt about any decision, the concerned umpire should refer to the 3^rd umpire on his own and ask him to review the appeal. In that way the field-umpire would get the clarification and the correct version. There should not be scope for any appeal from any player whether batsman or bowler.

The player’s job is to appeal just once and wait for the umpire’s decision. The umpire’s job is to adjudicate. For adjudication the umpire may take the help of the 3^rd umpire as and when he wants to. Moreover there should not be any restriction in number of reviews. Why should the review be restricted to just two per innings? An umpire, whenever in doubt, should be able to take the assistance of the 3^rd umpire without any numerical restrictions.

The business of allowing the players to have the recourse to a 2^nd appeal is ridiculous in the extreme. The sooner it is done away with, the better it would be for all concerned. The time has come for the former Test stars in the technical committees to go deep into the issue with their thinking caps on.

                                                               *******

Recently received a very thought-provoking piece from a passionate cricket follower, Col SK Bose. Mr Bose happens to be the director of the Chaitanya Jyoti Museum, Prasanthi Nilyam at  Puttaparthi. I thought of sharing his view with other lovers of the game.

BALL GOING OUT OF SHAPE

            A common sight in cricket matches at all levels is a ball going out of shape.  The bowler carries the ball to the umpire, who consults his colleague and both wise men agree that the ball has indeed gone out of shape and needs to be changed.  Whereupon old balls are brought and the wise men make their decision and another ball is handed to the bowler and the action resumes.

            I remember an occasion, some fifty years back, when the peerless Pearson Surita, the prince among radio commentators, observed that the batsman had more to fear when a ball went out of shape.  The bowler should exult and not protest.  When the ball goes out of shape, it indicates that its centre of gravity has shifted.  The consequences are difficult to predict because nobody has given the matter sufficient thought, but one thing is certain that the trajectory of the ball will be altered in an unforeseen manner.  I am sure that there would be a plethora of ‘out-of-shape’ balls in any cricket centre.  What is needed is a study carried out at the earliest with various seam positions, including the ‘Barnes’ ball.  Old timers would recall the incomparable Sidney Barnes delivering a ball with the seam horizontal, which bamboozled the best of batsmen.  He could make a ball swing away in flight and come in sharply off the pitch.  He still holds the record of 49 wkts in a series of 5 tests, in which he missed one Test Match. 

            I feel this study would throw up unexpected and unforeseen results.  I feel that a number of cricket centres could carry out their own studies.  It should be overseen by competent coaches, who could correctly evaluate the results.  Such studies could open up vast possibilities. 

I personally feel the observations are very original. I am sure conscientious cricket lovers would appreciate it as much as I did. Thank you, Boseda.