To review or not?

What a test match we had at Trent Bridge! One of the many examples why five day cricket is exhilarating. However, a few supposedly sour incidents did occur which threatened to take a bit of sheen of the amazing display of cricket we had in all the five days. The UDRS.

It was never meant to be a strategic move up a captain's sleeve for Clarke to lament in the post match press conference that he didn't use it wisely. It was supposed to correct blatant mistakes committed by the on-field umpire. Therefore, why not spare the captain and let only the umpires refer it a few said. If I remember correctly, umpire reviews for lbw were tried once in the early 2000s. If we want to go back to that then we must consider why it was discontinued in the first place. If this decision to review rests with the umpire then, like in the case of run out reviews, he may review everything, just to be 100% sure. Also, we must remember that the DRS is not accurate enough to give the correct decision in close situations. Therefore, an umpire review in this case may seem more like a game of luck where you hope the DRS will give a decision in your favour.

If the aim of DRS is to eliminate the howler, expecting the on field umpire, who himself gave the decision, to review it, seems a bit absurd. Either the players should have the option of challenging the decision or the third umpire must be allowed to overrule any decision.
If the players are given the power to challenge decisions, they would obviously take it every time(pertaining to LBWs) hoping the ball might have pitched outside leg, hit outside off etc which is fine. What the system has to prevent is that they do not review the most obvious of dismissals.
Here some sort of a decisions upheld count can be maintained for each player and team. A bad reviewing history can attract penalties which can act as a deterrent.

DRS is obviously just a very trivial part in cricket. The battle between bat and ball is far more pleasing than watching a 3D illustration of the ball's path or the heat generated due to friction between bat and ball. However, to ensure that a player's character isn't questioned and no team gets a raw deal, technology must now be an integral part of the game with the ICC standardising and paying for it.

The F-word in cricket

Last week, I happened to be at Kanpur appearing for an examination. I didn't crack it but, something unexpected happened that day. Allegations of the F-word, Fixing against three IPL players. One of them, who I felt, if nurtured, could have achieved a lot for India. To say, we are surprised to hear about a fixing scandal would be naive but, yes, disappointment would be rife. In a country where stuff as trivial as fodder to as intangible as airwaves can be milked for personal gains, cricket was the only positive news left to read. How soon would this bubble burst was what everyone feared. Sadly, we had this coming too.

Last year, we had a 'rotten apple', Mohnish Mishra. He too was discarded under a misconception that the other apples are fine. We had accusations of auction and election rigging. There is a case of the cricketers being paid more than their bid value by means of gifts. No inquiry was ever conducted(or, at least the findings of it were not made public, or may be, the allegations are indeed correct), just false promises from the "caretakers" of Indian cricket.

If there were a list of the top opaque sporting bodies in the world, very few eyebrows would be raised if the BCCI is somewhere near the top. But hey, isn't that how our country functions? How can we expect the BCCI to be any different? In a "chalta hai" country, where you aren't guilty unless you are caught red handed, where the parent body is accused of rampant corruption, will our cricketers be able to resist the temptation? If he does, he is an honorable man. If he doesn't, he is just like us, an opportunist, a realist, a person who made the most of the situation at hand.

Our cricketers, who, some day were somebody's neighbors, someone's classmate, someone's 'that kid across the street', who were brought up just like us, be any different from us, loving the game we love? Wouldn't we mind earning an extra buck, if it literally doesn't hurt anybody? Add to this, the possibility of not getting caught. Isn't that an incentive for sportsmen who have just a few years to earn their livelihood unlike the more fortunate salaried class who can do so till the age of 60? It is difficult to guess what we would have done had we been in his place. However, if he were in our shoes, he might have jumped the traffic signal if a policeman wasn't around, he might have bought an item or two from some of the 'illegal' street hawkers, he might have asked for favours from a nepotist to smoothen some process.

The rot seems to be endemic and would take something more than discarding the rotten egg to cure it.

On a positive note, maybe our film industry could learn a lesson or two on scripts from some of our cricketers, administrators and bookies. Follow a well-made script and reap a lot in returns!