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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment